1

Le Andrew

Very emotive subject. Brave on the no voters.
The money had already been allocated; up to the Health Dept to utilize their allocation differently. The main causes of bowel cancer should be attacked also : these are – bad diet (fatty animal foods, processed foods, high protein intake, lack of veg/fruit), lack of exercise, obesity, smoking, excess alcohol; also genetics, Chron`s and ulcerative colitis come into play and those at risk here should keep a careful eye on their health.

Report abuse

3

bart

Hold your heads in shame states members who voted against. Disgusted isn’t the word.

Report abuse

5

mike

A very emotive subject. I agree with Le Andrew. Health should look at thier budget and allocate resources acordingly. Well done to the no voters. I’m sure all of them would rather have the screening but not at the expense of another committee. A no vote was a vote against the bully.

Report abuse

7

bella

what a disgusting state of affairs.If this money had been used for other health reasons i could accept, but to store a load of unimportant junk, states members hang your heads in shame. the people of guernsey stood together against the incinerator, the time has come to stand up again. And please at the next election, remember the ones who voted for junk against health, at times like this it makes me ashamed to be a guern.

Report abuse

9

Rachel

It’s a difficult decision but I agree that the Health department need to work out their budget better rather than trying to grab much needed money from other departments. Something has gone seriously wrong when we don’t have enough money to save lives AND protect valuable heritage objects for future generations, however we do have enough to overspend on other “non-essential” things.

Report abuse

11

dave

Le Andrew & Mike, I really hope you never need the scanning, watch what you say though, Darren is correct in what he says.

Report abuse

13

soph

The States should never have debated this!
A winner/loser situation over a paltry £250,000.

If the money was really going to make that amount of difference as to when screening could start, why not approach Treasury and ask for it as a special dispensation? Its the equivalent to 10 lowly paid Civ Serv jobs (1 per dept) not being replaced!

The (I think requete spelling?) was well meaning but has led to people losing even more cred in our Government. Monty Python comes to mind again.

Our heritage is important, health screening too. But is this fiasco going to lead to more in the future on similar grounds?

I hope not. BTW Asterix should be on view somewhere in UK where many more people would be able to see her

Report abuse

15

CheesedOff

You deputies who voted against a screening programme ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Lets hope none of you or your nearest and dearest are ever diagnosed with bowel cancer only to be told “sorry it’s too late to do anything for you now, we needed to catch it sooner”.

Report abuse

17

Eric Graham

Words just fail me when the Guernsey government are left having to make a decision as to one or the other.
A bowel cancer screening programme should have been implemented here in Guernsey years ago, there should be no choice, it should be available now as part of the health care provision available.
This decision is highly unlikely to prevent the screening programme going ahead, as the adverse publicity that will be generated by the public will bring forward either a generous benefactor or a public donation scheme being set up.
What is even more disappointing is that the Deputies against, which are mainly Ministers of various departments, have made no constructive comments as to where else in the States budgets, some £200,000 could be saved.

Report abuse

19

mumof 2

Well said Darren,

Life or Death?

My friends Husband was diagnosed and died with bowel cancer nearly 3 years ago, leaving a devastated wife and five children, tell me that is right,
maybe the deputies that voted against a scanner should visit some of the relatives that are left to pick up the pieces.

shame on you all!

Report abuse

21

PC

A budget is drawn up for each department for which they have had input into and someone playing at being a politician knows he is adding voters to his next campaign by jumping onto emotive subjects such as this. The real question is why Health do not have the funding within their budget or why they are not diverting funds from within their pot. The answer is there are probably other illness’s requiring the funding. Why not divert funds from self inflicted illness such as smoking/drug related diseases?

Report abuse

23

Wil

Note the wording people. The money is for “improving storage of museum objects” -so it is not as if the paintings/objects are going to be destroyed etc if they dont get this money right now. In the short-term the “objects” would have been perfectly fine but now this decision for “improving storage” has come at a cost of peoples lives… its as simple as that.

Report abuse

25

Paul Le Page

It’s all very well saying the HSSD should work out their budgets better but why should people be denied the opportunity for life saving treatment whilst civil service bean counters argue over figures?

I may have a simplistic view of all this but to my mind there was never an argument. The screening programme should have taken priority full stop. I cannot believe anyone voted against it in favour of storing museum pieces.

