Government of Jersey

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 14 September 2011 regarding:

Decision Reference: MD-HSS-2011-0037
Decision Summary Title :	P144 Radon Gas levels and cancer rates in Jersey - COMMENT		Date of Decision Summary:	14 September 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Assistant Director – Ministerial Support		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	P144 Radon Gas levels and cancer rates in Jersey - COMMENT		Date of Written Report:	14 September 2011
Written Report Author:	Assistant Director, Ministerial Support		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Radon Gas levels and cancer rates in Jersey (P.144/2011) – COMMENTS
Decision(s): The Minister requested a comment is submitted in response to P144/11.
Reason(s) for Decision: Proposition 144 lodged by Deputy Le Claire requests that the Minister for Health and Social Services a) undertakes a survey of radon gas b) undertakes a publicity campaign relating to the potential risks associated with radon gas c) commissions a detailed epidemiological study of cancer rates in Jersey. The Minister had decided that she wishes to lodge a comment responding to the issues raised in this proposition.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: To request the Greffier of the States to place the Comment before States members.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Health and Social Services
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Radon Gas Levels and Cancer Rates in Jersey (P.144/2011) - Comments of the Minister for Health and Social Services

Written Report – Radon Gas Levels and Cancer Rates in Jersey

Comment

This is an interesting proposition. I welcome Deputy le Claire’s concerns and his practical suggestions as to how we could improve our understanding of the causes of cancer. However I am unable to support it in its entirety.

Part 1

Part 1 of this proposition calls for a radon gas survey. There are valid concerns about the link between radon gas and cancer. As pointed out by the Deputy a previous survey undertaken in Jersey has shown some incidences of radon gas levels being at, or above, the recommended action level.

It is for this reason that HSSD has already committed to taking part in a major national study of radon gas levels being undertaken by the UK Health Protection Agency. The work is already underway, so therefore is part of the proposition is redundant.

Part 2

Part 2 of the proposition calls for a public awareness campaign relating to the risks associated with radon gas. Such a campaign could potentially being benefits, but we do not believe that it would be appropriate to proceed until we know the findings of survey . If no risk is identified, the need for a campaign is significantly reduced. My Department would review the position after the survey has been completed.

Part 3

Part 3 of the proposition calls for an in-depth epidemiological study of cancer rates in Jersey.

It is the case that in Jersey we have high rates of certain cancers when compared to most areas of the UK, most notably lung cancer and cancers of the head and neck. This is almost certainly the legacy of very high rates of tobacco smoking in the 1960s. As smoking rates continue to decline we would, in time, expect to see the rates of smoking-related cancers also decline. Exposure to tobacco can take many years to cause cancer and our current high rates are the result of this ‘time-lag’ effect.

HSSD is working on a number of other measures related to cancer prevention, for example improving the coverage and effectiveness of our existing screening programmes for cervical and breast cancer.

Our next priority is to introduce bowel cancer screening. Every year approximately 15 islanders die of bowel cancer and another 60 are diagnosed with the disease. Bowel cancer screening has the potential to reduce the number of deaths by about 50% and, as a result of early detection, significantly reduce the need for surgery and medical intervention.

Deputy le Claire calls for an expert report into Jersey’s cancer rates - with a focus on individuals with cancer and their past exposure to risk. Whilst such a survey would have merit, the starting cost would be £35k to £40k. To better understand the real costs of the survey, we would need to seek and pay for expert advice.

If this Assembly was to adopt this proposition and require HSSD to identify funding from within current resources our proposed bowel screening programme would be put on hold. Given that all the evidence shows that bowel screening saves both lives and money, we believe this must be the priority.

Therefore whilst myself and my officers applaud the conviction that underpins this proposition, I must recommend that it is rejected.

I apologise for the lateness of this comment. This proposition was originally scheduled for debate on 20th September and then brought forward. Due to previous commitments HSSD staff were unable to finalise until 14 September.