GAPS in Jersey’s oversight of medicines and medical devices are increasing the risk to public health, a review has found – despite previous assurances that the Island’s safeguards were robust.

The review found weaknesses in safety monitoring and oversight of medical devices and research.

Responsibilities are split across government departments, decisions are inconsistently documented and key legal provisions are either missing or have yet to be brought into force.

In response to a written question from Deputy Karen Wilson, the Health Minister revealed that a senior member of staff who has since left their post had advised him in May 2025 that the Island’s system was “appropriate and robust”.

Senator Tom Binet said he had already ordered a review because he had reservations about whether Jersey’s laws were fit for purpose.

“Importantly that review made it clear that our arrangements are not sufficiently robust, as I was advised, previously, and that work is urgently needed to further our compliance with international standards and support increased regulatory maturity,” he said.

Work on an overhaul has begun, but the minister said he could give no timetable for completion.

The Medicines (Jersey) Law 1995 and the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 are both set to be amended, and the role and responsibilities of the Chief Pharmacist will be considered.

The review found that Jersey fell short of international standards and could not currently be recognised by other jurisdictions as a competent authority for medicines.

It warned that the shortcomings also limited the Island’s ability to export products at scale and attract investment in life sciences.

The review recommended taking steps to address immediate risks while keeping existing businesses operating, followed by a system that could recover some of its costs through industry fees.

It also proposed drawing on expertise from trusted partners such as the UK’s medicines regulator where that expertise was unavailable locally.

The review concluded that “Jersey cannot rely on current arrangements if it is to protect public health, support regulated activity, and participate meaningfully in the international life sciences economy”.