States Meeting Transcript - 09/09/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Committee of Inquiry: Toxic Incinerator Ash Dumping in the St. Helier Waterfront Land Reclamation Schemes (P.96/2008) (continued)....................................4

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................4
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:....................................................................4
3. Deputy P.N. Troy ofSt.Brelade:........................................................6
4. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ..............................................6
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................7
6. Senator M.E. Vibert :.....................................................................8
7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ..........................................................9
8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................10
9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................11
10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................12
11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................12
12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................14
13. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................15
14. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................16
15. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier : ..........................................................17
16. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................17

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR THE PRESENT MEETING............23

Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier:...............................................................23 The Bailiff :...................................................................................23 Deputy C.A. Labey of Grouville :.............................................................23 Deputy S. Pitman:............................................................................23 The Bailiff :...................................................................................24 Senator M.E. Vibert :..........................................................................24 The Deputy of Grouville :.....................................................................24 The Bailiff :...................................................................................25 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................25

2. Draft Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007 (Appointed Day Act) Act 200- (P.105/2008) ...........................................................................................25

2.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment)......................25

2.1.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................26 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................27

3. Rent Control Tribunal: Appointment of Chairman and Members (P.106/2008)......27

3.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton (Assistant Minister for Housing - rapporteur):......................28

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................28

2. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................28
3. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................29
4. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................29
5. Senator T.A. Le Main:..................................................................29
6. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................29
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................29

4. Bailiff of Jersey: Cessation of Dual Rôle (P.112/2008)..................................30

4.1 Deputy S. Pitman:......................................................................31

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................34
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................34
3. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................35
4. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:................................................................35
5. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................36
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................36
7. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................37

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................38 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................38

8. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................38
9. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................39
10. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................40
11. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................40
12. Connétable T.J. du Feu of St. Peter : .................................................41
13. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................41
14. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................44
15. Deputy J. Gallichan of St. Mary:....................................................44
16. Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour:..................................................45
17. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................46
18. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier : ............................................46
19. Deputy P.V.F Le Claire:.............................................................47
20. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................49
21. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................50
22. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................51
23. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................51
24. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................51 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................53

5. Planning and Environment: division into 2 ministerial offices (P.114/2008)..........54

5.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................54 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................57

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................57
2. Deputy D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ............................................58
3. Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en: ..............................................................59
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................60
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................60
6. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:...................................................60

7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel: .................................................................61
8. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................61
9. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................62
10. Deputy P.N. Troy :...................................................................62
11. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................63
12. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................64
13. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................65
14. Senator L. Norman:..................................................................65
15. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................66
16. The Deputy of Trinity : ..............................................................66
17. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: .............................................................67
18. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................68
19. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................68
20. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................69
21. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................69 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................71 Senator S. Syvret:............................................................................71 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................72

ADJOURNMENT.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.

The Roll was called and the Deputy Greffier led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Committee of Inquiry: Toxic Incinerator Ash Dumping in the St. Helier Waterfront Land Reclamation Schemes (P.96/2008) (continued)

The Bailiff :

I draw the attention of Members first of all to the making of an Order, Proceeds of Crime (Supervisory Bodies) (Designation of Supervisory Bodies) (Jersey) Order 200- made by the Minister for Economic Development which is tabled today. The debate continues on the proposition of Senator Syvret. Senator Shenton.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I cannot support this proposition although it is well intentioned, and the reason being that the last major Committee of Inquiry that we had was into the tender process of the buses, the Connex contract, and here we spent a considerable amount of money and people spent a considerable amount of time producing a very good document that was highly critical of the actions of certain politicians and certain civil servants and yet the end result was nothing happened on the back of it. I fear if we go down and spend this sort of money we may well come up with a report that highlights weaknesses in certain areas, many of which will have already been addressed, but nothing will happen to make sure that those that were responsible were brought to account. I was particularly interested in the fact that Constable Crowcroft , the Constable of St. Helier, was so supportive of a Committee of Inquiry, bearing in mind how he dealt with the Connex Committee of Inquiry and the high regard that he was held in respect of that inquiry. If I may just quote from the document: "Regrettably, although most of the witnesses were perfectly able to assist in the process Constable Crowcroft of St. Helier was not. His first appearance before us was cut short because of his unwillingness to answer our introductory questions and despite having had a further 6 weeks to refresh his memory of the events in which we were interested, at his second appearance he indicated an inability to recall matters falling squarely within our terms of reference. These were significant events that occurred during periods where he was either Vice President or President of the Public Services Committee and we found his assertion that he could not recall these matters to be simply not capable of belief. He appeared to treat the Committee of Inquiry with arrogant disdain, an attitude that would appear to be summed up in the following exchange [and then it gives an exchange]. We consider this to have been a highly irresponsible approach and had it been adopted by other witnesses our task would rapidly have become impossible." So it is okay to have a Committee of Inquiry, but you need to have the co-operation of those that you are inquiring about, but also you need, as an Assembly and as a politician, to have the teeth to bring anyone that has been found guilty of negligence or any other acts to account. Quite frankly, presently I do not think that we do and I think there must be other ways to achieve what Senator Syvret wants to

achieve without going to the expense of a Committee of Inquiry.

2. Senator J.L. Perchard:

I do not believe or accept that there was once, as claimed by Senator Syvret in his speech, a group of senior officers and politicians who conspired to ensure and enable the random dumping of incinerator ash at La Collette. I say this because at the time it was simply considered acceptable ..

Senator S. Syvret:

