States Meeting Transcript - 25/02/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................3

1. Energy from Waste facility: rescindment (P.8/2009)....................................3

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ...................................................3
   2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:....................................................6
   3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................12
   4. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................17
   5. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade................................................18
   6. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................20
   7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................22
   8. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................26
   9. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................27
   10. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................27
   11. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier : .......................................................31
   12. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................31
   13. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................32
   14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................34 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................34

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................34

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumed..................................................................34

15. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................35
16. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................39 The Bailiff :...................................................................................41
17. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................42
18. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................42
19. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................44
20. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................45
21. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................47
22. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................47
23. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................49
24. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................51
25. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................52
26. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................54
27. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................55
28. The Attorney General:...............................................................56
29. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................57
30. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:................................................57

31. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................58 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................71

2. Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 2009 (Appointed Day) Act 200- (P.11/2009)..........................................................................73

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................73
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................73
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................74 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................74

3. Law Revision Board: appointment of member (P.22/2009) ............................75

3.1 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):......................75

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................75

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................75 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................76 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................76

4.1 The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................76 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................77 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................77 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................77 The Deputy of St. John:......................................................................78 The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):......................................................78

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................79

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Energy from Waste facility: rescindment (P.8/2009)

1.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

It is disappointing, really, because the States Assembly has become used to discouraging long debate and more so when that debate hinges around rescindment, regardless of whether or not there is merit in that rescindment. Yesterday, the Minister for Planning and Environment tabled an answer to Deputy Trevor Pitman of St. Helier considering the use of La Collette as a potential for housing. In the answer to that question that the Deputy posed, the Minister stated that: "The siting of both the major hazard sites - the Jersey Gas liquefied petroleum gas storage site and the fuel storage depot operated at the Fuel Consortium - has resulted in restrictions on the type of development that is considered to be appropriate at La Collette." Specifically, the Major Hazards Assessment Unit of the U.K. (United Kingdom) Health and Safety Executive undertook a quantified risk assessment of the Jersey Gas site in 1993, which was reviewed in 1995 in anticipation of the change to mounded storage of the liquid petroleum storage vessels, and again reassessed in 1999 on the completion of the mounded storage. This 1999 assessment formed the basis for the land use planning zoning around the major hazard site at La Collette until the explosion and fire at the Buncefield oil storage depot at Hemel Hempstead, England, which occurred on 11th December 2005. That was a very interesting answer because what it talks to is the restrictions in terms of what we can get up to down at La Collette because of the industrial usage that the States has deemed in its wisdom to make of this land. That is my thread. Apart from the fact I have already spoken at length about it being the wrong technology in a previous debate, and despite my previous debate in terms of the wrong technology and the wrong location, I would like Members just to reflect upon what we are going to be setting up for ourselves for the next 30, 50, 60 years. W.E.B. (Waterfront Enterprise Board) undertook an evaluation of the existing La Collette site for housing development some years ago, but following consultation with States departments, including the Fire and Rescue Service, it concluded that with a singular vehicular access to the site and the presence of the fuel farm and gas manufacturing plant (which of necessity would need to be removed), the value of any housing land created was likely to be insufficient to meet the costs of relocating those installations: "The use of this area for housing purposes would, in addition to the fuel farm and gas installations, necessitate the relocation of existing industrial buildings, ash pits and the compost site to other locations in the Island which are less satisfactory in terms of convenience of location and which could involve the development of greenfield sites." So, there is a whole stew there of what the issues would be if we ever decided to develop La Collette into something other than a small, cramped industrial site that has limited use and has decreasing limited use the longer we continue to set up poor practices at the gateway to St. Helier. I would

like to say a couple of things about the actual hazard assessments because we did look at that. There was a B.L.E.V.E (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion), which was an explosion, in Ontario last year which affected hundreds of people and thousands of people had to be evacuated because an L.P.G. (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) tank caught fire. One fire-fighter was found dead - the chief of the fire service - at the scene. What it indicated to me was that there was a necessity to understand the real danger that L.P.G. presents in the community. The hazard zone from that is not 500 metres, it is 1,000 metres. The L.P.G. tanks at the end of La Collette are part of the proposition that I will be bringing to the States Assembly in the future, one that I discussed yesterday with the Minister for Planning and Environment, one that will probably be sidelined because of a review of the northern part of town in relation to the infrastructure and the decisions that the States are making on a strategic level in relation to Gas Place, the town park and car parks. In among that mix will be the use of Ann Court for sheltered housing. Yesterday, we saw the press release from the Planning Department about the use and the assignment of use for people in sheltered housing in Jersey which was drawn up in association with the Rowntree Trust, I believe. What that has clearly identified for us in Jersey is that there are issues about housing, there are needs in the Parishes, there will be continued construction in sensitive zones for needs that will arise, and there is also a need for us to take cognisance of the fact that we need to have an assessment at the highest level of our strategic use of the town. Now, the Minister for Planning and Environment has asked me if I will put off my proposition from debate at the next session to give way for a review of these issues by a yet to be chosen group of architects and advisers of the highest calibre, who will piece together the puzzle that we are currently looking at in relation to St. Helier . The reason why this reflects into a rescindment debate on an incinerator is because the incinerator is sited at the entranceway to this reclaimed land. The value of that reclaimed land could be enormously enhanced if these hazards were removed, and future reclamation of this land will be severely limited if we continue to move forward with the blinkers on. It might just be possible - but it is an argument for another day - to remove the fuel farm and to remove the L.P.G. storage tanks from La Collette and, therefore, change the options that we could use La Collette for. Because we have chosen to site this incinerator at the entranceway to the site, I believe that we will always - or not always, but for the next 50 years at least - rule out proper and lucrative investments in terms of housing on these sites. What could present in 2 to 3 months' time an option for housing at La Collette if we support this proposition today will be ruled out if we leave that incinerator sited where it is. The argument is simple. It is the wrong technology and it is in the wrong place. Members who voted before, who have now since climbed the ladder of political responsibility, have said that the debate has been and gone, the decision has been made, we are where we are; but have they really moved that far up the ladder or that bit further away from their principles? I do not see the previous Minister for Transport and Technical Services or his Assistant Minister in the House because they were not returned to office, even though moving the incinerator from the district that they stood to represent was something that was agreed, put forward and approved by them. Why was that? Perhaps because the public know that what the States are doing in terms of purchasing and building an incinerator is old-school technology, the safe and old way. It certainly is not cutting technology. It is only going to cut across our options. The L.P.G. storage tanks could be removed and probably will be removed. The fuel tanks could be removed and most likely will be removed. But we will be unable to develop that land for any real housing need and forego that lucrative opportunity in the future at a time when we could probably work from one waterfront site to another with economy of scale and achieve best value for money, because we have decided to put an incinerator at the doorstep to this location. I have not spoken to anybody who has confidence in their house and its value with this new incinerator turning up on their doorstep. They believe their property will be devalued by the States of Jersey. Across the board, we are looking at millions of pounds of property being devalued. No economic assessment of that has been taken into account, and the desire of local families to live in this district, which I represent, is ever-more decreasing. I know for a fact that this is the case because after years of harping on about the compost site - which is still ever-more plaguing - along with the other industrial pollutants, the residents and families of No. 1 district are becoming so sick they are sick of telling me how sick they are. Families that lived across the road from them have moved; families that lived down the road from them have sold