Report abuse

27

Ray

Listening to the debate ( which took hours because of REPETITION)it was obvious that some speakers were out to give HSSD a bit of a kicking because of their constant inability to manage their budget properly

Hard luck on a good cause but it will probably pass through next time

Did I mention REPETITION in debates ? What a turn off

Report abuse

29

What's the point?

Crohn’s Sufferer
What an belligerent and antagonistic post!

I think you made a typo though. As a sufferer from Crohn’s disease yourself, calling Le Andrew ignorant is a little pot, kettle, black as you should know better than anybody else that symptoms of Crohn’s disease affect each individual person in extremely different ways! So whilst you may not be able to eat fruit or vegetables, I can assure you there are many with Crohn’s who can! Also, you’ve actually missed the whole point of his post in that Le Andrews is just stating there are reported lifestyles that can increase chances of bowel cancer.

A little on the defensive side too: Le Andrew isn’t “attacking” people with Crohn’s at all, merely stating that those with the disease are at a higher risk of bowel cancer. That, I’m sorry to say, is a fact.

Report abuse

31

Le Andrew

Dear Darren and Wht a Surprise,
I put genetics amongst the reasons for the occurrance of bowel cancer.
Dear Crohn`s Sufferer,
Sorry I spelt it incorrectly and for your ill health – but as with Darren it one of the the cause, not just the others reasons.
You also assume that I am against the screener -
far from it; it is the States allocation of funds that is wrong : alot of the stored `heritage` is has been inherited from the old museum and should be off loaded.
But once allocations are made it should be a done deal. It is the original allocation of the resources that should be assessed and attacked if deemed incorrectbut once made it should not be changed otherwise it will be free for all with requttes etc by various politicians who head certain depts.

Report abuse

33

Homer Simpson

I Hope I’m not speaking out of turn here… I live in Jersey and can’t believe that your States members are as out of touch with reality as ours are!! Tho I’d say ours definitly have lower IQs imho

Did something as important as this screening actually need to go to a vote? What is more important inanimate relics from the past, or living human beings?

Just make sure you don’t forget this come voting time.

Report abuse

35

Gary Blanchford

The States voted £120,000 for a day out for about 20 politicians in June. The British Irish Conference. Although they apparently only spent £60,000 in the end. I think our Government has it’s priorities mixed up. On that occasion Bowel Cancer screening was again the loser in the debate.

Report abuse

37

Just A Point of View

A close family member is seriously ill with bowel cancer, yet I am glad the States voted the way they did. In my opinion, the vote was not against bowel cancer screening, it was against the hijacking of another department’s money by HSSD.

I have a very good reason to want bowel cancer screening, but it would not be right to take away money that could be used to save things that are important to Guernsey’s history and are mouldering away in inadaquate storage. Instead HSSD should have been challenged to find that money from its own budget. How about laying the gardens at the PEH to lawn instead of flower beds? That could save a heck of a lot of money on gardening. Or take a serious look at the number of administration staff required.

It is completely beside the point to try and equate two things as different as a human life and the culture of our island, and the deputies should never have been put in the position of having to decide between the two in the first place. I will say (and I know that many people will disagree with me) that for me personally there is a very big difference between living and existing, and part of the difference is in how we treat our history and culture.

I hope that in the future bowel cancer screening will be made available, and I hope that it is funded by some of the obvious savings to be made by HSSD rather than by taking money earmarked for other departments’ projects.

Report abuse

39

local

ITS FOR SAVING LIVES. what planet are these deputies on i just cant believe what they are doing to this island.

Report abuse

41

Archie

Again…the news item says: About 35 cases are confirmed each year….How many of these 35 is it too late for!!!! How many lives have to be lost to ‘preserve and store’ a pile of rubbish!!! If I ever get ill, I’ll save the states the money, go to the nearest vet, and get put down! I am fuming with our government.

Report abuse

43

TL

This is a difficult one. I can certainly understand why the posters above who are appalled by the decision are so appalled.

But the problem is that when you break it down to individual arguments over one health treatment vs another non-health service, the health treatment would nearly always win. So if you take that to its logical conclusion, you’d pass this requete, then be faced with another requete for another £200k for some other treatment, etc, etc. All of the treatments would be worthy and it would always appear to be financially justifiable when looked at in isolation.