On a point of order, it is a point of order, the Senator is misrepresenting my remarks. I did say that there was a conspiracy among senior civil servants to hide the truth of this matter. I did not apply that accusation to the politicians of the day who I stated were acting in good faith.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I accept that and withdraw the words "politicians" and apologise to the Senator for misquoting him. As I say, the Senator clearly claims that there was a conspiracy among senior officers from different departments to ensure that the random dumping of incinerator ash could take place. This is a nonsense and I say this because simply at the time it was considered acceptable to tip ash in a mix along with inert waste on our reclamation sites. Of course times have changed and we now operate to different and improved environmental standards and we no longer practice what is probably a very unsafe method of disposal. As has been said already by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, we now currently dispose of incinerator ash in sealed pits above sea level. However, it is quite likely that some time in the future this, today's method of ash disposal, will be questioned and deemed as an unacceptable practice and outlawed, outlawed because incinerator ash could be recycled and perhaps used in road construction or concrete mix. But today, and for the time being, sealed pits are thought to be acceptable as a method of disposal. Members will know that I come from a farming background where, not that many years ago, it was considered satisfactory to bury dead animals on the farm. If the old farm horse died you dug a hole and buried it. It was acceptable to dump unwanted potatoes and vegetables in heaps on wasteland so they would decay quietly. It was acceptable to use noxious chemicals such as D.D.T. (Dichloro- Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) on salad crops and perhaps have the Public Service Department apply free of charge raw sewage sludge spread on land next to water courses on land that we were about to grow vegetables on - all practices that are considered unthinkable today, but were common not that long ago. Perhaps Senator Syvret thinks that we should also start a witch hunt to hold someone responsible for the contents of the old landfill sites at Mont Mado and La Mielle where, at that time, batteries, fridges, rubble and glass were disposed of. In fact, the dumping of everything from cars to carcasses took place in a completely unmonitored fashion on those sites. Throughout Europe, until comparatively recently, industry would legally discharge its toxic waste into rivers. Ships and super tankers could legally flush their tanks and discharge their contents at sea. Governments would permit the scuttling of ships in deep water as a means of disposal. Thankfully times have moved on - we now know better and such practices are outlawed. Campaigners like Senator Syvret and his colleagues at Greenpeace should be applauded for highlighting such environmentally damaging practices. Pressure groups such as Greenpeace have often forced governments to change policy. I suggest to Members that Senator Syvret's dogged opposition to past methods of ash disposal resulted in change of policy by the then Public Services Department, but that is all, I am afraid. There is no high level conspiracy here, just a slow recognition of what was environmentally acceptable. This, I suggest, is a generational thing. I say to Senator Syvret, times have changed, times have moved on. Standards have changed. What was thought to be environmentally acceptable a decade ago is often deemed completely unacceptable now. I urge Members not to support this proposition today if for no other reason than the likely cost of a public inquiry estimated to be in the region of £250,000, a huge expenditure, wasted on a useless witch hunt as the main findings of any public inquiry here are entirely predictable. Times have changed;

so have environmental practices.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en of St. Saviour :

Could I ask for a point of clarification from either the Assistant Minister or the Minister for Health and Social Services regarding (b) and (c), as they are obviously the people, on the need or not to instigate any further action or research because I think that is very important?

The Bailiff :

Deputy , is that a clarification from the speaker?

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

Yes, please, Sir, regarding whether there is a need, even if it is without the acceptance of this Committee of Inquiry, for this extra work to be undertaken.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I will attempt to answer the question which really has nothing to do with my speech. All the ash is known as to its whereabouts and any removal of material from the site to facilitate underground parking is going to be monitored very carefully as part of any development agreement with a developer and there will be no unsafe practices as the monitoring will be at a level that will ensure that there is none and works will cease if practices are unsafe.

3. Deputy P.N. Troy of St. Brelade :

Before the summer break, which seems so long ago now, we had the incinerator debate and I said then that perhaps Public Health should be investigating the issues about the disposal of ash and I even suggested that Transport and Technical Services should have been prosecuted in the past. If the Constable of St. Helier is correct that we have trucks driving through St. Helier with toxic ash flying out of the back then that is another case for the Health Department to investigate and prosecute. Is it a fact that Transport and Technical Services have no regard for public safety? Is it or is it not? We still have Bellozanne gushing out lots of toxins from the top. I have not researched this, but I am positive that there is cleaning equipment that could have been purchased to bolt on to the top of Bellozanne which would clean the emissions coming out. That might cost £1 million, £2 million or £3 million. Has anybody done that? No, they have not. Does Transport and Technical Services really care about the safety of the public? Does the Minister; does his staff? Are they really taking all of the actions that they could be taking? I think that they are not and I am absolutely, totally going to support this because out of this inquiry will come some good because practices at the moment are woefully inadequate. I know we are going to get a new shiny toy for Transport and Technical Services in the future and that will be fine when it arrives and when it is built, but meantime we will still throw out tonnes of toxic emissions into the public domain. We will do that with the Health Department fully aware of it; Transport and Technical Services fully aware of it; and this Government fully aware of it. What is anybody really doing about it? I am extremely annoyed that the Minister for Health and Social Services and his department are doing nothing. How are people handling this when the trucks get down to these pits, how are the staff ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry to interrupt you, but can I bring you back to the proposition?

Deputy P.N. Troy :

It is relevant. It is absolutely relevant to the proposition because out of this inquiry will come changes to what is happening at the present time.  [Laughter]  How are truck drivers being protected at the moment? How are the staff who are overseeing the stuff being tipped into the pits, how are they protected? What protective gear are they wearing? Does the Minister for Health and Social Services know? I bet you he has not got a clue. I think this is where there is a failing. We could be doing more, but we are not and this inquiry will tell us what has gone wrong in the past and what we should be doing in the future to get it right. I am absolutely, totally 100 per cent behind this public inquiry.

4. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

I have a problem with this because the proposition is in several parts. Part (a) I think is 20 years too late. It is no use having a witch hunt. The people involved are probably no longer working there. I do not think we are going to achieve much. Part (b); yes, I think I can support that. Part(c) I can support. Part (d); if what we were doing is accepted practice at the time then there really is not much point with that either. Part (e); are we going to find something? Possibly we will; it might be worth looking at. My worry is that Transport and Technical Services' record is not perfect. They admit that things have gone wrong. As I say, I do not think there is any point in going back and pointing figures. I do not think we will achieve anything, but I want to be sure that in 20 years' time the States are not in the position we are in now and having to say: "Oh, what a pity we were not a bit more careful." We are going to spend something like £100 million on the

coming plant. I think for the sake of another £250,000 I would want to be sure that what we are doing is good practice. The down-wind track of the chimney is most of St. Helier, certainly St. Saviour, St. Martin , Grouville and St. Clement - that is for the prevailing winds. I think it is too big

an area of the Island for us to take any risks at all. It may be money that is wasted; I would rather we wasted quarter of a million pounds out of £100 million than that we were in this position in 20 years' time.