their house and moved. They all used to attend our Havre des Pas working group. A lady who was there who had a flat sold it and moved. They are all moving. The hotels are closing and the district and the Victorian village, which should really be supported a lot stronger than it is being supported in terms of heritage by the Minister for Planning and Environment and his department, part of which I am on the sub-panel for now .. the local character of Havre des Pas is something that we will not be able to get back once it has gone, and it has nearly gone now. If we put an incinerator there, it will be removed. We choose to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money to refurbish the swimming pool and how many people are going to be screaming and running down the beach into the sea in the future when they know they are standing next to a very large contaminated box? We are going to devalue tourism. We are going to devalue local housing. We are going to devalue land opportunities. We are going to minimise and restrict ourselves in terms of strategic choices, and all because we think it is more intelligent to not ruffle the feathers of our colleagues in the States and change our minds and be seen to be intelligent by sticking to our guns and going along

with the officers that have recommended this old technology in the wrong location. I for one believe the tail has wagged the dog for far too long. I was very disappointed that when the Environment Scrutiny Panel put on its presentation in St. Helier only 7 Members of this Assembly turned up. Not this current constitution but the previous constitution, which most of us are. Only 7 Members bothered to turn up to listen to what was the culmination of 6 years' work by the Environment Scrutiny Panel. Nobody bothered to come to see what we were saying because they were already making their minds up because of their political allegiances. It is very disappointing that we have some very intelligent Members in this House who choose to turn the switch to "off" when it will upset their friends. I ask Members to open their minds, turn the switch to "on" and think again about what it is we are choosing to do today. We are on the one hand choosing to change our minds and change the direction of Jersey for the future, or we are sticking to our guns - or those guns of our fellow colleagues in the States - and investing in our political credibility within this Assembly. The last Minister for Transport and Technical Services and his Assistant Minister had political credibility in this Assembly. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it did not wash with the electorate. One last thing, before I infuriate Members by speaking for too long, is the recent work of the British-Irish Council that Jersey and the Chief Minister and his Assistant Ministers and other Ministers attend. Having recently spoken to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, there is an exciting opportunity, a very exciting opportunity to invest our time and our efforts in what will be a future for Jersey when the finance industry has gone: renewable energy. Renewable energy and the opportunity for renewable energy, and that industry will also be wiped off the board if we cannot look ahead into the future and understand the issues now. Under the terms climate change, CO2 emissions and investing in our future for diversification, we have a great opportunity to harness the relationship within the British-Irish Council and secure a reliable source of energy, one that is not dependent upon waste, one that is dependent upon wind and wave and that does not have any CO2 emission which has not been factored-in. We have papers that we have been asked as a government to prepare to reach E.U. (European Union) targets and directives, including 20 per cent renewable energy target for 2020 and the 15 per cent U.K. target within that. In a modern tidal power array of 100 sea turbines that can generate not only tremendous amounts of green energy but also tremendous amounts of cold green cash, you have 100 turbines in the water, 30 metres wide, 10 metres high. To service those, you need 30 vessels, 250 houses, 500 employees and 20, at least, sitting somewhere on the dry dock being maintained, repaired and serviced. Where will we put 20 30-metre wide, 10-metre tall tidal generators in the future? Because if we want to develop renewable energy, those are the answers we need to know now. Not in 20 years' time, not at all in 20 years' time. Today. The opportunities to go offshore in wind farms are also available and, as I said before, my proposition to debate pipelines to France to import energy of one source or another, whether it be gas, natural gas, oil or hydrogen, will be restricted and limited if we continue to think in the short term. The most crucial short-term thinking I have ever seen in this Assembly begins by the mutterings and utterings and protestations of States Members: "Oh, he talked for a long time. His speech was so terrible at the beginning. He is so disorganised. Oh, he is going to go on again. Oh, you went on for so long that time. Do not be going on so long this time, Paul." It does not

matter how long I go on for. It is more important ..

The Bailiff :

It does, Deputy . [Laughter] Can I please bring you back to the point of the debate?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I was going to finish. It is more important that Members take this opportunity to think in the long term. I think, personally, that that is the trouble with the Assembly. People are scared to debate or stand up and speak their minds because there is too much direction from the Assembly and, unfortunately, from yourself this morning, Sir, that does clamp us down and restrict us. In Standing Orders, there is no limitation as long as we direct ourselves to the proposition. I am talking about ..

That is precisely what I am asking you to do, Deputy .

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am, and I am just making a point before I sit down that, unfortunately, this direction of yours today and also behind the scenes by other Members does not enhance or encourage debate; it stymies it.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Duhamel.

