Waste – kerbside collections

I made the following speech against an amendment to a policy letter on waste seeking to stop kerbside collections and undertake a review.

Sir, Here we go again. How many pages of old speeches have been sent to recycling, how many speeches will be recycled or reused today for that matter? Well I may be guilty of a bit of that to be honest. What really annoys me is that we have spent so much time on what we are doing about our waste and very little on stopping the production of the waste in the first place. But I’ll have more to say on that in general debate.

I feel I am in a difficult place on all this. I believe strongly in reducing, reusing and recycling our waste. Indeed, I have run a business that has made money from helping people to do just that and set up the battery recycling scheme 10 years ago known as Bag a Battery. However, I look at the history of the waste strategy and what we are presented with in this policy letter and even I can see some merits in the amendments that have been drawn up. 

It has been 5 years since the last but one States passed the resolution to have PSD report back with full costings to, and I quote; ’ give maximum effect to waste prevention and minimisation measures’ and still  several significant costs are just estimates. Indeed, back in 2014 the Department sought to assure Members that it was confident costs would not exceed £29.5m but I expressed my concerns that the estimates contained so many contingencies that the actual figures did not reflect realistic and achievable costings from a value for money perspective. And since then the costs have gone up.

However, does that mean I should support this amendment? Well…….

Let’s look at the targets, or more specifically let’s look at having no targets. What does it really mean? Targets make sense as a means of helping you know where you are going and let you focus on getting there. There is no problem having a target if you understand the impact that will have, not just on what your goal is, but also on the possible unintended consequences and what it will take to reach your target. In the business world the classic example of where goals can undermine a company is where you seek too aggressive a growth target, as customer retention may well suffer as you focus on the new customer, not keeping the ones you have attracted. 

At the same time, you can have all the targets in the world, but if you don’t set the appropriate environment for it, they are never going to be reached. A balance is required. The problem we are faced with is that the targets have come out of nowhere. There is no consideration of marginal cost. This is particularly important when the costs are going to be borne directly by users where they have no ability to do anything about it, such as buying products wrapped in black plastic.

We can’t recycle at all costs but at the same time we can’t charge the earth if there aren’t the opportunities to recycle. But I guess the question is, are the targets forcing the costs? How do we know that the structure being put in place will lead to the recycling target rates? I have seen nothing anywhere that demonstrates that at all. Only that recycling rates will go up if we introduce food waste and glass kerbside recycling. Where is the scientific analysis?

I was strongly in favour of the kerbside recycling trial. Well, I thought it was a trial. I think most people thought it was a trial. Indeed Deputy Roffey called it a trial in his speech and I don’t see how it couldn’t have been a trial if it was being done for free. But we now hear it was an interim scheme. Whatever you call it, the increased recycling rates haven’t been spectacular but then they haven’t included food and glass. However, as we see from the report, there are even more costs to include food and glass. I believe food waste will make a big difference to recycling but there is nothing in the report that indicates what that will be, only the average likely cost per consumer.

We hear kerbside recycling is likely to work here as Wales has reached 60% recycling and isn’t too culturally different. As Deputy Kuttelwacher has said, what does that mean? Is there a correlation between those who like rugby and male voice choirs and those who recycle?

I suppose in the end I do believe we should have a target, if only to demonstrate government’s commitment to recycling. By not doing so we are putting out the wrong message that we don’t care. I do, because I care about how we as human beings impact our environment. 

However, my real concerns with this amendment actually relate to cost. We are told that kerbside collections should

‘cease on the basis of cost considerations’ What cost considerations – cost is not just financial. I think that is at the crux of the whole issue. I am happy for a review to be undertaken if it looks at cost in total and quantifies the impact not only of financial cost, but also environmental and indeed health. Because that is what we should be looking at. But that is not being considered here. 

And on the subject of cost, there is no note on any of the amendments today for that matter on cost of undertaking this work as required under section 4(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Who’s going to do all this work? I don’t see that there is a massive staff structure at STSB. Perhaps it is not considered material and there is capacity to do it, but I would find it difficult to understand how at a time when business cases are having to be put together for P&R to approve various facets of the waste strategy. 

Ultimately, though when I read the amendment I thought, well surely this is something that could be addressed through a post implementation review or reviews? The funding for that will already be included in the cost estimates, or at least it should. Such reviews should incidently, be made public.

So, looking at the amendment as a whole, I have some sympathy with what the proposer is trying to do, but I can’t support it. However, at this stage, I still have an open mind on the other amendments, should we get that far.

Waste water request for extra funding Jan 2015

The following speech was made during the debate on an amendment placed by Deputy de Lisle to construct a full sewage treatment works.

