Issue of waste disposal remains unresolved
WHILE Guernsey's government continues to lurch from one financial problem to the next it would be wise to remember that the waste problem has not yet been resolved and that a 'blank cheque' was issued to Public Services three years ago when a contract of known cost – albeit considered high – a known specification and an intelligent estimate of return value was cancelled.
The cancelled contract was with a specialist contractor of known expertise and proven establishment who was compensated for the cancellation at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Abandonment of the contract resulted from a comment by a senior deputy in Public Services that he was confident that a less expensive solution to the problem could be found, and his view was endorsed by a small but vociferous public faction.
One often hears the phrase 'placing the cart before the horse' and this would seem to be perfectly applicable to the present situation where the department appears to have resolved the problem of separation and collection of the refuse but not the method of disposal. It has been suggested that Jersey has far more incineration capacity than it needs and that disposal of Guernsey's waste would be welcomed, but there is no news or intimation of any formal negotiations being in progress or, indeed, having taken place. It has been suggested however, that if Guernsey's waste was shipped off island there would be a possibility that certain residual and toxic ash would be returned to the island for final and costly disposal, a matter that was included in the original contract by being absorbed in the contractor's established system.
So, when will the public be informed of the numbers that the department intends to write on that 'blank cheque'? No one would expect the disposal of our refuse to be free or even inexpensive, however there is every indication that projected costs over the next 25 years could greatly exceed the cost of the original contract. We have been informed that part of the collection costs will be recovered by a charge for the special bags that everyone will need to buy, and when a member of the public had the temerity to complain of the weekly cost to people in the lower income bracket his complaint was trivialised by the comment that the cost concerned equated roughly with the cost of a couple of litres of milk. This comment demonstrates with startling clarity how distant from reality some of our politicians really are.
We are currently informed that proposals could come before the States to cease the GP consultation subsidy, to cease the prescription subsidy and to require all car owners to pay an annual fee of up to £50 for 'free' parking, whether used or not. All of which cannot avoid seriously damaging the already fragile lifestyles of our most vulnerable citizens. One repeatedly hears the term 'level playing field' used in the States assemblies but one cannot fail to be amazed at how undulating this playing field can be in the minds of some politicians.
It is said that a drowning man clutches at a straw. The straw to clutch is the hope that our politicians will have all of these costs in mind during the ensuing debates.
BRYAN VANDERTANG,
Address withheld.