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

It is a shame that we have the political games being played to draw the master cards out of the pack. We have not heard from the Minister as yet, and it is a shame that we have to make our arguments first and we cannot have the arguments being put forward in a positive fashion by the Minister in support. [Approbation] However, contrary to some rumours, I am not going to try and speak for longer than the Deputy of St. Mary spoke for yesterday, but I would like to focus on a number of issues that really need to be addressed in order to redress the balance and to put right some of the anomalies in the evidence that has been put forward. Scrutiny is evidence-based, and before you make statements as a member of Scrutiny you have to make sure that you do have the document base in order to justify those opinions you are putting forward. I think the same does not necessarily apply to the department. One of the interesting things for me is that before long this House is going to be discussing an energy policy: "Fuelling the Future." The White Papers and the Green Papers are out for discussion and it is quite enlightening to read those documents. They may well change depending on the outcome of this particular debate or the extent to which some of the far-reaching consequences are modified because the States are not mature enough in environmental terms to accept them. If we read some of the statements that are in the document at the moment, I think they really need to be aired. We start off with: "International reputation and opportunities. Jersey, a model jurisdiction." Jersey is receiving a lot of criticism as having more money than sense, that we have all our eggs in the finance basket, and in some ways having too much money coming in from that one source and not spending adequate sums on the environment or on social responsibility is something that is beginning to pick up momentum in terms of the criticism that is being levelled at our society. So, in addressing these points within the energy policy, the officers have come forward with a couple of statements. I would like to just read a few paragraphs: "The environmental credentials of the jurisdiction are under scrutiny from the international community and those who seek to do business in that place. For Jersey to continue to enjoy the confidence of the financial services industry, tourism and agricultural exports, the Island must show that as well as being a transparent and responsible place to do business, it takes its environmental responsibilities seriously. Jersey must demonstrate that it takes a challenging and proactive approach to the Island's environmental impacts and, in particular, that it is making meaningful efforts to reduce its carbon emissions. The aspiration to become a jurisdiction that exemplifies best environmental practice is achievable and realistic. Jersey has the power of a small place to do big things." We have heard in this Chamber and outside on many occasions that Jersey is quite good at punching above its weight, but I do not think we are doing it in regard to waste management. Within the document it goes on and says some very interesting things about recovering energy from waste. Although it has been stated that the plant will provide up to 7 per cent of the Island's electricity requirements in the future, those figures do assume that you have a full throughput of both streams in the last year or towards the end of the running time of the plant. We have not assessed or put forward in meaningful terms how much electricity will be generated in the early days of the contract when only one stream will be running. The Island only produces around about 70,000 tonnes, which is the capacity of half the proposed units. Within that, there are a number of materials that do not burn particularly well and, in fact, if they were not a part of the residual waste

that is to be sent to the incinerator, then a lot of the problems in terms of the gas emissions would not need the expense of the bolt-on equipment which constitutes the major part of the kit in terms of cleaning-up gases from burning things that you really should not be burning. Within the energy report, it says: "However, the burning of waste, even in the most modern plant, creates carbon emissions which the Island must report upon as part of its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." There is no point in the Island signing-up and being a signatory to international agreements and conventions if we do not play our part. "These emissions are a consequence to the waste disposal treatments available to us but can be minimised by reducing the volume of residual waste entering the plant." So, the less you burn, the better it is. "The forward projections of emissions in this policy have accounted for no more than 105,000 tonnes of waste by 2035, which is the plant's design life, beyond which alternative lower carbon technologies can replace the E.F.W. (Energy from Waste) plant." One of the difficulties this House has got itself into is that we do not think ahead, we do not provide maintenance monies or sinking funds to provide for the replacement of expensive capital equipment which will need to be replaced at the end of the design life of whatever it is. Here we are saying that within the energy policy we should be thinking about other equipment. It is not true that this equipment, which is old-style technology, is going to be used for ever and a day. It has a very short design life. "The new plant will be considerably more efficient than the current outdated plant [yes, agreed] and the option for district heating should also be investigated thoroughly." It was suggested by the consultants that in order to achieve a higher efficient rating for the proposed plant we should be running it with combined heat and power. That means that any of the waste heat coming out should not be dissipated by bringing sea water in through the cooling system and then vented out into the open sea on to the Ramsar area to raise the temperatures in the local vicinity of the sea water, but instead that heat energy should be piped in order to heat houses instead of burning other fuels to do the same thing. Unfortunately, the combined heat and power option has not been agreed by this House, so we end up with a situation that the equipment that is being proposed and agreed is not going to be particularly efficient and it is being recommended in our energy policy that whatever replaces it in 2035 will not be the same type of thing. It goes further to say that this proposal or contract that we have agreed to is to be thought of as transition technology, which is exactly the point. It says: "Even with the increased recycling rates and a reduction in the overall amount of residual waste being treated by the new Energy from Waste plant, at the end of the replacement plant's life, 2035, carbon emissions from the Energy from Waste process will make a significant contribution to Jersey's overall carbon emissions." It will be as big as the carbon emissions from most of our traffic. It is huge. Again, we heard yesterday from the Deputy of St. Mary that perhaps the Island was going in the wrong direction and this is .. [Aside] [Laughter] It goes on to state: "While Energy from Waste is considered the appropriate current technology to deal effectively with Jersey's waste, it should be thought of as a transition technology. The replacement of the next Energy from Waste plant at the end of its design life, in approximately 2035, should be seen as an opportunity to replace it with a method of waste treatment that is not only appropriate to the Island but has a considerably lower carbon footprint." This is in the energy policy report which has not been accepted by the States yet, but it has been commented upon by the Council of Ministers and others and it is moving in the right direction. The only difficulty I have is that perhaps it did not move fast enough, because within the paragraphs that I have outlined it is suggesting that the equipment that we are purchasing today - or maybe not - does not really go far enough in helping us to discharge our climate change requirements under the Kyoto Protocol and, in any event, in 2035 we will have to be looking for better, smarter, cheaper ways, more environmentally greener, friendlier ways to do the job in a better fashion. Why not do it now? Well, we could, but we appear to have had a level of intransigence from the organising department as to accepting any suggestions to go in any other direction other than the direction that was hit upon almost 7, 7½, 8 years ago. All of this started with a statement by Price waterhouseCoopers 7-8 years ago that the House had decided that we would replace the failing Energy from Waste plant, if you want to call it that - the failing incinerator system - with a similar piece of kit, and the States had not even taken the decision. The

report, which is freely available for people to read, went on further to suggest that perhaps there were other ways of delivering the solution, whereby perhaps for a gate fee the Island could be spared the requirement of spending large capital sums to pay for whatever kit we were going to have because the incoming waste management companies would have been in a position to offer the service of dealing with the waste in an environmentally friendly and responsible way in exchange for a fee. All those options were hastily sent to the wastepaper bin and the department ploughed its single furrow to go for a replacement plant of a similar type to the one that we have, albeit with expensive gas cleaning equipment in order to clean up the emissions which are being caused by burning the wrong things. There is some really clever equipment out there and, as Chair of the previous Environment Scrutiny Panel, I have been exasperated at how narrow-minded this House and those persons who have been dealing with this subject have been. For example, the plastic that we are burning inefficiently or going to continue to burn could quite easily, in a very cheap fashion, be converted into synthetic diesel. We are running petrol in our cars; some of us run diesel cars. But the plastics, because they are oil based, can be recracked. That is not all plastic, but most plastics. We are told that for particular companies supplying this equipment, the 6,500 tonnes of plastic could be recracked to produce 6.5 million litres of synthetic diesel. That is a pretty good, as far as I am concerned, energy from waste approach because it means that instead of wasting taxpayers' money in sponsoring particular schemes that are hungry for expenditure of revenue sums and capital sums, you would have an opportunity to look at the waste materials for the first time and generate a revenue income of a sizeable fashion.

Deputy R.G. Le Herissier of St. Saviour :

I wonder if I could interrupt. Is there a carbon footprint involved in transporting this item to use diesel fuel to get diesel fuel back? [10:11:19](?)