But before you knew it, we’d be living on an island where the grass was not cut on public land, where public toilets are shut, where we have no preserved heritage, etc.

I am not decided over whether this was a bad decision or was a hard but correct decision. But I certainly don’t think that it as clear cut as many other posters seem to think.

Report abuse

45

martynl

Let’s get the facts right – The States have not rejected bowel screening.
All they have done is said is that the funding cannot be taken taken from anothjer departments budget.
The BoH could fund it easily by slimming down their HR department by 3-4 people, and hey presto, its solved!!
lets remember the BoH have £100m to play with – now is the time to see value for money – if the head of the HR department needs 80+ people to help him, then he should be the first to go – That’s £100,000 in the piggy bank already!!

Report abuse

47

bella

dave jones. you did vote against bowl cancer screening. h.s.s.d didnt do their job properly, but that didnt stop you correcting the error.if this money was going to a worthwhile project o.k. but it looks like a dig at the b.o.h. but its a very nasty dig at the public

Report abuse

49

Wil

Dave, I respect that you do not agree with the mechanism by which the decision came to the states but the fact is that it came to the states nevertheless, did it not?
Any personal views on HSSD as a whole are irrelevant. Im sure a lot of people have negative views of your department but when making important decisions any preconceived notions, bias and departmental bickering must be put to the side so that the issue at hand does not get clouded. So, all of these issues which you raised should not even enter the discussion. You call it an emotional issue on the side of the screening? Im sure that it is just as emotional on the side of museum objects and even moreso on the part of departmental bickering over finances which clouded the simple decision which needed to be made.
A decision was put to the states. The decision, whether you like it or not, to be made by yourself and other states members was between upgrading storage facilities and bowel cancer screening. That was the decision, the decision was made – and it was the wrong one.

Report abuse

51

Martino

I can see where TL and other posters are coming from when they say it’s not a clear cut issue but the bottom line surely is this. The Fallaize proposal gave deputies the opportunity to bring in bowel screening sooner rather than later. That’s clearly what most people want and it is clear too that most men and women in the street don’t really care if another department is ‘robbed’ of some of its funds to pay for the earliest introduction of this particular service. They just want bowel screening to be brought in now, straight away, toute de suite.
Yes, HSSD should have allocated the necessary funds from its runaway budget and yes this situation should never have arisen. Yes, too, there are other areas of the health spend that HSSD should address in order to free up funds for vital areas like bowel cancer screening. Others have mentioned the number of administrators and HR people on the wage bill. Also the ridiculous policy of spending huge amounts to send legal high chavs to the UK for expensive ‘treatment’.
Maybe HSSD will take this debate as a wake up call but for most people out there the outcome is highly unsatisfactory.

Report abuse

53

David

I think Dave Jones and martynl have hit the nail firmly on the head here. Most of the posters are under the misconception that the States voted against screening, but all they have really said is that HSSD are quite capable of reorganising their huge budget to fund it.
The most staggering info to come out of this debate is that HSSD have 80 (EIGHTY! ) working in their HR department. Surely that’s not possible….what’s the ratio of HSSD employees to HR administrators? This has surely identified one area in which huge savings can be made to enable Deputy Adam to fund some of the things which apparently HSSD cannot fund at present, without increasing its budget. It totally defies belief that it needs 80 HR staff.

Report abuse

55

Steve

Well Dave Jones you have heared the people.
Stick 10% on income tax and everyone can be screened for every possible illness.
Everyone will be happy.

Report abuse

57

valeite

Yes I think it is an appalling decision not to have bowel screening, there is nothing more precious than life, it is a no brainer.

Artefacts will still be around in 6months time, but it might be too late for one of us.

Well I certainly have made a note who not to vote for in my parish at the next election.

Report abuse

59

soph

An interesting variety of replies. I feel distressed about people afflicted by this disease.

But even more upset that the debate took place. It never should have! Maybe next month’s amendment, requete or whatever could be taking a similar amount off airport runway improvements and devoted to say putting a bicycle track along the Forest Road or starting an on road recycling scheme!

Its the principle, not allocation of £ that counts. Never ever do I want to see another debate like this one ended up

Report abuse

61

Archie

I agree with soph. The matter should never have become a debate.