5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

I must say I was quite pleasantly surprised by the Constable of St. Saviour, who I am always pleasantly surprised by. I thought he did a good analysis. What worries me about part (a), as the Constable of St. Helier said yesterday, is that it does have a very strong presumption of guilt and it lays the guilt at the feet of the civil service. While that may indeed be the case I do not think it is for us to reach a verdict of guilt at this time, even by people who have been - as was Senator Syvret for example - heavily involved. I think if outsiders are to look at a situation you have to be prepared to allow them, if it is to be the case, to assign the guilt, not for us to presume it in the terms of reference. I thought the Constable of St. Helier skated over that far too lightly. It really frightens me when I see such a presumption built right into the beginning of the report. I would appreciate Senator Syvret's views on that. I think there is a second related issue that was raised rightly by Senator Shenton and indirectly by Deputy Troy - it is the accountability of politicians. I do not know if they acted in good faith. We would all say to ourselves about everything we do that we act in good faith, but the point is we do make mistakes, we do things wrong at times and things are not picked up. The public have an absolutely appalling view of our absence of accountability. At the end of the day, no matter how technical the area we are looking at, the buck is meant to stop with the politicians. It is easy to say: "They lied to me. They are a load of duplicitous, corrupt people or my fellow politicians are, therefore I totally exonerate myself from blame." I am afraid the system as we have it structured is that the accountability lies with us and there have been instances. Although, to be fair, the convention of political accountability has worked more in the omission than the commission in the British system, where Ministers have had to take the rap - as for example Carrington did over the Falklands War but he was one of the few it has to be said - where the fact that they did nothing or they allowed a thing to slip past them albeit for no malevolent reasons whatsoever. The point was they were in charge and they were expected to have asked the awkward questions even if they did not, for example, have the scientific background to do it. We are all ultimately operating in areas where we do not have the scientific or specialist knowledge, for example, in allocating hospital resources and so forth, where we ultimately are meant to take the rap - or under the current system the Ministers have to take the rap. I think it would give an unbelievably poor message to the public if this went forth: "Oh, it is those civil servants, those scheming, duplicitous, malevolent civil servants lying again, and poor, innocent me who has your interests at heart, I just floated on top of this cesspit of iniquity" and so forth and so on. That is not good enough. We are paid and if we cannot make the system work then either we start bringing more votes of no confidence forward which we are very poor at, at the moment, quite frankly we have allowed things to slip and slip and slip or we take the rap and try and improve the system. That is why I am very annoyed about this presumption that the fault, apparently according to part (a) ipso facto, lies with the civil service. It may or may not be the case - I simply do not know enough about the situation, but it is very wrong in my view to make that the plank. On the issue of the Connex inquiry, I did attend several of the sessions and I attended the session when the Constable, in a sense, turned out to be a hostile witness although he was to reappear later. I think part of the problem with that inquiry was there was incredibly good forensic work done and the people were chosen because of their forensic skills, but its terms of reference were drawn far too narrowly and it ended up looking at certain occurrences within certain dates whereas I think if you look at part (e) of Senator Syvret's proposition is does indeed allow one to look at the broader picture. That is where, given that it is not being encompassed by part (a) because of its focus on the presumption of guilt of the civil service only, I would expect the issue of political accountability,

for example, to be raised because it is not looked at elsewhere. That was the problem, I think, where we made a mistake with Connex. The other thing that was bubbling under the surface of Connex, there were all sorts of personality clashes and so forth and so on which were totally vitiating the attempt to find the truth about that. Certain people's political face had to be saved basically to save that deal and, sadly, because of the narrowness under which the terms were written, the inquiry could not go there, not that they would have wished to if they had any common sense. The other thing I would say is - I would hope - if this does go forward I am looking forward to an explanation for part (a) which really frightens me in its presumptions, that the composition of this board would be outsiders. I would not want to see politicians because it impugns the integrity of the civil service and indeed, in my view, it should in an inquiry sense. Also, as I said, look at the role of politicians and I do not want to see this as another snow job by politicians where we protect ourselves. The little exchange we had yesterday between Deputies Le Claire and Scott Warr en about who was or was not responsible for emails to me sadly said it all. As soon as we are put on the spot we wriggle. The last thing I would like to ask is that I want the views of the Environment Ministry. There have been points raised by people like Deputy Le Claire about the fact we are not getting a robust enough view from that Ministry and I would really like to hear their views on this because I think it is very germane to their mandate.

Deputy C.J. Scott Warr en:

I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker's speech, but I am quite happy to answer anything anyone wants to know about emails that happened last year.

6. Senator M.E. Vibert :

It gives me pleasure to follow Deputy Le Hérissier who was not going to speak in the first place, but did very well, because on this occasion I find myself agreeing with most of what he said wholeheartedly. I do think it is a point and why this proposition is fatally flawed is it states in the proposition the outcome of any Committee of Inquiry that would be set up and as Deputy Le Hérissier said it seeks and says where all the blame should lie: on the civil service. I worry, like Deputy Le Hérissier, because I think it is a very short step for politicians to get out of things and to get out of accountability. It is not far from: "I was only following orders, I was only taking advice." Our role is to question that advice and to make sure that we are accountable, not pass the buck, pass the blame. I would be interested to hear from Senator Syvret in his summing up as to why this proposition is being brought now and why it was not brought during the 8 years in which he was in charge of Health with its environmental responsibilities, when he could have brought it from the position of responsibility? I have no idea. I also thought that such a matter as what is happening today could be the subject of scrutiny - we have a panel just for that. If the States and the panel thought it was an issue that should be looked at in detail, why set up a separate Committee of Inquiry unless it is just a witch hunt, unless it is just so that Senator Syvret can say at a later date: "I told you so." I am uneasy about spending upwards of a £250,000 of public money so Senator Syvret can say: "I told you so." I pay tribute to the fact that he has been a tireless campaigner on these issues and has led to changes, changes for the better as we know more. As Senator Perchard was saying, a lot of practices 20 or 30 years ago are quite different today because we did not know that then. There was a time when asbestos was regarded as the best thing you could put in your house for its wonderful insulation and other properties, and fire retardant properties. Now we spend millions getting rid of it. Times change. It does not mean anything was done wrongly then or with bad faith or duplicity. It is just that knowledge has moved on. What I worry, as with Deputy Le Hérissier, about this proposition is it is calling for a Committee of Inquiry, but telling the Committee of Inquiry what its finding should be and that cannot be right. It is saying we want to prove this conspiracy theory right. One, I do not think there was a conspiracy theory and as it happened all those years ago I just do not see what will be the good to the public today. I see the point of making sure that we have the best possible outcomes today and that we are doing everything right, but like I said I believe we have a set up in the States that that can be looked at. I was very surprised by Deputy Troy 's speech. Perhaps I should not have been, as he has been, such a vociferous opponent for the incinerator, but to hear Deputy Troy expressing concern and querying what has been done about drivers and others carrying this ash about, if it is carried in that way and so on, when as far as I know when I last looked he is Assistant Minister for Social Security where I believe health and safety at work comes under.  [Approbation] So if he wishes to pursue this he is the person who should be doing it in that area, and if he does not know that I find it very worrying indeed. We can do things. If we are concerned let us do them. We do not need a Committee of Inquiry to make sure things are being done right today. We are the body to do it. We have Scrutiny; we have the Ministerial system and so on. I am afraid the whole proposition is flawed by not just part (a), but by its preamble so it cannot be approved. I think the things that we should be doing is to consider what additional monitoring and precautions should be introduced, what additional measures should be taken. These are things we should be doing anyway and we should be doing it through our current system, not spending a £250,000 on mainly trying to look back and prove somebody was right 30 years ago. I am not convinced we need a Committee of Inquiry. I believe I have never seen such a flawed proposition for a Committee of Inquiry because a Committee of Inquiry should be given free range to inquire into things, not told what their conclusion is before the start. I think it will be foolhardy and a dangerous precedent for States to agree to such an inquiry under such terms.

7. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John :

What I think is important here is what the public think and I think credit where credit is due. Senator Syvret has tirelessly campaigned on these sorts of issues for many, many years and kept them in the public eye, which I think is very important. The issues are top of mind with the public because of the activities of Senator Syvret. The public do need to know and we do need to look into it to find out what they need to know. What I do not like is this whole blame culture: "Let us find somebody to blame for it." I think Senator Perchard very well and eloquently illustrated other issues that yes, one could blame somebody for if you look back in history. That is really not going to help the process and fix the problem. What the public want to know is what happened and how it can be fixed. They do not need to know to the depth that a Committee of Inquiry would bring to the process. A Committee of Inquiry historically has been very expensive, very time consuming. We can achieve very similar down another route and that is what I think this Assembly should be looking at. Do we bring in a consultant to look at it? Do we look at scientists? There are other ways of doing this to give the public the information they need to know to reassure them that the practices at that site are now compliant and I would like to think they are. At the moment, as other Members have said, there is a lot of presumption of guilt here and it all seems to be about whom can we blame for what has gone on in the past rather than making sure such activities do not happen in the future. I think that is the important thing here; that is what the public want to know. That is the question they should be asking and I believe they are asking. I would like to know - I go out in that area fishing, swimming and so on, and the public want to know. I want to know what is in that water from time to time. The public have a right to know and the public have a right to be assured that this sort of activity that the Senator is suggesting in his projet will not occur in the future and will be contained in a much better manner. That brings me to a difficulty in supporting this projet because I think in principle the Senator is absolutely correct. We need to ensure this sort of thing does not happen in the future, that best practices are adopted, but I do not believe this is the best way of doing it. We have set up a different style of government in recent years which includes scrutiny. There should not be the need for a Committee of Inquiry of this nature any more with that independent scrutiny and the ability of Scrutiny Panels to bring in consultants and experts where necessary. That, I would have thought, was more than adequate and is already funded and can be put into action very quickly. I am surprised that the Environment Scrutiny Panel have not looked at this already or been more audible about this whole issue. I would like to see Scrutiny pick this up and run with it and give the public the kind of assurance that they want, which is best practices are being adopted. Perhaps they are not, but they certainly should be in the future if a proper review of

practices is undertaken by an independent body that has scientific knowledge. I believe that could be achieved by Scrutiny rather than the possible huge expense of a public inquiry. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that Senator Syvret's objectives here are honourable. He has kept it high in the public profile and I think that is important and the public do need to know.

8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Oh, dear, here we go again. A series of Ministers standing up and saying that what is being proposed, an investigation into a serious matter, should be ignored - ignored for all sorts of reasons, but not reasons connected to the essence of what the issue is. So what are the issues? Do we have a potentially toxic site sitting on the waterfront? The evidence seems clear and everyone in this room knows that we have. It is certainly potentially toxic. Do we know the extent of that toxicity and the dangers it might pose both to humans and to the marine environment? We do not. Should we do something about it and investigate it and if so, how? Perhaps everyone in the room might say yes. "But not in this way" say the Ministers and: "Not at this time" say the Ministers: "And not spending this amount of money" say the Ministers. "Let us do it some other way. Go away. Do not bother us." But let us look at the proposition: "To consider what if any additional monitoring and precautions should be introduced to safeguard human health from the toxins within the reclamation sites." They are there. We know they are there. How toxic are they? What can we do to protect the population? Perfectly straightforward; that should be happening. Part (c): "To consider what if any additional measures should be taken to protect the marine environment from the toxins within the reclamation site." Marine environment - ditto. Absolutely sure, certain, we should be doing this. To consider whether we have breached the obligations under OSPAR. Certainly, let us take responsibility for that, examine where we are and try and put it right. The arguments keep coming back to this first paragraph and indeed the preamble. The preamble says: "Examine all matters relating to the handling and dumping of toxic ash." Paragraph (a), second half, I draw your attention to it: "What improvements and safeguards could be introduced in order to ensure that public administration is subject to effective checks and balances?" Before that, to examine why a breakdown in administration was allowed to occur. The Minister for Health and Social Services, the Assistant Minister for Health, the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs have all stood up and said this is about the blame culture, this is witch hunting. Where in that first paragraph does it say who was responsible? There is no witch hunt here. There is a focus on

public administration. It does not say who. It says why. This is not about witch hunting ..

The Deputy of St. John :

A point of order there, if the Deputy may give way.

Deputy G.P. Southern : No, I am not giving way.

The Deputy of St. John :

It clearly says in the first sentence ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

It says: "A breakdown in public administration."

The Bailiff :

Members must understand the difference between a point of order and another interruption. A point of order requires a ruling from the chair otherwise it is an interruption and Members can only interrupt if the speaker is willing to give way. Deputy Southern is not giving way.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