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Well, there is. There are pluses and minuses in each case, but the essential point is that the case can be made for dealing with these materials in this particular way. In any event, we are going to continue to be importing fuels into the Island to run our cars. Whether they continue to be run on dwindling petrol reserves is a moot point, but in the not too distant future .. and this plan is only for the next 20 to 25 years so I cannot see petrol running out in that time, so we are going to continue to import oil. What I am saying is that there are materials that at present are being burnt that could be making a positive contribution to our energy balances and a contribution towards the carbon emissions, which we are going to have to do in any event. But we are not looking at it. The Minister for Planning and Environment - and I will steal his thunder a little bit, I hope - might be suggesting in the near future an increase in the requirement to recycle. One of the things that sticks in people's gullets at the moment is the discrepancy between what is possible in terms of recycling by other communities who genuinely want to do it and Jersey's approach which suggests that we are going to continue to recycle round about a third of materials and burn the rest. In other communities it appears to be the other way round. They are recycling the two-thirds and perhaps dealing with the other third in different ways. If the Minister for Planning and Environment comes forward and suggests that the Island should be again discharging its environmental responsibilities more seriously than we have done hitherto and suggests that he would like to encourage all of the members of the public and the Constables and the Parishes to take on board higher recycling rates, which indeed is the way of the world and we are going to do it anyway, where is that going to leave our policy? We are already ordering a machine which is twice the size that we need, so half of the equipment is not going to run. It is certainly not going to run efficiently. So you have to grow the materials in order to run the second stream in an efficient way. It is ludicrous. What would happen is, on the back of the suggested policy change that the Island is going to do what the rest of the world is doing and recycle perhaps two-thirds of the material and only get rid of, in whichever way, through burning or other tertiary methods for disposal of the other third, if that becomes established policy, any time between now and the next 25 years we are left with an expensive piece of kit

which is not running properly. That is a waste of funds. Not only that, the way the business has been conducted in going for the one particular company that was left at the end of the tendering process - we did not have a choice of companies; we had one company and it was take it or leave it - the gun was put to our head. It is very expensive. We heard yesterday from the Deputy of St. Mary that the Cheshire local authority were particularly astute in running waste composition studies and they knew exactly or better than we did what their people were producing. So they can have tailor-made waste management solutions to deal with those materials in the best way possible, which is the way it should be. That is in line with the waste hierarchy. So, what has Cheshire done? In May last year - and I reported it to the House last year but many Members either chose to ignore it or it did not register properly - the Cheshire County Council said that they would espouse a particular technology, not one single technology but a mix, as was recommended by the previous Scrutiny Panel, and the procurement figure for a plant of a capacity of 155,000 tonnes - more than we are asking for in our contract - was £34 million all in. £34 million for Cheshire County Council. Have a look on the internet; it is there for everybody to see. The actual irony is that that particular company passes all of the requirements and the hurdles that the department would put in place or have put in place for any tenderers. They did not tender for Jersey for whatever reason, but they could have done. The irony is that this particular company is still on the list of the 8 tenderers or expressions of interest in our sister island, Guernsey. So, yet again, we are going to be looking over our shoulders to our Guernsey friends and instead of ridiculing them and calling them donkeys and all the rest of it because we think that their brainpower is inferior, they are doing what we should be doing. They are looking at what is available on the market. They are making reasonable assumptions and they are keeping in line with what their population want in terms of discharging the requirements of particular protocols for gas emissions or whatever, or encouraging people to do the green thing and to play their part to be a responsible person of this planet. What are we doing? We have more money than sense, bigger is better and more expensive makes us look better, but it does not. It makes us look like laughing stocks. That is really what is worrying me about this particular proposition. The British-Irish Council are coming to this Island to discuss waste management and climate change in the autumn. What are we going to tell them? What is your recycling rate? Well, we reckon it is going to be 32 per cent and it is going to be 36 per cent fixed for the next 25 years. They are going to say: "Hey, you are out of line already with what the U.K. are doing. You are out of line. What are you going to be doing?" We will say: "Well, we are punching above our weight. We can afford it. We have lots of money coming in. We have enough to waste." I think we are going to have egg on our faces and I do not think we will be able to hold our heads up high and try and paint the type of picture that I think a lot of politicians - certainly a lot of the members of the public - would like to paint, in that we are all on board, doing our little bit in order to make things better. It has been stated that one of the reasons that we could not go ahead with any other alternatives which would allow greater recycling to take place was because our farmers were being told by supermarkets that they could not put digestate materials from anaerobic digested food wastes on to their fields. It would be poisoning the fields and they just could not do it. We would lose the potato crop. We would poison our animals. What I did was I took the liberty of contacting the major supermarket supplier last year during the debate and this is the letter I sent to them. "Dear so and so." This is the person who was leading the environmental department of the large supermarket chain. I do not know if I am able to mention the chain's name,

Sir, am I?

The Bailiff :

It seems to be to be in order.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Okay. Well, it was Tesco. "Dear Sir, thank you for your telephone conversation yesterday. There have been statements made by potato growers and other States Members here in Jersey that Tesco grower protocols would not allow either digestate or liquors from anaerobically digested source segregated food waste or composts made with such material which were compliant under the A.B.P.R. (Animal By-Products Regulations) and made in accordance with the P.A.S. (Publicly Acceptable Standard) 110 or 100 standards to be used on land currently utilised for growing the Royal Potato crop or grazing the Jersey cow. It has been further stated that this would risk losing the potato market. I would like to know whether this is, in fact, the case. I am aware through internet searches of some Tesco initiatives with U.K. companies and local authorities to support the U.K. Government in moving towards a wiser use of food waste materials through anaerobic digestion and composting within agriculture, horticulture and forestry rather than committing them to landfill, with the obvious problems of uncontrolled methane production through the rotting process to climate change or leachate contamination of ground waters. It would be very useful if you could set out the Tesco protocols that would apply to dispel any misunderstanding that might be present as well as giving an indication of the work that is being done by Tesco with other U.K. farmers, local authorities and government bodies to firmly establish anaerobic digestion and composting within mainstream agriculture, horticulture and best practice land husbandry. The Nature's Choice programme continues to show that Tesco does have an environmental conscience and takes its corporate responsibilities seriously." I received 2 replies from the people who set up these supermarket protocols. I will read one of them: "Dear Robert, as we discussed previously, Tesco do not have an official policy on this at present." That is from the guy who is running the whole of the Tesco Nature's Choice for the U.K., but we were told in this House and it has been reported in the documents from the department that, contrary to what I am telling you now, there are protocols and regulations stopping this material from being wisely and sensibly used as part of mainstream agriculture. They go on to tell us: "Of course, if the anaerobic digestate is produced to meet the A.B.P.R. regulations, which are designed to control zoonotic diseases, it should destroy any pathogenic food bacteria so the risk will be low. We already have growers already using A.D. (Anaerobic Digestate) systems, potato growers at that, and believe it to have the potential to be a major breakthrough in the reduction and use of waste material." The over-reliance on the petrochemical industry for fertilisers is well established, not only in the U.K. but worldwide. The use of these materials for properly made organic fertilisers is being contemplated not now in the U.K. because they are late to the show, but for a long while in Europe. It goes on and says: "So, basically, to use the digestate as fertiliser or soil conditioner, the A.D. process will have to be compliant under the A.B.P.R. and made in accordance with the P.A.S. 100 standard and currently being developed P.A.S. 110 standard in the A.D. quality protocol, as well as meeting any other

