Amendment to requete is short on detail and avoids big decisions

I AM concerned, as a Guernsey resident, about the way the States makes important, often irreversible decisions on our behalf. The STSB and E&I have been examining the issue of inert waste since well before they issued a policy letter in 2017. In December 2017, the States demonstrated its concern with the singular Spur Point proposal for landfill put forward by the committees, by requesting that they look at a minimum of one other viable alternative. The response nearly a year later was far from viable and hence quite appropriately rejected by the P&R committee. (The States working!).

Presumably motivated by the complete lack of response or respect shown by the committees/boards to the States vote that a second viable alternative should be investigated, a concerned group of deputies put forward a requete, having outlined their proposal well in advance of the upcoming States meeting, with sufficient detail for the public to understand the intent. There was ample time for the appropriate committee/board to feed in their considered response, so that all could give the matter appropriate consideration. For two deputies then to be able to publish an 11-page attempted override of the requete, including a major policy expenditure proposal, on a subject that the relevant States bodies had been charged to address over three years ago, one week before the debate is not consistent with good governance.

Process aside, what about the detail in the amendment?

It opens with a statement more suited to Alice in Wonderland than to a States meeting. A dream that would be desirable to everyone, but not practically possible.

It then goes on to say we should not make any decision until we have considered all options. However:

n The committee was supposed to have considered all options in the first place. A detailed read of their considerations highlights that they dismissed a number of options, including the St Peter Port proposal, because someone else was responsible for that area. We are a small island. We cannot afford for decisions that affect the whole island not to consider the possible solutions within the whole island. This silo mentality is something a small island cannot afford.

n The committee says we must have an option now because we are running out of time. In 2017 we were told ‘we only have three years before the current site is full’. We are now told, two years later, that we only have three years left!

n There is no suggestion that the current money absorbing exercise looking at Spur Point should be suspended until the right way forward is agreed.

In summary, the amendment to the requete is short on detail, long on rhetoric. It is just avoiding big decisions, despite many who are knowledgeable on this subject strongly supporting the St Peter Port proposals and saying we must get on with it.

A number of deputies have reported that few people seem interested either in the QEII proposal, or the amendment which says let’s look at the whole area from Bordeaux to Castle Cornet as potential areas for landfill and new berths (so including Belle Greve again!).

So, I would say to the people of Guernsey, ‘If you care, I would encourage you to contact your deputy and let them know what you think, whether you are for or against.’

I would also encourage the States deputies responsible for process to look at the procedures followed by other ‘organisations’ to ensure good governance applies to their decisions.

A. P. CUNNINGHAM.

ADDRESS WITHHELD.