And I am allowed not to give way, thank you. [Laughter] Yes, it does say: "Breakdown in public administration." That does not mean who; that means why because it clearly says: "Why?" So examine what happened. Were there serious concerns expressed all the way through the 1980s about this dumping? Yes, there were. Were they ignored? Yes, they were. Why were they ignored? That is the question. How did that occur? How were they avoided? Why were particular departments putting out platitudes and comforting statements when they must have, and they ought to have been aware, that there were serious health considerations that they should have been addressing to make sure that public health was not put at risk? That is the focus of this inquiry. But here we go - it is witch hunting; it is the blame culture; it is expensive, we cannot spend £250,000 on this, protecting our population when we could better waste it elsewhere. Absolutely not true. To do nothing is simply not good enough. To put it off, to do it another time, is simply not good enough. It is not about timing. It is not about the position of the person who brings it. Senator Vibert said why did Senator Syvret bring it now? Why not when he was Minister for Health and Social Services? That is not an issue. It is being brought now. Let us decide now to get on with it and look back and say: "You should have brought it earlier" or: "You should be bringing it some other time" or: "You should be the Minister for Health and Social Services and then you will be listened to because Ministers get listened to and backbenchers do not so it is inappropriate for you to bring it now, you should have brought it when you were Minister for Health and Social Services because then you have some clout." Nonsense. To do nothing is simply not good enough. Are we using the right tool? Can Scrutiny do it? Should it be doing it? Scrutiny is working its socks off doing the maximum it can at present. Let us take on and let us load up, Scrutiny is the answer to everything. No, it is not. Scrutiny is a certain number of Members with a certain limited resource of officers, it has a certain amount of time to dedicate to issues. To say time and time again: "Well, we have a system, it is Scrutiny" and dump it on Scrutiny is to ignore the fact Scrutiny has a limited resource in terms of officer time and a limited amount of things that it can do. So that is not an answer. A Committee of Inquiry is a tried and tested way. We know it can be made to work. It has the powers to require witnesses to be on oath, which Scrutiny effectively does not; it is a convention that people will come and say the truth, but it is not on oath, so it has significant powers over and above a Scrutiny Panel. It is not simply good enough to do as the Minister for Health and Social Services stated, to say: "Well, I have looked at Committees of Inquiry in the past and they have not really worked and they have not delivered the goods, and where they have delivered damning indictments of particular actions, nothing has happened." Well, hang on, nothing has happened because of Members in this House, who have failed to ensure that something happened. So that particular argument is possibly one of the lamest I have heard probably in the last 6 months or year, and to have that come from the Minister for Health and Social Services, when he would be responsible not only as a Member of this House to make sure that the result of the Committee of Inquiry were followed up and were hammered home, but also, good grief, he is the Minister for Health and Social Services. He is in charge of protecting the health of the residents of this Island, so he has a duty, 2 duties, to make sure that any conclusions come to by the Committee of Inquiry are put through with maximum authority. So I would urge Members to pay little attention to the specious nature of the arguments that are being put up against

getting on with action now, and support this proposition.

9. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

I, along with 3 other Deputies in 3 and 4 District of St. Helier, which covers the Bellozanne area of First Tower and all the way across the top to La Pouquelaye, Hauté Vallée are fully aware of the residents' years and years of suffering, through the exposure to an inadequate incinerator that is 12 years beyond its sell-by date, and has been throwing out toxins and ash, et cetera. The residents for years have also been complaining about the amount of traffic that goes between Bellozanne and the land reclamation site for the disposal and dispersal of the ash from the incinerator. Senator Syvret for years, including the time when he was Minister for Health and Social Services and President of Health and Social Services, has been working tirelessly on telling us, rightly, that things needed to be improved and things can be better. Many things have changed and there have been additional safeguards inbuilt. I do not argue about this proposition for (b) and (c), because I think you can always review and monitor and see if there are additional measures, especially at this time when we are looking to close down one incinerator and move it to an area where the ash will be secreted once it has been burnt, without it going across St. Helier and without the old incinerator continuing to spew out ash halfway across the Island. The new incinerator is designed for purpose, it is an Energy from Waste plant, so it has a useful by-product, and it will also have the inbuilt safeguards within it so that it will not provide the toxins, et cetera that we are currently suffering. I personally do not believe that it is necessary for us to go through an historic re-examination of much of what we already know, and I think that we should be utilising the elements of this proposition to move us forward into ensuring that the best possible protection are given to our current generation and our future generations, and that should be done now, without any further delays. The danger of looking at historic events is that they get long and protracted and things that need doing now will get delayed yet again. We can ill afford any further delays because of the current situation with the incinerator, and we also need to be able to ensure that our future land reclamation policies allow us to dispose of our waste safely, and to find alternative ways where we can, with recycling, reuse, et cetera, and to make sure that these things happen as soon as practicable; now, preferably, but appreciating that it takes time. I do not intend to repeat a lot of what has been said by others in the past day, but I go along with the fact we have to look to improving what we have and not go down a retrospective course, which I do not think is going to now serve us a useful purpose.

10. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

I suppose really I am going to come from the viewpoint of the expenditure that this inquiry is likely to cost. I do not think I have heard anything this morning that makes me believe that we should be spending to the tune of £200,000 to £300,000 on an inquiry when a lot of the information that is being requested - I understand from the reports submitted by the Council of Ministers - is already in the public domain. The report quite clearly states that between 1986 and 1995 the deposit of ash mix with inert waste at the waterfront site was undertaken in a manner that would not reach today's strict requirements. I also understand that Senator Stuart Syvret did raise all these issues around the time of 2000, and a lot of those questions that he submitted were answered. In my experience of dealing with health protection and environmental health over the past few years to do the remediation of the town park site - and it is certainly for the different agencies involved to agree a remediation standard - took a very, very long time indeed. I have no reason to believe that the officers involved in those areas of administration do anything but a very thorough, professional job, and I find it difficult to understand why we should question whether they are able to monitor what is going down on the Waterfront at the current time and the methods being used, why we should indeed question their professionalism in being able to carry out those checks and balances. We debated only about 8 weeks ago, I think it was, a proposition in this House to increase spending to the tune of about £600,000, if I recall, additional spending to help people with special needs to give them greater opportunities. We have the issue, we have amendments coming forward for that additional money for special needs and also for nursery education, and certainly as far as I am concerned I have been put here to make decisions on behalf of the public of Jersey, and I am not convinced that agreeing to a public inquiry at a cost of £200,000 to £300,000 is good use of public money when there is greater need, in my opinion. Previous speakers mentioned that they believe that the Scrutiny Panel, the Environment Scrutiny Panel are well situated to look at things that have happened in the past. Indeed, the Assistant Minister for Social Security on my left, Deputy Troy ,

made a very impassioned speech this morning to the House about what he felt about it, but he could make it part of his election campaign; he is going to look into the health and safety issues of workers, which indeed he is partially politically responsible for. So maybe he would like to consider that. So just to finish, I would rather use that money to greater effect elsewhere than pay for the Committee of Inquiry.

11. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Yes, Sir, I will be brief. It is interesting; I would have liked to have spoken before the Assistant Minister for Housing, because the Minister for Housing has not spoken, so I hope he can clarify - he is not listening to me, Sir, the Minister for Housing ..