applicable legal regulations." So, it is permissible: "However, spreading of fertiliser to land [this is any fertiliser] is also constrained by the E.U. nitrates directive." Well, that is fine, but we have enough land, not  just potato land but grazing  land and other  land, on which to spread these materials should we wish to do so. The quantities involved after anaerobic digestion are pretty small. So, I think we were misled up to a point and this House continues to be misled by statements that still appear in the comments from the department about how you cannot do these

things. You can. They are doing it in the U.K. They are doing it in Europe. They are doing it in other countries in the world. But because Jersey punches above its weight and it has a lot of money, you cannot do it here. It is ludicrous. Just one other point. Sainsbury's, another big supermarket, what do they do? 22nd January, we have something on the internet, for those who are interested: an innovative new plan to stop all food waste going to landfill. Admittedly, we do not send ours to landfill but we do something equivalently bad: we try to burn it when it has other uses. It could go through the anaerobic digestion process. We heard a little bit yesterday that if you do produce methane, that methane gas could either be further burnt to generate electricity in a more efficient manner than burning the food waste directly - that is important - or it can go into chemical processes to make methanol or other fuels to offset the fuel imports that we are importing at the moment. So you have a double whammy there. We could be reducing our reliance or over-reliance on petrol fuels and making other fuels on which to run our vehicles or provide our heating. That is something to think about. So, what are Sainsbury's doing? "We have an innovative new plan to stop all food waste going to landfill. Sainsbury's has joined forces with the PDM Group to divert

food waste from landfill to generate renewable energy." They are going to roll it out as part of a nationwide commitment to stop sending all food waste to landfill by the summer of 2009; that is this year. The plan has been fast-tracked in Scotland from next month and Sainsbury's 28 stores in Scotland are going to be among the greenest in the country when it comes to its waste handling of food products. Would it not be nice if we could be saying: "Yes, Jersey is here, punching above its weight, we are doing the same thing"? Maybe that is asking too much. We have not only Tesco dealing with its food waste responsibly, but we have Sainsbury's doing the same thing. Another thing, on the national news there was a little snippet; I mentioned it last year, but again I think it was missed. One of the things about dealing with the dirtier end of our waste is that perhaps there are sanitary items or whatever which we do not really want to talk about but are part of the waste loading anyway. We do not really have nappy recycling over here, although they have it in other places. So, what do you do with napkins? Well, I mentioned in this House that Birmingham last year were going to set up a new multi-million pound recycling facility capable of reprocessing 30,000 tonnes of used nappies and sanitary products every year. They are doing it. So, what is our department's approach? We do not want to talk about it. We do not want to do anything that is environmentally sound, and perhaps some of us might think that this is unsound. But here is Birmingham suggesting that one of the things that is stopping them from recycling more is that you have mixed bins. If you mix dirty rubbish or so-called dirty rubbish with clean recyclables, then you make the process of recycling more difficult to achieve. So, the sensible option - and it is not rocket science, and I will say a little bit more about that in a minute - which is very cheap and simple to do is that you do not mix your products. We are generating the problem. If you take these materials out, there are ways of dealing with them specifically on a material by material basis which an incinerator of the type that we have ordered does not do. It is a one-stop-shop; it burns everything indiscriminately and then you spend huge sums of monies to clean up the emissions of things that you could have dealt with without producing the emissions in the first place. That seems to me a wiser way of dealing with our rubbish. These things can be done. One final point: environmental gains for recycling mixed plastics. I mentioned earlier the potential for taking plastics, the oil-based materials which are part of the packaging of the goods that come to the Island, and dealing in a sensible fashion with those. Again, there are more and more businesses being set up in the U.K. which, as I said earlier, is late to this particular banquet, so to speak, and they are dealing with mixed plastics and sorting them into separated-out streams which achieve higher prices because there is a guarantee that the materials are all of the same polymer type. If they are all of the same polymer type, you get a higher price - a premium - because the chemical companies or the other companies who are dealing with the recycling of those resources do not

have to spend money to do any further sorting. It is a clean material to go into their processes. What are we doing? I think we are going in the wrong direction. To bring it back to the argument, what have we got today? We have P.8/2009 which suggests that we should knock this contract on the head. I think that is possibly going a little bit too far, although I would have argued that we should not have signed it in the first place. But as we all know, we are where we are. So, how are we going to achieve what we would like to achieve? There is no doubt in my mind that if the Island picked up on higher recycling rates - and we have heard that perhaps that is going to be coming sooner rather than later - then I think the department is going to struggle to operate the size of plant that they would wish to operate. Just by taking out the food waste, we could take out 17,000 tonnes and bring our 70,000-odd tonnes down to more manageable proportions, well inside the burning envelope of one of the streams. I think that is really where we should be going up to a point. If the States does not have the wherewithal or the stomach to cancel the contract completely, I think there might well be an opportunity within paragraph (c) to renegotiate the contract with the existing firms. The equipment has not been built yet. It has been ordered, perhaps, although I have not seen the so-called confidential documentation to assure me that the orders have been placed upfront and the deliverability times and all the rest of it. It would have been nicer, perhaps, if somebody had called for an in camera debate of these particular items so that we could preserve the so-called confidentiality of the companies or the department or whatever and yet be satisfied that

