BEFORE each election, there is always an important public issue which regretfully falls victim to the timings of the electoral cycle – this year it was PFAS; specifically what level should the Island set for the limit in its public water supply, and on what timeframe?
Ostensibly they are two simple questions, but ones with far-reaching and potentially costly ramifications.
Which is why the relevant Scrutiny Panel was entirely within its rights to “call-in” the Minister’s proposals for a closer look – a move which also effectviely vetoed the chance for a decision on this matter by the current administration.
Of course, those who have followed this growing issue closely for many years, will query what exactly there is still to look at, given the extensive work of the Scientific Advisory Panel specifically, and the reams of information which is already in the public domain more generally.
However, they were also faced with two key concerns. Firstly, although that Panel has published a draft report, it is still to officially confirm those recommendations, they are now out for consultation – in effect, the Panel knows what it wants to say, but hasn’t finally said it.
Secondly, despite that fact, the Environment Minister has gone ahead anyway and formally proposed limits and timeframe, namely the 4 nanograms of PFAS per litre, within 5 years. He said he would bring a proposal before the elections, so he did so, and laid it before the States Assembly for a decision.
That proposal was then the subject of two swift amendments – one from the Health Minister, and remember at heart, this is an issue of public health; and secondly from the Treasury Minister, who is the shareholder representative for Jersey Water, the company which will have to make sure the limit and timeframe are met.
Whatever your perspective on this debate, those are clearly important voices – and they both disagreed with what the Environment Minister was proposing.
It is an episode from which few emerge with much credit: the Minister can say he did what he promised, and brought a proposal – but without carrying his ministerial colleagues with him, they clearly needed more time for consideration, as did the appropriate Scrutiny Panel, and Jersey Water, who had less than twenty-four hours notice of his proposals.
The fact the issue has clearly gathered substantial momentum will be cold comfort to the campaigners, who now await the decision of a government which is yet to be elected.
Perhaps the former Environment Minister had it right when he described it as a “political hot mess”.