Sir, Deputy de Lisle can’t be faulted on his tenacity. The energy he has shown in trying to get this Assembly to change its mind would put someone half his age to shame. I don’t agree with him, but I admire him.

Now, Deputy de Lisle’s amendment last year sought to use the fact that costs had risen considerably as an opportunity to throw the current agreed policy out the window and instil life into his preferred solution of full sewage treatment works.

But, these are 2 completely different issues –One is how PSD has ended up with the costs in front of us today, the other is whether the policy itself is correct.

Now, Deputy de Lisle makes the point that the original costing was £4m, but now is over £19m. That is a significant difference yes – but we have already debated why there was such an increase in July last year. The original bid was for a repair of a pipe but we are now looking at replacements and extensions of pipes.


In terms of the request before us today, the previous Minister of PSD stated in last year’s debate that, and I quote, ‘during the tender process negotiations to minimise the final costs will be exhaustive. However, due to the uniqueness and complexity of this project it is only when we see the more detailed proposals finalised from the bidders that we will be able to assess final costs. We want to use global expertise to get best value for Guernsey.’

This is clearly a complex and unique project and therefore it probably should not be a surprise that costings change throughout the process as funding is released enabling expertise to bought in for each stage.  Now in some ways that may support T&R’s desire to develop greater in-house expertise. You might say, if we had the expert consultants in the first place this wouldn’t happen. However, I would question whether this would represent value for money where we are dealing with such a specialised project.

In terms of whether the project has been conducted appropriately this will of course be determined through a Post Implementation Review – at least I assume it will be, although I do note that T&R have taken down all financial rules down


But of course, Deputy de Lisle’s principal interest in the fact costs have increased is because it gives him a hook to give him what he wants – a full sewage treatment plant. This was rejected last year, but now Deputy de Lisle is back again, dusted his amendment down and added an alternative option. On the face of it this looks an attractive option – it would cost about the same to build and cost £800k a year to run. That’s certainly different from the £45m capital cost and £2m we had originally been told a full treatment plant would cost.

So we are told more for the same.

BUT of course that is not the case is it? For a start, the quote is for an ex-works price – from Canada. I suspect carting a full sewage treatment plant across the Atlantic won’t be that cheap – even in flat pack fashion. And I’m not too sure that you can put such a plant together as you would a wardrobe. If you can, what do you do if you don’t have the right number of widgets? You can’t go round to the nearest DIY store I’m sure.


Neither is it likely to be plug and play – I’m sure there will need to be work in understanding how this will interface with our current infrastructure.  That will mean paying for all these people to come over from Canada to assist. There will be insurance requirements, decommissioning old plant costs, planning costs, as well as consideration of an optimum bias and a contingency. The current quote doesn’t include any of that. So, it is likely to be of a significantly higher spend than what we have in front of us today.

It made no sense sending Deputies out to see the problem now when the whole reason we are being asked to approve this funding today is to stop that happening.


But the point is there are lots of alternative treatment systems and there are some really exciting new ideas – such as the Omniprocessor being funded and tested by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation creating drinking water from raw sewage.

What we NEED to do now is replace the outfall pipes. We are told they could fail at any minute.  We need them whatever we do.  We do not have the luxury of putting everything on hold to investigate a full sewage treatment plant now.

However, I do believe we should be monitoring developments in this field closely with a view to, sometime in the future, implementing a viable, cost effective solution that truly enhances our waste water treatment.



Waste Strategy

I spoke in the adjourned January 2014 States meeting on the proposed waste strategy.  I also managed to get the States to agree not to debate an amendment that would have caused extra work for the Public Services Department and voted against a Sursis to look again at landfill. Whilst I have reservations with regard to the costs as set out in the report, I do believe that the basic principles of the strategy still hold good and that we should support the Department’s proposals at this time.

Sir, I would like to speak firstly on behalf of the PAC and then from a personal perspective.


The Committee has reviewed the report from the Public Services Department and has a few observations regarding the content in so far as it concerns financial management and value for money.

Firstly, the Committee welcomes the creation of a Solid Waste Trading Account that brings together the financial reporting for all waste trading management activities. If appropriately implemented, this should increase transparency as well as assisting in maintaining effective financial control.  We would expect these benefits to outweigh the incremental costs, in terms of both administration and the additional work required by the States auditors.

Secondly, whilst the cost of delivering the strategy to 2016 now appears clearer, it is disappointing that, despite the fact it has been 2 years since the then States passed the resolution to have PSD report back with full costings to, and I quote; ’ give maximum effect to waste prevention and minimisation measures’,  several significant costs are still estimates. Indeed, whilst, the Department seeks to assure Members that it is confident costs will not exceed £29.5m the Committee  is concerned that the estimates contain so many contingencies that the actual figures do not reflect realistic and achievable costings from a value for money perspective.