with our Scrutiny hats on we had seen the evidence that we are being told, in perhaps an anecdotal form, exists. I do not wish to be a doubting Thomas, but it does strike me a little bit odd that if these documents  do  exist why can  we  not  see them? That  would set  all our  minds at rest immediately. Anyway, going back to paragraph (c), I think there is an opportunity if we do support a rescindment of the previous decision to go for the size of plant that we all know in our heart of hearts is too big for the Island. Stavanger in Norway, population 240,000, size of incinerator: 40,000 tonnes. We heard other examples yesterday of similar discrepancies. We are too big and there is no need. Let us think small and think smart. So, I think within paragraph (c) there is an opportunity if Members support this rescindment to treat it perhaps in a form which does not say: "We are going to rip it all up and chuck it out and start again", which may well be impractical. That would certainly generate legal problems in terms of determining what we have paid for and what we have not, but I think there is an opportunity within (c) to renegotiate the size of the contract, particularly if there is an intention of recycling more. We will not need the size of plant which we are speaking about. We will not need to replace the plant with one any bigger in 2035 because the energy policy says it is the wrong type of plant and it is going to be creating too much in terms of its carbon emissions. So, let us box clever. Let us punch above our weight and let us see whether or not there is an opportunity to renegotiate with the existing contractors so you do not get into the arguments of having to find new people and all the rest of it. It might be the simplest way forward to say: "Okay, we made a mistake in ordering the current equipment. Let us go for something smaller." I think that, if it could happen, would form a sensible way out of a problem that we have really generated for ourselves. We should have been thinking further ahead than we do. We heard Deputy Le Claire suggesting that there are planning situations and there are other long-term strategic issues that we really have not taken into account. We certainly have not been told of the full cost of running this particular plant, and we have not made it foolproof so that it will continue to run at the level that we are being told it could run. If the public, who own the waste, decide to recycle more independent of whether the States tell them to or not, then we have a problem. We do not own the public's rubbish. The public owns the public's rubbish, and the public instruct through the payment of Parish Rates the Constables to deliver it to wherever they deliver it to. But the public can quite easily instruct the Constables, who are not free players in any regard in this particular issue, to deliver those recyclable materials to recyclers to be recycled. If they do that, then there is no reliance, there is no robustness to the plans that the T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) Department have put  forward which will guarantee that their chosen equipment will continue to operate at the levels that they think they might. In other places, you normally get, by people who are offering services for waste management, a buy-in or a tie-in clause with other companies which guarantee the collection of the materials to give you the waste stream or the feedstock to burn into the long term. We do not have that, so it is not foolproof. If we find

ourselves, as we already are, increasingly out of step in terms of what we think can be recycled and what the rest of the world thinks we can recycle, we are going to find pressure building up to look good with our environmental green credentials in order to offset the criticism that we mentioned earlier about making too much money through the finance industry. I think I have probably said enough on those issues. I think there is a real possibility, and it could happen fairly quickly, to renegotiate the terms which might well include another look at the extent to which we allow the public to continue to help us generate the problem in the first place, which is mixing the materials, and if the Island really wishes to solve the problem in a better fashion than we are doing at the moment, I really think we owe it to the public as their representatives to give them the opportunity to play their part. I would like to hear from the proposer whether or not, in fact, he would concur with my assessment of paragraph (c) and whether or not he thinks that that would represent a sensible way forward and a compromise which allows us all to have the green credentials that we all really heart of hearts wish for.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I do not know. This proposition has come up with a myriad of reasons to waste taxpayers' money, about £50 million we are told, but the Minister will, no doubt, confirm it. Talking about cancelling the contract is insupportable and it is quite enough to make Cyril Le Marquand spin in his grave. To add insult to injury, we received a series of long reports at short notice which attempt to make the case for the rescindment. I have read them, but I will deal with some of the points raised in due course. The rationale for cancelling this project is that it is too expensive. We have the cash, we have effectively no debt and we have reserves. Yes, there is a financial crisis, but the interbank lending rate is coming down and the world will recover, but not if we go hell for leather on carbon credits and carbon trading. We have had the sub-prime fiasco and carbon trading promises to be the next. I have a copy of a professional journal here with a substantial article on the great carbon credit swindle, which was supported by the news item on the BBC World Service recently. For those who are not familiar with the carbon trading process, the essence of it is to move resources from the west to the developing countries ..

The Bailiff :

Senator, may I interrupt you for just one moment because it does seem to me that important comments are being made and, no doubt, the proposer of the motion is going to wish to reply to these comments in due course. It seems to me extraordinary that the proposer is not in the Assembly. [Approbation]

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : Neither is the Minister responsible.

The Bailiff :

That, too, Deputy , but I would hope that the proposer of the motion might return to the Assembly so that he can hear these remarks.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I would hate my words to fall on deaf ears. As I say, the essence of carbon trading is to move resources from the west to the developing countries, so we shall end up by ruining ourselves financially. What is more, our lifestyle will be dictated by policies dictated centrally by a quasi- scientific claque. Social engineering par excellence, not a world I would wish on anyone's grandchild. We are being alarmed by global warming - I am sorry, it is now called climate change - and theories based on fallacious data and suspect computer models led by Messrs Gore, Hansen and Pachauri. These theories are given as part of the reason to rescind this contract. Originally, I did not propose to wander off into the global warming - I am sorry, climate change - argument. However, it has been given as a reason for rescinding this contract so I will mention some of the evidence. Firstly, there is no such thing as a consensus of scientists. Like scrutiny, science is based on evidence and scientists either disagree or they do not. There is no consensus. This implies compromise and scientists do not compromise. Nigel Lawson wrote recently: "The new religion of global warming is a great story and a phenomenal best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. That nonsense could be very damaging, indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unreason which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet." The second chairman of the I.P.C.C. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) wrote in 1994: "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." And boy, have they announced them. The Deputy talks of a significant increase in catastrophic natural disasters. He will be familiar with the C.R.E.D. (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) graph showing the increase in such disasters as used by Mr. Gore. What he may not be aware of is the fact that Mr. Gore has withdrawn this particular slide from his presentations. It has gone the way of the hockey stick graph. The letter from C.R.E.D., which is the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, may enlighten you. It says, inter alia, that the increase is explained partly by better

reporting of disasters in general, partly due to active data collection and partly due to real increases in certain types of disasters. But they go on to say: "We estimate that the data in the most recent decade presents the least bias and reflects a real change in numbers. Whether this is due to climate change or not we are unable to say." This is the centre which is responsible for research into disasters. What else is there? The Arctic will be ice free in 3 or 4 years. Well, I can assure you that there is now more ice in the Arctic this year. I am happy to show you the graph from A.M.S.R.-E. (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for Earth), which is a type of satellite from NASA with a 28 per cent increase from 2007 levels. The current Chairman of the I.P.C.C., a railway engineer with an additional degree in economics, says: "We are at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate than before." Well, that does not agree with the 30-year record from the Hadley Centre which shows a fall. The latest cry is that the ..

