‘BOTH of our funding options are better than Treasury’s and are stronger than before,’ according to Matt Fallaize.

He is a member of a group of five deputies which last week put forward amended alternative proposals on how to fund States capital projects.

They had to amend their plans after Treasury provided an incorrect total for the amount of cash the States has.

The group has put forward two options. With model A, internal borrowing of £83m. would be allocated to the solid waste treatment plant, the income from which would be set to repay the borrowing in full.

Model B proposes borrowing £113m. externally, considerably less than the amount recommended by Treasury & Resources.

This would be allocated against the solid waste treatment plant and part of the airport rehabilitation, and only income arising from those projects would be used to repay the loan.

Deputy Fallaize still believes external borrowing is unwise. ‘Where is the sense in adding to the budget deficit by borrowing in a way that is completely avoidable?’ he said.

‘But if it’s the will of the States, then we will put up the second option, which we think is a better way of managing external borrowing by setting it against a project with an assured income stream.’

He said that was the key difference.

Model A had also changed shape.

‘The new model A is not a four-year project, but a six-year project and I believe it is all the better for it.

‘It takes the long-term view and is more prudent and realistic.