The Bailiff : He is listening.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Well, he is listening, yes, listening to somebody. I think I now have his attention. I have one question directed to the Minister for Housing, and it is about the housing that is already on the reclaimed land. Now, if my memory serves me rightly, before it was taken over by the trust and then some of it was sold on to individual people, there was such a scare at the bank about the land that there is some sort of condition with the Housing Department and the trust and the owners that if anything does come up in the next 25 or 30 years, whatever the mortgage length is, extra illnesses, these people cannot sell, that Housing have an agreement to buy it back. Now, that worries me that banks are not sure. Now, I am asking the question and I hope for clarification in the Minister for Housing's speech. There is some agreement. Now, that is worrying. I have just heard from the Assistant Minister for Housing that she does not think we need to do this, because of the expenditure. Well, I am very worried that, yes, we know some of it is historic, but we are now digging up all that historic ash, toxic waste that is in the ground, and I want to make sure that people now who are ever going to visit it, live there, work there, that it is going to be safe. Deputy Troy was lamenting; he said, well, if he knows these things are going on about lorries. Why is he not doing anything? The practices are in place, but there is no police in the Department of Health or public health, or not many than there were 20 years ago when these practices were taking place, with their knowledge. They might have not been as knowledgeable of what the practices were doing, but I had phone calls from the people living on the Waterfront when they started to dig the big hole last year again. I was told from Public Health that their practices are being monitored by an outside company. I had somebody sitting up there with binoculars, who says on some shifts, they are all masked up and gloved and everything; on other shifts, they are walking around, there is nothing. So it is depending on who is monitoring it. Now, the person has said they could take photos if they want, but I believe this person, because this is human nature, if you do not have someone on your back all the time saying: "Put your mask on, you are not protecting yourself." So the practices are there, and the practices are in place, but they are not being policed. So can we afford the expenditure now for a Committee of Inquiry to look in? People have a problem with part (a), and I do not know if we are going to vote this all together. I mean, that is a matter for the Senator. If you do have a problem with part (a), part (e) covers it, because really, it is as wide as it can be, and we now put this in Scrutiny to examine it; any other thing that may come up in relevant inquiries, because once you start digging - I do not mean that literally - but once you start digging, you do find other places that you need to go. We have had experts in the past; in the first year or 2, Scrutiny tied their hands. But as for can we afford the expenditure now, can we afford people in 10, 20 years' time that are down at the Waterfront who have worked, who have claims against this Government which could be in the millions and millions of pounds - and do not say it does not

happen, it has happened all over the world - to sit and do nothing when you know there is a problem, and as I say, that it is not just being left. If it was down there, we had grassed over - and I think that was Senator Syvret's argument even before I was in the House - and let us see what happens, or leave it for a few years. Well, we have not. We have dumped it, we are now digging it and we are having people living there. I think we cannot afford to use this expenditure now, get in extra experts. I am not interested too much in the past. I am interested in now, and I want this inquiry done. So as I say, Sir, I do not know how we are going to vote on it. I would vote for all of it, but I think if the Senator really wants some support, if he let us vote on (a), (b), (c) and (d) separately, he would at least get some sort of inquiry, and (e), as I say, covers everything that I would be interested as well into looking into.

I wonder if I might just say from the Chair I was not presiding at the beginning of this debate, so I do not know how the proposer put it to the Assembly, but it does seem to me that this is a single proposition. It is not capable of being broken down.

12. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

It never ceases to amaze me the way the debates kind of ebb and flow and the way that some Members refuse to read the words that are in front of them, or exaggerate. I will give you one example, or the House one example, and we have had a number of Members suggest that one reason for not looking at this potential inquiry into some serious issues is on grounds of cost, and we have had it mentioned that the cost could be £250,000, £300,000. Where does that figure come from? Let us have a look on page 17. On page 17, Senator Syvret, in addressing the financial and manpower statements, made an estimate as to what he thought the cost of an inquiry would be, and in a couple of paragraphs up from the bottom, he says: "Given the serious and complex nature of the issues, it is more realistic to imagine the cost of this inquiry being akin to the more serious inquiries such as the bus tender process and the building costs inquiry. Essentially, this would place the estimated cost between £50,000 and £100,000." He does not say it is going to be £250,000; he does not say it is going to be £300,000, and yet some Members have taken it upon themselves to inform the House that this is the price that would be being expected to be paid. Now, the mention of the £300,000 is the somewhat tongue in cheek remark that the Senator made as that this sum has to be contrasted, the £50,000 to £100,000 estimate, with the around £300,000 per annum spent by the Chief Minister of the department on spin doctors. Now, that is probably why some Members have taken the bit between their teeth and they are giving tit for tat, and those remarks perhaps should not have been made in the report, to the effect that monies have been frittered away on spin doctors, whether they have or have not. But I think maybe that is the route that those Members who have suggested that the cost of an inquiry would be of the order of £300,000. It will not. It will be £50,000 to £100,000. In fact, it may well be less, dependent upon which of the specific items require substantial looking into. This is the second point I would like to make. Deputy Southern was absolutely right to remind the House that what we are voting for is essentially 2 things, wrapped up in part in the preamble to the proposition, which says - again, it is worth rereading it, because we are forgetting it time and time again in Members' speeches - it is: "To establish a Committee of Inquiry in accordance with Standing Orders in order to examine all matters relating to the handling and dumping of toxic ash from the Island's municipal waste incinerator [whether it is the one we have now, or the one in future] into the marine land reclamation site and other areas." Now, despite some Members' speeches suggesting perhaps that

ash is not going to be an issue into the future, it is going to be an issue. If indeed the Island does go ahead and build the incinerator that has been spoken about, and it functions in the way that is being suggested or threatened or even promised, in the amount of materials that are going to be taken to this machine, there is going to be of the order of 20,000 to 25,000 tons of toxic ash. Now, we decided in this House a couple of weeks ago that we were not going to apply pressure on the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to take out as part of his waste strategy a number of the items that were causing the ash to be toxic in the first place. So we have heard from the Minister's lips that he fully intends to continue to burn rubber tyres with the metal treads and inserts; his policy or the policy of the House is still only to recycle up to 10 per cent of the waste electricals. In a question that I put to the Minister a number of weeks ago, I said: "What is going to happen to the rest, and does that really mean that it is going to be committed to the incinerator?" It will be, and these are the very items that are going to render, as I said, any ash that is produced as toxic. So we are cleaning up after the event, instead of putting our sensible money upfront and taking all these materials out of the waste stream first and not burning them, because we do not need to burn them, and it is not the best way of dealing with them. But the States, in their infinite wisdom, have decided we wish to do things the other way round, because we are flush with funds and it is better to be dirty and then show the world how clean we can be in spending silly monies in

