THE States member who uncovered the deal for Germany to take Guernsey’s household waste for incineration first thought that the offer was junk mail. Charles Parkinson said that it could buy the island time to explore new technology incinerator options.

He favoured pyrolysis as the best one and believed the technology, rejected by consultant Juniper, could become proven within two years.

He admitted that he had never heard of Mindest SA, the Swiss company which made the offer to burn the waste in Hamburg, before he received its letter.

The company wrote to him after hearing from one of Deputy Parkinson’s business contacts in France.

‘I wasn’t sure when I received it how much credibility to place on this. I was in two minds whether this was junk mail. I put the letter to one side in my kitchen and did not pay it a lot of attention.’

It was only after speaking to Juniper that the offer’s credibility was confirmed, the day before debate.

Deputy Parkinson, deputy minister at Treasury and Resources, defended the way he raised the issue in the States.

He said that he handed copies of the letter to Environment minister Bernard Flouquet and Chief Minister Laurie Morgan and told them he would refer to it in his speech.

‘Deputy Flouquet took offence because it took a few weeks to forward, for which I apologise, but I don’t think it’s the cardinal point here.’

He said he did not intend the Hamburg offer to become the headline of the speech.

‘The reason I produced the proposal from the agent for Hamburg was to prove there are incinerators in Europe willing to take our waste and burn it,’ he said.

‘The strategy I will be pressing to the review group is that Guernsey exports its waste for a period of five years, starting as soon as possible.’

He said that Hamburg was not the only possible destination.

The offer was used as an example to counter claims made by the Environment Department in response to the requete.

Environment had said it could not find other incinerators with the capacity to accept Guernsey’s exported waste.

‘These are difficult issues and I understand the point of view of those opposed to the requete. It depends really on your view of alternative technology, some are pessimistic, some optimistic.’

He said it was worth waiting two years to find out if pyrolysis was robust enough for Guernsey.

‘The benefits are considerable. It’s cheaper to build, cheaper to operate and critically the buildings are smaller,’ he said.

‘The visual impact on the eastern seaboard would be much reduced. I think it’s worth waiting the couple of years Juniper suggest you need to prove a technology to see it working. That’s why I see the need for an interim strategy as we can’t keep dumping into Mont Cuet.’

He added that confusion over whether the island could export waste under the Basel Convention was misleading because that applies to toxic waste.