THE issue of waste disposal has dogged the States for all of the 10 years that I have been a deputy and more.

It’s not an issue in which I would regard myself as an expert, but over the years I have read reams and reams of information from independent consultants employed to help guide us on this issue.

What I can say is that we have been down a long road in this process, and there are a number of key facts in this debate which cannot be ignored.

In 2003, the States of Guernsey voted to proceed with a 70,000-tonne mass burn incinerator, but in 2004 that project was halted following a requete brought by a new deputy – now the deputy minister of the Public Services Department, Scott Ogier.

Following that requete, an independent panel of inquiry believed the proposed plant had too large a capacity, the visual impact was too great, it was too expensive, and that more should be done to encourage the minimisation and recycling of waste.

The States decided to restart its procurement process. This time, instead of asking for a 70,000 tonne incinerator, it agreed to ask the waste industry how it would propose to handle our waste stream.

But the States failed to back other measures which might have helped us to change our long-term waste strategy.

None of the measures to really drive down our residual waste stream were implemented.

The States has been broadly split into two camps on this issue over the past decade.

There are those who want to see waste separation and minimisation. The others are happy to collect all our waste in one stream and deal with it directly.

A number of States debates have been undertaken over the past five years – from kerbside recycling to an investigation on a smaller residual plant – and the majority have been lost.

As a result, as they say, we are where we are, through the consensus of our system of government.

It is definitely more difficult for us to move away from our current waste strategy and have a rethink, or a delay, as a result of those decisions.

Without taking the necessary steps to minimise the waste stream, it is inevitable that a large plant to deal with large amounts of residual waste would be required.

It is unsurprising that the waste industry have tendered for an incinerator.

But this is half the size of the last one, cheaper over 25 years, lower in height and less of an eyesore.

I voted for it during the last debate because it is a great improvement on the plant proposed in 2004.

It may not be where some would wish us to be, but this is where we have ended up.

I get phone calls every week from people urging me to ‘stop the incinerator’.

Apart from making clear that politically I cannot do so, I find myself potentially drawn into arguments over why, or how, the Public Services Department did not allow certain potential bidders to tender.

I am entirely satisfied that the Public Services Department followed proper procedures as directed by the States of Deliberation.

As a result of this process our government received three tenders, of which the Suez proposal was the cheapest and most environmentally friendly. At 37,000 tonnes, it had the smallest heat treatment unit.

I know that much of the debate circulating in our community is speculative and as such there is much controversy.

I understand fully that those who haven’t lived this issue day in, day out for a decade or more will find it confusing. They are not alone, as some States members are also struggling with the issues.

But creating confusion as a delaying tactic is not helpful to our island.

To stop now, and pursue separation and minimisation again, could result in years of delay with little hope of success.

I understand the argument that we, as an island community, cannot afford to take a chance on new technologies. We don’t have the alternatives if something goes wrong as they would have in the UK.

We have to have something which works and has worked in other places on similar waste streams.

Are we proposing to deal with outdated technology? I don’t necessarily agree that it is.

Are there health risks associated with an energy-from-waste plant? I think the evidence is quite clear that if run properly, these plants add little in the way of background pollution and represent no significant additional risk to the population.

The cost of the plant will be met from refuse rates of householders and from commercial operators.

I have seen estimates

that it will cost each household around £25 extra a year.

By 2013, the cost of sending our waste to Mont Cuet is not expected to be that different to the gate fee for the incinerator.

So we can see that this proposal hasn’t just been dreamed up overnight by the Public Services Department.

What has become obvious, however, to all members of the States in recent weeks, is just how much enthusiasm there is within our community for the option of exporting waste to Jersey for consumption by their incinerator, rather than building our own.

This week we have been advised by our Jersey colleagues that a proposition will be placed before the States of Jersey within the next six to eight weeks asking their members to declare whether or not they would support an initiative allowing the importation of Guernsey’s waste.

I am awaiting confirmation from my opposite number in Jersey as to precisely when that debate will take place.

It is with this in mind that, as I type this article [yesterday afternoon] that I’ve decided to prepare a sursis, which is a delaying motion.

Such a motion would ask our States to delay debate on these waste matters until such time as the outcome of the Jersey debate is known, which is unlikely to be later than the end of April.

The Policy Council will have an opportunity to discuss this sursis on Monday afternoon and if it supports such a move, I will move the sursis on its behalf.

I hope it will be seen by our community as genuine evidence that members do listen to people’s concerns and act accordingly.

That said, being a States member at any level, is never easy and any additional cost issues need to be fully understood by us all.

The job is, however, made easier when matters are debated objectively and with all the facts in front of us. Many believe we must know the outcome of the Jersey debate before we can be confident with our final decision. I share that view.

Next week’s States meeting will be anything but dull.