I put in simple like this, if the states had not of ‘wasted’ so much money on things past, there would be plenty of ‘tax payers’ money to pay for the essentials.

The new airport termainal, what a waste for such a fancy looking, useless, building. It does not function properly, bad design, the roof leaks for starters! A building that had all essentails could have been designed and built for a lot lot less, saving millions. But you chose to put a big show on with it.

Millions wasted on a computer system for DHSS a few years ago that never worked!! The list goes on. How much of our hard earned money do the states waste on ‘non essentials’.

Seems to me all the new deputies, all full of talk when they want votes soon become a band of brothers when elected. And those who do go against the grain, soon leave.

States of Guernsey, you waste our money on rubbish and make excuses when there is supposed to be no money spare for essentials. You have geared yourself up to impress the banks but neglect who the Island belongs to.

Is it time our Island got a true leader, not a bunch of self-important idiots! For starters, island wide voting should be brought in then we all get a chance to vote for who we believe should be running this island. Not narrowed down to who represents our parish. Time we had a leader who believed in essantials, not glamour.

Mr. Trott. Maybe less trips abroad campaigning for your beloved finance industry would help save some cash. You cannot rely on finance forever as our only means of income.

Wake up, face the facts, stop wasting money, stop throwing it away and stick to the essentials. This Island is a community of people, not a business empire and this Island belongs to the Guernseyman, not banks.

I want to see horticulture and tourism back in the front line of our finances, not relying on finance, and this Island, stop destroying it with non essential buildings. This os Guernsey, not London or Monacco!

You only have yourselves to blame those of you who run this Island. And again, it is costing us, the tax payer, the true Guernseyman.

Report abuse

63

Cliff

Soph – You’re right the debate should never have taken place. Perhaps now Amendment Man (Matt Fallaize) will think twice before he puts forward these ridiculous amendments, especially the diificult position it places his colleagues in.

The green ink brigade obviously didn’t bother to listen to the debate or find out facts before commenting on this and other similar threads. All those that spoke in the house against this said that it was a vote against the inappropiate nature of the amendment and not a vote against BCS.
The States do prioritse health over heritage that’s why the the formers budget is 100 times more. This would be the same as C&L spending £2000.
Do not underestimate the importance of our unique island heritage and history, it made us, it defines us, it educates us and is the key driver of tourism to Guernsey. No small contribution I’d say.

Report abuse

65

Matt Fallaize

Wil has captured very neatly the criteria upon which the States should have based its decision last week. Excellent post!

David says that HSSD’s employing 80 staff in its human resources division was “the most staggering info to come out of this debate”. It was, indeed, staggering – primarily because it is wholly untrue. This spurious claim will remain a spurious claim no matter how many times it is repeated, but of course once they gather momentum it is easy for such myths to be perpetuated.

Deputy Jones’ post requires correction in several respects.

He says that bowel cancer screening was not among the funding bids which HSSD submitted to the States Strategic Plan process. This is utter nonsense. HSSD requested funding for bowel cancer screening in 2009 and again in 2010.

He says that if HSSD requires money to commence a bowel cancer screening programme, it should propose an increase to its capital allocation at the time of the Budget, to be debated in December. This, too, is utter nonsense. Bowel cancer screening is an ongoing service requiring additional revenue; it has nothing whatsoever to do with any department’s capital allocation or the capital prioritisation process.

He says that he and Deputy Dorey tried to lay an amendment which would have added bowel cancer screening to the list of new services. Actually Deputy Dorey had nothing to do with it; that amendment was seconded by Deputy Gillson. And in reality the amendment would have made no difference, proposing as it did no additional funding to enable bowel cancer screening to be introduced.

Deputy Jones and several other posters do not like the process which resulted in the States being asked to choose between funding the storage of museum objects and bowel cancer screening. I have considerable sympathy for that view. Indeed, more than once I and other members have attempted radically to reform the policy planning process; alas, we have been unsuccessful thus far.

But in any event is not rejecting the opportunity to introduce bowel cancer screening a rather heavy price to have paid for sticking to a quite dubious principle about process?