cleaning up after the act. It is a nonsense policy, and I think if anything that this inquiry can show, it must be that there is an opportunity to have a second say as to how we are going to handle any of the ash materials that are going to be produced by the incinerator running for the next 3 years while the new one is built, and indeed, by any ash that is produced by any further machine that is built and operated. I think that is the best reason that I can think for supporting this particular proposition. I do have reservations about going back into the past and turning over stones and finding civil servants or ex-civil servants hiding and trying to point fingers. I think it is generally agreed that is the wrong way forward, but that is only down there as a specific point, and it is an interpreted point, and not necessarily the way that inquiry would wish to order its business. I think the focus of the specific items that are called for by the proposition are really the items, the material items, which is (b), (c) and perhaps (d), which is to consider any additional monitoring and precautions with dealing with these particular materials, if we are going to continue to burn the wrong things and continue to waste public monies to clean them up or to put them in specially lined pits so that they do not cause the environmental problems that we know can be caused if we do not handle these materials in a sensible fashion. Putting them in a marine environment just does not make sense, and perhaps there are some sensible messages that could come out of the inquiry as to how the Department of Transport and Technical Services intend to deal with the quantities of ash that will be produced over the lifetime of the new project, and that is 20, 25 years, in 3 years' time. I think I will probably leave it there. I think there is a reason for going ahead with this inquiry. Perhaps one other final point: I find it somewhat ironic that when backbenchers or this side of the House, or the non-Executive Members of the House wish to scrutinise something, then the call from the other side of the Chamber, the Executive set, they do not wish Scrutiny to take place, because it is seen as a delaying tactic or is going to take too long. When the boot is on the other foot, we have had at least 2 Members, a Minister and an Assistant Minister suggesting that when a Committee of Inquiry is called, then perhaps the better way forward is to ask Scrutiny to do it. So we do seem to be playing a cat and mouse game here, Sir, and really, what we should be looking at in terms of making the right decision is looking to see what it is that we want to look into. There are environmental issues that need to be looked at in a specific way. There are repercussions coming out of the handling of the ash that will be produced over the lifetime of the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) project, and those are the real issues that we should really be

getting to grips with, and not just playing politicians, even before election time.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier :

I must apologise to the House, because it appears that I have may have misled Members, and it certainly appears I have misled Deputy Duhamel on the issue of waste electricals. It is in fact no longer the practice at Transport and Technical Services to put waste electrical items into the incinerator. Wherever possible, they are separated out. The only issue we have is that we do not have the money to export them out of the Island to a proper processing plant. I may have given the wrong impression, because I did say when recently questioned on the issue that we could not give a 100 per cent guarantee on this, because it is always possible for people to put electrical items into black bags that come in as domestic waste, which go through different routes, but it is no longer the general practice to put waste electrical items in the incinerator.

13. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

Over the last 10, 20 years, we have all been much more aware of environmental issues and how much it has changed, and more legislation has been put in place over this time, and also with the importance of Planning and Environment, those 2 areas working together, and also, our health and safety issues at work and good practice and procedures have been put in place. Environmental legislation is toughening up and will continue as necessary, and one example of that is happening this afternoon with the Water Resources Law. It is within our gift in this Assembly to put in place any legislation that is required that the Minister will bring forward. The development at the Esplanade, we at Planning and Environment are very aware of the environmental issues, and that is

where having one department is so vital. We will look into all the environmental issues at that time, the land quality, the decontamination issues that is all necessary. The planning process and redevelopment is the correct vehicle through which to investigate environmental land quality, where it requires decontamination and safe working practices. As I said, that is part of the environment reports that we provide, the environmental report assessment. I have been very concerned about what I have heard this morning, and the different issues that have been raised. I am recommending that if necessary, and I will take this forward, is to look if we have any legislation that needs tightening up that we can put in place that we should not have put in place, and if necessary, report back to the House with any holes necessary to tighten up and also to follow up the action required. It is not useful looking back, I think, because environmental issues have changed so, so much that I do not think that with part (a) of the proposition we will perhaps get anything from it, but looking forward to make sure - and especially what is happening with the Esplanade development - that we have everything in place. If we have not, then I am sure the Minister, and I can say it from my behalf, we will bring forward any legislation that is required. But we also up in Environment and in Planning expect the developers to make sure that they do their bit too and have tight conditions in place regarding the decontamination of that site. So what I am saying, Sir, is that I am happy to say that we will look at the issues raised this morning and report back to this House on what has been said and make sure that our legislation is in place.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Could I ask the Assistant Minister a point of clarification? I think that most Members remain concerned about points (b) and (c) of this proposition. I wonder if the Assistant Minister could give an undertaking, as I understand there will be a public inquiry prior to any approval on the Waterfront, and would she be able to give an undertaking to include those particular points in that public inquiry?

The Deputy of Trinity :

The Deputy is quite right that there will be a public inquiry put  in place, and  it will be an independent inspector from the U.K (United Kingdom), and knowing the site and knowing all the issues raised, I am sure environmental issues and decontamination of any site and making sure that everything is in place, not only for what is going to be on the site, but also for the people working on that site and the future use of that site, these issues will be raised and addressed.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just a point of clarification, Sir. Would the department's role include examining departments who have responsibility like health and safety and health promotion or protection, would it involve in looking at whether their policing of the current situation is satisfactory or not satisfactory?

The Deputy of Trinity :

If we find that it is not satisfactory, then we will take that next step that is necessary, whether it be putting legislation in place that environment needs to put in place, or recommend to another Ministry whatever. But that is up for negotiation, but I am saying that we will report back to this House with the recommendations.

14. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade :

Yes, I agree with the previous speakers. I do not think the sort of raking over of past history is going to be terribly effective. If the Senator had brought a proposition requiring T.T.S. and Health to bring forward the information - I mean, a plan even - explaining how the known and future problems will be dealt with, I could probably have supported it. In other words, paragraphs (b) and (c). I am heartened by the comments of the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment, because I think we have a problem. We have to deal with it, and the probably future impact, but raking over old coals really is not frightfully constructive. You know, we have to think back, in the 1970s when these sort of practices were in place, they were only just beginning to be questioned. It is only recently that sort of questions have become mainstream. I mean, we have the E.U. (European Union) taking action on landfill. You know, when I was living in New York, we used to dread the days when the winds were from the west, because the fragrant odour of the landfills in New Jersey used to waft across the Hudson River. That has been stopped now by the E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency). They have taken measures. We may need reassurance from T.T.S. that best practice will be used. We know what went wrong. We ended up with toxic ash coming out of the incinerator and being put into the landfill, but we need to make sure it does not happen again, that the Committee of Inquiry, under paragraph (a), is examining why it went wrong. I do not think that particularly matters, because it went wrong because of ignorance, because we did not know the effects; we did not think of them. But now we do know, and now we need to be reassured that it will not happen in the future, and what is being done with the ash which will be dug up? So I would rather see a proper report come to us from the public inquiry with the planning application, with proper information from T.T.S. and so on and health, rather than sit there and rake over old coals. So I will not be supporting the proposition.