Thirdly, the Committee considers that the adoption of a charging mechanism to pay for ongoing costs, which incorporates both fixed and variable elements, will act as an incentive to ongoing waste reduction,  prevent opting out and provide some certainty of income. However, getting the balance right will not be an easy task and the Committee will be interested in reviewing the States report on this aspect when it is published.

Finally, it is evident to the Committee that the entire strategy has many complex aspects to it. Aside from the construction of waste management facilities, a whole new set of processes needs to be implemented.  There are therefore significant risks in undertaking this strategy, which need to be managed effectively. Effective project management is therefore critical for successful delivery of the strategy, which, apart from ensuring those with the necessary technical expertise are employed, means effective political oversight throughout the project life both from PSD and T&R.





Speaking personally, I think all the talk of how we deal with our waste is a distraction. Whether we should or should not have had an energy from waste plant, whether we should or should not export our waste, whether or not we should stick it all in a hole. That debate should finish. The biggest waste in all this is the waste of time and money from prolonged debate. We can’t afford that any longer.

We need to focus on the most important part of this strategy, the part of the strategy that will really save money and  is something that we all are responsible for  – and that is waste minimisation. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to minimise household waste.  This is not something we can delegate to government.

I think it is therefore important to have some focus on this aspect today.

Worldwide about one-third of all food produced – equivalent to 1.3 billion tonnes – gets lost or wasted in the food production and consumption systems, according to data released by Food and Agriculture Organsiation of the United Nations and It is estimated that locally we needlessly throw away 2,500 tonnes of food a year. This is at a time when others worldwide living in extreme poverty are starving and back home some in our community are struggling to put food on the table, with food banks witnessing more demand than ever before. This is an appalling state of affairs.  It has been calculated that Wasting this food costs the average household in the UK £470 a year, rising to £700 for a family with children. Given the higher average cost of groceries in Guernsey, evidenced in CICRA’s recent report and it is likely to be even worse here.


Best before dates on everything have a lot to answer for. On a recent radio 4 programme a  representative from Lee & Perrins said that, if stored properly, a bottle of their world famous Worcestershire Sauce would never spoil and the only reason for a sell by date on it was because it was legally required. This was of some relief to me when I looked at the bottle that was sitting in my cupboard the other day and found it had a best before date of 2010.

I would be delighted if we banned the printing of best before dates here, but appreciate this would not be practical for the supermarkets. We therefore need to educate people about what they mean –  to understand food.

We need to increase awareness about the cost of food waste and educate people on how they can minimise what they throw away. I support the LoveFoodHate Waste campaign brought over from the UK, complemented by local initiatives that bring it home to people here how it directly affects them.


On an associate point, I fully understand the reasons behind not wanting to impose charges or legislative requirements on businesses. However, it does concern me that under these proposals, households will have to pay more for unnecessary packaging and, in particular black plastic, which can’t be recycled. As a member of the Commerce and Employment Board I therefore look forward to working with PSD and the commercial sector, to develop workable voluntary initiatives. I would like to see the end of Buy One Get One Free and similar multi-buy offers on perishable goods here. Tesco have stopped this in the UK to tackle food waste and I would like to see pressure put on the local supermarkets to do likewise here.


Whilst I have focussed on waste minimisation I would just like to comment on a few matters relating to recycling.

I fully endorse recommendations 19 and 20 that require event organisers to provide where practicable, recycling facilities, as well as the phasing in of the requirement for States entities, when contracting with event organisers, to ensure that recyclable or compostable food and drink containers are used at events on States-owned land. Already there are events organisers who do take the impact on the environment seriously, including the Vale Earth Fair and other charitable organisations in particular. I should in fact declare an interest as my  business has been selling recyclable and compostable tableware for such events for several years. However, there is a long way to go and I believe it is right that government leads by example in this area.


As someone whose garage can end up looking like a full bring bank site at the end of the month, kerbside recycling can’t come soon enough for me. I look forward to the trial starting in St Martin in March and hope it goes well.  I am also pleased to see that small businesses will be allowed to participate in the scheme, however, I think the amount of recycling may become an issue for the collectors as, just because a business is small, it does not necessarily translate into small amounts of recycling. I will be interested to see the outcome.

There is still much to do but I support the department in progressing the strategy as set out in this report and encourage other members to support its proposals.

Mobile: 07781 139385

Email: heidi@heidisoulsby.com