It is claimed above that my amendment proposed taking money from the budget of another department to pay for screening. This is demonstrably untrue. The States (unwisely in my view, but that’s for another day) decided last year that between 2009 and 2012 in any one year it would introduce new services up to the value of any efficiency savings which it predicted to realise in that same year. The figure for 2011 was £2.4m. So, last week we were debating how to allocate £2.4m. of effectively newly available money on top of existing departmental budgets. The notion that my amendment would have taken away money already allocated to Culture & Leisure reveals a misunderstanding of the process. I was merely proposing that if a sum of £200-250,000 of ‘new money’ was to be made available in 2011, it would be better spent on a bowel cancer screening programme than improving the storage of museum objects.

Although the Policy Council recommended not funding bowel cancer screening in 2011, I took a contrary view and wished to ask the States to make the final decision; hence the amendment. The reasons I took a contrary view are quite simple.

Bowel cancer is the second most common form of cancer in the Bailiwick. About 35 new cases are diagnosed every year. Clinical results indicate that modern methods of screening for bowel cancer reduce the number of cases which develop by 30% or more, and result in 40% fewer deaths in those cases of cancer which do develop. Of bowel cancer patients whose diagnosis occurs in the early stages of the illness, 85-90% will still be alive five years later.

The island’s Medical Officer of Health advised me that the introduction of modern bowel screening would represent a step change in public health. Indeed, a comprehensive screening programme, as my amendment proposed, would be one of, if not the, single most significant immediate public healthcare initiative the States could introduce.

At no time have I suggested that heritage is unimportant. I simply couldn’t accept that the storage of museum objects was anywhere near as essential as the introduction of a cancer screening programme able to deliver the sort of benefits to which I have referred above. The States listened patiently to the case I made, and the amendment was debated very thoroughly, but 23 of the 44 deputies who voted disagreed with me, and of course one has to accept the democratic outcome. I still feel on the floor that the States choose to prioritise museum storage instead of bowel cancer screening, but I also wish to congratulate those inside and outside the States who supported the heritage project and who won the debate and will now have the funds available to carry out improvements for which they have been waiting some considerable time.

Report abuse

67

Dave Jones

Given most of the postings on here it is clear that many people think that the decision we made was wrong. I take that as a clear indication that those who disagreed with the way I voted are happy for Health spending in Guernsey to reach any level it chooses and the financial waste in HSSD can continue unchecked, while we raise taxes to meet it because that will be the result of any public backlash. It would seem by some of the comments that some people simply don’t care that HSSD already receive the biggest slice of the financial cake and would much prefer to pay more from their incomes to give to health……. We will see.

Report abuse

69

Matt Fallaize

ChrisJ,

In the debate I preferred to stick to percentages because brutal statements about x number of people living and dying may have been interpreted as gratuitously emotive.

For the same reason, and also because I am obviously not an authority on medicine, I’m not going to put an exact figure to your question. However, medical professionals seem to talk in terms of at least a dozen more successful cases every year.

Dave,

I doubt that anyone believes that spending on health and social services should be allowed to grow uncontrollably. And it hasn’t. In the past five years, HSSD’s budget (revenue + capital allocation) has grown by 33% and Culture & Leisure’s budget has grown by about 25%. That hardly tells a story of throwing money at health uncontrollably while starving funding for heritage, which was erroneously alleged several times in the debate.

In any case, Dave, HSSD’s budget has grown in recent years and stands at its current level only because deputies, including you and I, have voted for that. If any deputy thinks that HSSD’s budget is too great and that it is wasting money unnecessarily, he or she should propose an amendment to the Budget (in December) to cut their cash limit for 2011? If not, these claims of largesse look a bit empty and superficial.

Report abuse

71

David

Matt Fallaize
I’m obviously very relieved that the figure of 80 HR staff in HSSD is untrue. However, the public only knows that the public is old, so its wholly understandable how that information gets picked up and misused.
Can you please tell us (a) what the correct figure is, and (b) why the figure of 80 was stated in the first place by whoever stated it if it isn’t accurate?

Report abuse

73

ChrisJ

Matt Fallaize,

The problem with your percentages is that they are ‘relative risk’ percentages. They look big and impressive at first glance, but you haven’t said what they are relative to, so on their own they are meaningless. For example, when you say there will be ’40% fewer deaths’ – that is 40% fewer than how many?