15. Deputy J.J. Huet of St. Helier :

Well, I am sure there is not much I can say that has not already been said in this Chamber but my mind keeps saying: "Why has this come up now, if it is so, so important? Why now?" Now, I listened to Deputy Duhamel, and I must be honest, the word "incinerator" came into my mind, and then I thought: "No, no, it cannot be that he wants to stop the incinerator" and I thought: "So there has to be another reason for it." But obviously it is very important, and Senator Syvret has put an excellent report up, giving all the details. But why again, I have to say - maybe this is typical women - has it come up now, because what is the reason? Because Scrutiny now has been running for 3 years, and on Scrutiny we have Deputy Duhamel, the Connétable of St. Helier, Deputy Le Claire, Deputy Scott Warr en, and obviously, Senator Syvret. Now, looking back, Senator Syvret and Deputy Scott Warr en were in charge of our health, and the Connétable of St. Helier was in charge of Public Services, and Deputy Duhamel, I believe Scott Warr en and Deputy Le Claire were also on environmental or public services. If this is so, so important, those are the people that are saying to us: "We must have it now." Why now? Why was it not done when all those people were in the right positions to do it, because Senator Syvret, he has lots of brains, why would he leave it for this length of time? Why is it being brought up now? I have to say, if it is that important over the last 3 years, why has it not been done? I can only think this is a delaying tactic, because there is no reason for it now. Well, there is no point in repeating - my husband tells me I am like a parrot sometimes - so I am going to leave it there, but I have to say, Sir, the reason is why now and not before, when it could have been done in-house with the right people, with the right knowledge, with the right power?

16. Senator S. Syvret:

How to win friends and influence people and diplomacy were never strong points of mine, so why bother changing the habits of a lifetime now? The debate we have had on this proposition has to be one of the most intellectually feeble, weak and hopeless debates I can recollect this Assembly having. It really is truly remarkable. Just consider a key point which I made in my opening speech. The comments of the Council of Ministers themselves accept that it all went wrong, that it should not have been dealt with in that manner. The Council of Ministers' comments accept that health and safety at work laws were broken. There are other aspects too which have not so far been mentioned. We have heard some Members say: "Well, we pledge to look at the laws as they stand today and make sure that they are improved, we have better laws in future to stop this kind of thing happening." What is simply alluded, I think pretty much everyone who has spoken, is the fact that back in the 1980s and the 1990s the extant laws did prohibit this kind of action. This conduct with hazardous wastes was illegal. There is the health and safety at work laws. In the particular context of dumping the incinerator ash into the land reclamation sites, there was the Sewage (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, which forbade absolutely the dumping of toxic metals into the marine

environment. All of this activity which took place, disposing of the incinerator ash in the land reclamation sites from 1979 onwards, was at the time criminal. It was against the law, and several States departments colluded in that law breaking, so do not let Members sit here today and say: "Oh, well, standards were different back then and we will pledge to improve the laws in the future." Having 101 new laws marvellously structured and worked out will be of zero benefit whatsoever if those laws are not adhered to and they are not enforced and they are simply regarded as little more than window dressing, which was certainly the case with the laws back over all of those years. It has been said by some Members that my report and proposition adduces a lot of the facts, and that it is now accepted these days - and it is, because it is in the Council of Ministers' own comments - that, yes, finally it was inappropriate and wrong to handle and dispose of the incinerator ash in that manner. But Members need to reflect upon what the purpose of this inquiry is, hence the wording part (a). It is not to go over lessons that are already learnt, or facts that are simply undeniable and consider whether the ash might have been toxic. It is to consider how, for so long, public administration in Jersey was able to engage in such a manifestly unacceptable potentially hazardous and certainly illegal activity, and not one part of public administration stood up and opposed it. On the contrary, Members of this Assembly in the past stood in this Chamber and repeated - in good faith, as I have said - what they were told by the department that there was nothing wrong with the ash, that it was not toxic, that there was no problem. Does it not concern Members that here we have a period for the best part of 2 decades, 1979 until the mid to late 1990s, when the Island's Parliament, the legislature that represents the interests of these people, was routinely misled, brazenly? Is that really of so little concern to Members? That is the kind of issue that is at the heart of the Committee of Inquiry proposition. Getting from where we were back in those days of the late 1980s and throughout the early 1990s to the kind of position we have today was like pulling teeth. It was a desperate struggle. I could not recollect the number of times I was attacked and denigrated by civil servants and politicians for daring to suggest that there was anything problematic at all with the ash, and yet these days, it is accepted. It took from 1979 until my Health and Social Services Committee, with the then Medical Officer of Health and today's Health Protection team, who are good today, finally to get the first ever official acceptance, the first ever official recognition by any States department that the material we were dealing with was toxic waste and it should not have been handled or disposed of in that manner. Over 2 decades, from 1979 to that point, of getting that admission. Now, if that is what takes place, then something has and is going badly wrong with public administration. It was said yesterday by Deputy de Faye, and I think one or 2 others, that: "Well, is there any point in undertaking a Committee of Inquiry now, because if civil servants were culpable, if they proactively misled politicians, well, it is all water under the bridge now. They have all retired, so is there any point in conducting what other Members have described as a "witch hunt"?" But the point is precisely that there is no witch-hunt and there is nothing the States or any Committee of Inquiry could remotely do in connection with those former employees because they are no longer employees, so there can be no witch-hunt against them. The purpose of the exercise is to get at the truth, to discover the tensions, the conflicts of interest, the personal pressures, the inter-colleague tensions that made them fail to do their job properly. I know certainly from one former civil servant on that occasion that another civil servant - as it happens, the Chief Officer of Public Services - used to routinely phone him up and shout bullying, obnoxious abuse down the phone at him, virtually threatening him if he ever said anything about the ash disposal being toxic. That is the kind of performance that takes place behind the scenes, among a lot of the civil servants. Deputy Huet said: "Why now?" Why not when I was at Health? Well, the Deputy has not obviously been paying a great deal of attention, because as is explained in the report and proposition, my Health and Social Services Committee were the first ever formal States body, the first ever department of the States to adduce an open