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

Could I just ask for clarification on that last statement? You said the Chairman of the I.P.C.C. The I.P.C.C. has several committees. I would like to know which chairman you are referring to.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Mr. Pachauri is the particular chairman. I do have the quotation here if you would like it.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Sorry, is he the chairman of the overall I.P.C.C. or one of the technical committees?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Well, it is a United Nations set-up so there are probably 15 chairmen of various departments. [Laughter]

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I am sorry, that is not a very precise answer.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

Absolutely. I do, in fact, have the quotation. He is quoted as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, talking at the University of New South Wales and receiving an honorary degree. The latest cry is that the Antarctic is warming up. Only one part of the Antarctic is warming up: West Antarctica where most of the weather stations are. East Antarctica is not showing the same trend. However, West Antarctica is also subject to volcanic activity which might just have an additional effect. There are temporary climatic anomalies which might explain it, and also the method by which they interpolate measurements for missing readings might just be another. Basically, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change is flawed. The reasoning is based on computer models as well, which are much like the models which have been used to such extraordinary effect in the financial system and look where they have got us. You can add to this the fact that natural carbon in the atmosphere accounts for 94 per cent of the carbon. Of the remaining 6 per cent, 3 per cent is due to fossil fuels and 3 per cent to us breathing, I understand. My source: the I.P.C.C. President Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned against allowing a scientific claque to dictate government policy. How prescient he was. The problem is that climate change is perfectly natural. As Mark Twain said: "We think we have climate and instead we get weather." A little warming might not be a bad thing. Approximately 25,000 old people die in a cold winter but only about 3,500 in a heat wave. Sadly, the indications are that we may well be in for a period of cooling. The E.U. targets are well nigh impossible using current renewables. I think most people know that wind farms are only effective for 25 per cent of the time. The Deputy of St. Mary considers that the prevention of the construction of a power station in the U.K. is a cause for celebration. I do ask him if he will feel the same when, in a couple of years' time, the prediction of power cuts by the national grid comes true. Yes, I have been called a denier, which makes me feel a bit like a witch in the time of Cromwell; however, I maintain that it has not been proven that the driver for global warming is carbon dioxide. There was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the late Ordovician period, 12 times today's levels, and it was an ice age. I think the problem is that the concept of being environmentally friendly has been confused with Nigel Lawson's new religion of global warming. Yes, I agree, we should put money into food production as recommended by Bjorn Lomborg. Yes, we should look for alternative sources of energy. Yes, we should clean up our act environmentally. But please do not let us base our decision today on suspect hypotheses based on faulty data and computer models. The issue is quite simple. Are we going to throw around about £50 million of taxpayers' money down the drain based on very unscientific thinking? Switzerland has 277 incinerators and their air is one of the cleanest in Europe. Like most of Europe, they are moving away from landfill. I understand that the scrubbers, which is a technical term for filters in the chimney, on the new plant will deal with the P.M.2.5s (Particulate Matter) as per the E.U. standard in the E.U. W.I.D. (Waste Incineration Directive). The Minister will, no doubt, confirm this. These were the particulates which raised worries after the lecture by the doctor in Jersey recently. We have been told that the E.U. will declare that our new plant is inefficient and is likely to be banned under a pending directive. Well, I think it might well apply to most of the plants in Europe, and I can just see the mountain of waste that will start growing. I have taken the trouble to look at the pages of Juniper, the consultants used by the last Environment Scrutiny Panel, on their website. They do have some very interesting and informative pages comparing the different processes. So, if you do not believe T.T.S. then look at an independent view. They say: "It is self-evident that the new technologies will be less proven. Thus, when advising clients, our analysis frequently focuses upon assessing the significance of the advantages on the one hand and, on the other hand, balancing these against the potential risks of adopting a solution that is unlikely to have been fully proven in commercial operation." Remember, these are engineers and specialists. They go on to say: "Juniper is neither pro nor anti incineration. Along with many independent experts, however, we do feel that incineration has had a bad press. The case against its use is frequently based on the undeniably poor performance of old plants [well, we can tell them about that] now closed. These earlier plants do not reflect the good environmental record of modern, state of the art reference facilities operating at many sites around the world." They go on to say: "Incineration remains the most widely adopted solution despite its unpopularity. In essence, this is because there are significant issues associated with all alternatives. So, while an alternative to incineration may seem attractive and thus receive political support, it may not be a practical solution when taking into account the need to minimise costs and to keep risks under control." Turning to the volume of reports accompanying this proposition, the Deputy of St. Mary referred us to a manufacturer of pyrolysis plants, a company in Arkansas. However, it manufactures plant to deal mainly with biomass, rice husks, and that is what the company say on their website; I looked. Juniper have some comments to add on pyrolysis: "Incineration is far more proven than pyrolysis and gasification projects. There have also been some noteworthy problems at

particular pyrolysis projects over the past 5 years that raise concerns about operational reliability. Furthermore, the technical and economic feasibility cannot be described as fully demonstrated." In other words, these new technologies have promise but are not sufficiently developed and are too risky for small islands to depend on. We do not have the luxury ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Could I ask a point of clarification, please?

The Bailiff :

If the speaker is willing to give way.

Senator S.C. Ferguson: I am feeling generous.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

In the original debate the Assembly had on the incinerator the Senator did refer to Juniper. I am struggling to recall in which terms she referred to them because in this debate she is referring to them but I am pretty certain that she made disparaging remarks about them in the original debate. Could she remind me, please, exactly what she did say on the original debate about this company?

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I do remember. I commented on the fact that Juniper carried advertising for various plant and equipment on their web pages but I am happy to assure the Deputy that they have now removed this so that it gives them much more credibility as being independent.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

On a point of order, that was not correct. The website that the Senator referred to originally was a company that advertised the advice that it was receiving from Juniper. It was not Juniper's website.

Senator S.C. Ferguson: I am not giving way.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: Well, it is incorrect.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , there is a distinction between a point of information where the speaker is willing to give way and a point of order. That is not a point of order and the speaker is not willing to give way.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

We do not have the luxury of being able to ship our excess waste up the road to a neighbouring facility or to a landfill. We have to be relatively self-sufficient and we must have a proven process. We have an existing plant which is a disgrace and should be replaced as soon as possible, when you consider that we were advised to start thinking about replacing it in, I think, 1999-2000. I think some of the people in the House were probably on the relevant committee at the time. When you consider that we had the advice to start thinking about a replacement, 10 years to make a decision is pathetic and then to add further delays and expense to the process, it is quite ridiculous. It has, I understand - but this is something that perhaps other Members can confirm for me - cost us something in the order of £40 million more than it would have done if we had got going sooner. Are we going to really add another £50 million of taxpayers' money to the wastage for no good reason? Frankly, I was not going to speak today but I felt really that someone must point out that the emperor has no clothes. Furthermore, as Mencken said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamouring to be led to safety, by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." I ask the Assembly to dispose of these hobgoblins and reject this proposition. [Approbation]

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Sir, could I raise the défaut on Senator Syvret, please?