I don’t buy the ‘medical professionals seem to talk in terms of at least a dozen’ line. Who are they? In what report do they say ‘at least a dozen’? At least a dozen what – cases prevented? Deaths prevented? Cases diagnosed by screening?

Report abuse

75

Greg

Surely this whole episode just confirms that senior management of HSSD needs to be sacked and replaced with people who can actually do the job?

If bowel cancer is so prevalent in Guernsey (as Matt Fallaize points out) then what sort of idiots do we have running HSSD that they can’t find £200K out of a multi-million pound budget?

It’s time for the head people in HSSD to come up with some explanations.

Report abuse

77

Stephen John

David

When you consider the wide range of activities of HSSD and the ability of States Departments to duplicate activities, the total staff involved in HR activities and support could be near to 80.

Like you I look forward to seeing the true figure bit also the breakdown of activities, so that we can check if certain categories have been excluded to airbrush the number 80 so that the redacted figure is politically accepatable.

Report abuse

79

Archie

Matt Fallaize, can you help me understand what HSSD is responsible for in Guernsey? I have seen that there is some finger pointing at HSSD, so would like to ask also, why HSSD did not budget for a scanner and why is the HSSD struggling with the budget they have got?

Barry Brehaut, thanks for the figures of staff in HR, seems like a lot chiefs and not enough indians! Maybe time to think along the lines of the conservatives, cut out the middle man and go direct to the doctors. Sure that would save HSSD alot of money if the bureaucracy was cut.

A bit more bureaucracy needs to be dealt with too, from witnessing the experience of others suffering with bowel problems, is the lack of good specialists who can detect the illness, let alone treat the illness!!

We get a good specialist and thanks to Guernsey bureaucracy, after a certain lenght of time the specialist have to leave. So many good ones have gone, true specialists, especialy in the bowel field. When is the bureaucracy going to end? Why does good medical specialists have to go back to the UK when there are 100′s of foriegn workers here doing non essential jobs, jobs we are capable of doing, who are allowed to stay for as long as they want. No disrespect to foreign workers, I just want to know why good specialists get sent home and why we get left with so called medical experts that for one, nearly killed a friend of mine as he, for years was mis-diagnosed, and it was eventually found to be bowel cancer, diagnosed by a Southhampton specialist. My friend was a lucky one, though not out the woods. How many not so lucky???

Report abuse

81

Dave Jones

Matt is right on one point, I should have said Deputy Gillson and not Deputy Dorey.
Matt is basically a tax and spend Deputy; I have absolutely no doubt he will be prepared to increase taxes in order that Health can continue to spend any amount of money it chooses, on the grounds that Health must always have the funding it needs regardless of how much they waste. If not why would he not support my stance that Health must learn to live within its budget and cut out the profligate waste which would give it the funding it needs for Bowel cancer screening.
Matt knew exactly what he was doing by placing the amendment he did. He knew that if he could get a real raw emotional tug of war going between the Bowel cancer screening programme and the museum service, it would achieve a demonstrative, emotive public backlash if his amendment was not supported. Fortunately over half the States members preferred to tell Health to stop wasting money and get on with the BCS programme themselves from the substantial funds they already receive and directing the money the Fallaize amendment wanted for health on to the museum service where it is desperately needed. This was pure politics on Deputy Fallaize part, he knows as do all of us that Health could have funded this screening programme anytime they wanted but instead they chose to waste thousands of pounds on nursery places that were never used, new signs around the whole of the PEH, bringing a UK company to do it. Spend their money on pretty sweat shirts for their computer team (housing staff don’t have uniform sweat shirts, as we would consider that a complete waste of taxpayers money) the new computer system that was supposed to be handed over in 2009 and is still not compatible with the Social Service branch of HSSD. This also does not take into account many of the other areas of administrative waste nurses tell me of periodically and were identified by Gary Burgess on the radio yesterday. Also HSSD had the opportunity to introduce screening in 2005 and 2007 and yet the Board of the day decided it was not urgent even though they had the money at that time, so they must have spent it on something else. Health used Deputy Fallaize to try and secure this funding because they did not have the courage to do it themselves, I would have had much more respect for Health’s position if they had brought the amendment forward themselves instead of riding on the coat tails of another Deputy. You can expect more of these kinds of tactics from the tax and spenders in the States and every time the States does not give them what they want, another emotive comparison will be made in an attempt to blackmail members to toe the line for fear of a public backlash. Matt is right Health spending has gone up year on year I accept that, which proves the States has supported Health at every turn but that has nothing to do with financial waste which Is what I want tackled especially in the administration of our health service and no amount of hand wringing will change that fact.

I am pleased that Barry has made the point on HR staff clear.

Report abuse

83

Barry Brehaut

When I first joined the HSSD board back in 2008 there were then, and there still are difficulties in attracting staff to gsy. The then board investigated the possibility of running its own creche, buying a building or existing nursery or leasing a property, and of course attemting to staff it. The maths did not add up one proposed site would have cost 400k before even conversion or staffing,start up cost alone were heading towards 600k plus. There were about 22 staff using the nursery and the subsidy had become disproporionate, but it must be remembered that the cost of recruiting say 5 senior staff, would have wiped out the overspend on the nursery, and the nursery did assist in both recruitment and retention. On being informed of the numbers and take-up the subsidy and provision was withdrawn, at the risk of course of some staff potentially leaving HSSD.

With regard to what priority HSSD gave C R Screening it was only with the appointment of a clinician at the MSG that the new model became workable.

On a general note, there was no ‘smash and grab’ or ‘raiding culture and leisure’ we were there to initiate new service provision realised by the FTP process, this was a continuation of a process not a corruption of process.

bb.

Report abuse

85

kevin

dave jones you have not adressed one point I made in my post. The fact is whatever the rights and wrongs you lot(and I’m not just blaming you)have DELAYED introducing bowel cancer screening. You should have taken the chance to introduce screening and sorted out the politics afterwards. Instead you chose to play politics with peoples lives. I think the public have made their judgement and you are going to have to live with yours. Enough said.

Report abuse

87

Bella

Dave Jones

I’m confused. I thought all spending on’new’ services, regardless of dept, had to go through the States Strategic Plan prioritisation process?

So even if HSSD stuck their hands down the back of the sofa tomorrow and magically came up with £200k in savings, they wouldn’t be allowed to just go out and spend that money on bowel cancer.

Instead the 200k would be sucked into the central pot for divvying out amongst next year’s pan-dept “new services” list, wouldn’t it?

To me, that’s one of the major drawbacks with the current SSP system. Departments no longer have the autonomy to find creative ways of directly funding urgent new stuff…

Report abuse

89

Archie

No one answering the question of when we are going to get a scanner. So is this something we have to raise money for like the MRI scanner?

Is it true that those in private health care get prefference in using the MRI scanner? Seems to me, if we want essential medical gear, we have to raise money for it while the well off make the most of it.

Report abuse

91

sol

Archie
well said, your bang on the nail .

Report abuse

93

Eric Graham

Guernsey civil servants pay details were published today.
There are 2038 “established staff” and of these, 340 are on senior officer grades earning anything from £43,148 to £130,940.
In January 2011, on top of their current saleries, they will get a payrise of 1.5%, last year they received no pay increase.

£200,000 for a bowel cancer scanning programme is absolute chicken feed compared to these ever increasing saleries that have even much wider connotations in regard to future costing through their states pension scheme.

Until the States get on top of expenditure of this magnitude, we will continue to struggle to fund any future emerging life threatening screening programmes.

Report abuse

95

Dave Jones

Wil

I am interested to know if the majority of the States voted the way they did because of “departmental jealousies”.
By the way States members tell housing every time the Corporate Housing programme comes to the States how we could do it better, although the last debate on Housing in May this year resulted in several members congratulating housing on its success.

Report abuse

97

Sean McManus

I was one Deputy who came to the debate with an open mind but an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to the preference arising from the process in the event of each case being equally good.

As it happens, the case set out by Deputy Fallaize on behalf of bowel cancer screening was significantly stronger than that presented by those favouring the alternative… and I voted accordingly.

That said, throughout the debate I retained real concerns that I was listening to squabbles over the crumbs falling from a cake which had yet to be baked.

In the event of actual savings being made our artifacts should now benefit. If the savings fail to materialise, it seems our black hole will simply expand to accommodate the expenditure voted for last week. Further, we probably face the prospect of another attempt to satisfy the expectations raised by the publicity surrounding the bowel cancer screening.