The Bailiff :

Yes. It is proposed that the défaut on Senator Syvret be raised. Those in favour? Those against? The défaut is raised.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I just politely would like to ask for a point of clarification because I want to make my final decision on the quality of the information. I just wonder if the Senator could confirm whether she also believes the earth is flat and whether one of her scientific sources is Jeremy Clarkson.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

We have had a number of questions raised on the evidence before us and we have yet to hear from the Minister. I do believe, for the sake of good order and debate, we must have some of those questions answered. I think people are waiting to hear from the Minister in particular.

The Bailiff :

Well, if no other Member wishes to speak I am going to call the Deputy of St. John .

4. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Yesterday, we heard from the Constable of St. Helier about his rocket fuel machine that he had just taken delivery of in St. Helier and how he could compost various types of food waste for reuse in the gardens, et cetera. Having spoken to him yesterday evening, in fact it has only just been taken delivery of and, in fact, it is experimental. So the evidence he gave the House yesterday, to me, is somewhat flawed because he did not tell us at that time that he knew very little about the workings of the particular plans. Secondly, we heard from the Deputy of St. Mary who made a couple of comments about

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Can I ask for a point of order about the comment of the Constable of St. Helier because my understanding is he understands perfectly well what ..

The Bailiff :

Just one moment, Deputy . If the Deputy of St. John is willing to give way you may continue.

The Deputy of St. John :

No, Sir, I am not giving way, thank you. We heard from the Deputy of St. Mary with his peer review claiming that he had asked for £5,000. In fact the figure was between £1,500 and £3,750. There is a difference. That is what he had asked myself and my colleague on our Scrutiny Panel to come up with. These figures, to me, if people are giving me details on the floor of this Chamber and they are not correct, therefore have to be clarified. Further to this, we have heard this morning

from a Deputy of St. Saviour, Deputy Duhamel, about freeways not going, or should be able to go, on the land. Yes, it can go on the land, on certain areas of land, but Jersey has a land bank and I will just read a little bit of information I have here: "In Jersey there is a restricted land bank where such food waste derived compost could be applied. For example, there are no large restoration projects such as there are in the U.K. and the pressure on agricultural land is severe. The potato industry has green waste derived compost in their crop rotation and the dairy industry uses enhanced treatment sludge on grazing land, but the potato industry has indicated that the retail customers for their products have strict protocols which prevent the application of food waste derived compost to land. Jersey has a unique agricultural cropping system for potatoes with an annual rotation. The majority of supermarket protocols either preclude applications of food waste derived compost or require longer than a year between application of such compost and planting or harvesting of subsequent crops." Therefore, that point alone pushes out the possibility of using this food waste on the land. This is my reading of what is being said. The T.T.S. have revisited these protocols with the potato industry regularly since the Solid Waste Strategy was approved and has been advised that these protocols are becoming stricter and in December 2007 the British Retailers Consortium stated: "We have significant concerns with regard to the use of compost made from animal blood, bones, meat and entrails. We know that B.S.E. (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) is not eliminated by heat and as B.S.E. was linked to animals ingesting other animals' proteins, we are concerned about the spreading on to grassland of this type of material. The spread of animal disease is another issue of concern and we would like a review of the risk assessments of which the current time temperatures requirements for the treatment of kitchen waste are based. We also believe that there is a need to investigate public perception of the use of compost derived from animal products before we can be satisfied that an adverse public reaction is not likely to happen." These, to me, are of real concern given that we are being told on the one hand by Members that this is quite all right to go on our land. But we have a land bank specifically where rotation is within 12 months, our rotation of crops, and, therefore, we have to be very, very careful about what we do with this waste. Furthermore, over the last 5 years we have had 3 Scrutiny reviews on Energy from Waste. Really how many more reviews are we going to have? Because if we delay this yet again today we will find that we have got a situation where we will have to call in whatever new plant is looked at and review that yet again, for the fourth time. We have had 3 different panels with all the evidence come forward. Surely we are not going to go down the road of allowing ourselves to go through it all over again at the expense on the back of 3 weeks or research, 4 weeks of research, by the Deputy of St. Mary. Yesterday, I must be fair to the Deputy , he brought up a number of very interesting points. But, that said, the research has been done in depth, in a lot of depth, by 3 different panels. We cannot keep on going over and over and over again the same information or similar information only to come up with the same result because 3 reports have come up with similar conclusions. I sincerely hope that the debate will now really concentrate on doing what is right for the people of Jersey and let us get on with building the incinerator. [Approbation]

5. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade

I cannot but respect Deputy Wimberley for the tremendous effort he has made in putting together this proposition, bombarding Members with all manner of diverse information and even extorting others to influence Members by supplying an idiot's guide on trying to get States Members to change their minds by phone. I really think that the communications unit should take heed of the Deputy 's activities over the past few weeks. There has been so much spin I am becoming quite dizzy. I seem to have been getting daily references to obscure websites, all purporting to be waste disposal experts. We seem to be sliding down the path of "Government by Google." For the record, this whole exercise has probably cost my department some £5,000 in officer time, responding to a stream of questions from the Deputy and his group and in trying to respond in a sensible and professional manner. We have been open with all information within the parameters of commercial confidentiality agreements and I refute the Deputy 's allegations that the department have been reticent in giving out information. To get back to reality, part A of the proposition, which is to rescind the democratic decision of this Assembly - which was made after years, yes years, of presentations, delays, reports, long debates and further delays and good old-fashioned democratic debate on the floor - here is, I believe, based on the principle that we should all revert to living in caves and wearing animals skins. I consider that, with respect, the Deputy has gone stark raving bonkers. He is living in his own idealistic world which is simply not achievable in our society today. Members of the last Assembly were fed tomes of information on all manner of methods of dealing with the Island's waste and I can honestly say that, after listening to Deputy Duhamel for an hour and three-quarters at that time why we should not have the plant being built at present, they still voted in favour of it. It was considered in great depth, thanks to Deputy Duhamel, and new Members can rest assured that the decision was not taken lightly. I, together with others, visited the M.R.F. (Materials Recycling Facility) in Cardiff at the invitation of Deputy Duhamel and, while the concept is good, it does not suit Jersey. I saw the agency workers, mostly Latvians - and, I understand, working there with face masks - and I was interested to note in last night's Post a photograph of these very people with face masks working at a M.R.F. facility. Now,