Are voters prepared to support the States in the event of further budgetary imbalance to foster service expansion?

Report abuse

99

eh?

Sean

Try speaking in plain English. For translation purposes………

………………………….

I wasn’t sure which way I would vote but eventually agreed with Matt F.

We spent the day or so arguing for money that we didn’t actually have and people were a bit nasty too each other and I was hurt.

I have no confidence in the States to make any savings so the debate was a waste of time and we are in a lot of poo. Back at you Mr & Mrs Jo Public, we can’t make any savings are you prepared to pay more tax?

Chances are it will come back to the States in the next few sessions and get through. We tend to make decisions based on the front page of the Guernsey Press and how close we are to losing our jobs. 2012 looms large – scarwy!!!

………………………….

I’m here all week

Report abuse

101

Ray

Paul Le Page

I’m not sure that there was much of a public clamour BEFORE the debate.I should think that most people,including me,would have expected Matt’s proposition to sail through

All of the clamour seems to have come AFTER the debate because of the surprise result

Those who are now demanding that everyone who voted Contre should lose their seats are actually calling for about half the States members to be thrown out,which could be interesting in 2012… perhaps Mr Kirk will come back and give it another try!

I listened to the whole days debate ( get a life !)and it was clear that many members took the opportunity to air their dissatisfaction at the way the HSSD budget is being mismanaged

What would be a nice vote winning gesture is for Culture & Leisure to sort out which items in storage really do relate to the Bailwick’s history and auction off the hundreds/thousands? of items which don’t fit the criteria AND THEN offer all of the sale proceeds to support the 200K yearly cost of the bowel screening unit

Report abuse

103

Dave Jones

Paul Le P

You say we are out of touch, well being in touch with the people changes on a daily basis I can tell you. The biggest gripe from the public before the last election and until recently was the sheer waste of money in States Departments that was the topic that concentrated people’s minds. The BOA overspent millions on projects many years ago and it has never been forgotten. However the public are fickle the public backlash and subsequent demonstration outside the States over the incinerator and the cancellation of the Suez contract which I agreed with cost the Island millions but that was OK because that’s what it would seem the public wanted. This issue to me was always about getting health to live within its astronomical budget and to tell them to get on and get this screening Programme up and running and you have to remember HSSD did not even prioritise the Programme themselves. Paul if you know anyone who works in HSSD you will know that there is much waste to be tackled. As for re-election, I don’t vote with one eye on the next election, I vote because I believe the policy is right and I repeat HSSD could have introduced this service anytime they wanted. If the public disagree with my decision, then they will have a chance to replace us all very soon and if I do stand again which is debatable and I fail to be elected, then democracy will have been served and you will not hear any complaints from me on that score.

Report abuse

105

Eh?

Mr Mc Manus

If you did your jobs and made the right efficiency decisions there would be no reason for a lottery, as you put it.

You do not govern the Island, the Civil Service governs and the body politique’s input is largely ceremonial.

Now that’s really scary!!

Report abuse

107

Sean McManus

Ah, Eh?

Interesting assertions.

Insofar as it might help, I seconded the Sillar’s amendment in order to clarify the precise meaning of the term “efficiency savings” and to encourage others to sign up to the notion of living within the means we have already set ourselves. That amendment failed and you might wish to look at the voting record as set out in the Press.

And now I must away to “do my job” at another meeting.

Your remarks about the Civil service might well prompt a new thread but do feel free to contact me to explore your notion of ceremonality. (Contact details in the ‘phone book.)

Report abuse

109

Archie

David Jones, what is the answer then? Do you believe alot of tax payers money has been wasted in past years? Why is there no money in the ‘rainy day fund’ for such essential medical equipment and other essential needs of the island? And will Guernsey get a bowel screening programme at any point?

Report abuse

111

TL

Toby: “But before you all criticise the States for their decision,…”

you’re about 6 days too late!

Report abuse

113

Bella

Dave Jones

Could I draw your attention to my post of Nov 1st 11.10pm above? You have kindly answered everyone else’s points but seem to have missed mine.

Many thanks

Bella (a different one)

Report abuse

115

Paul Le Page

Thanks for your reply Deputy Jones. You will notice from my posts that I sympathise with you (and your colleagues in the House) when it comes to keeping a finger on public opinion – we are indeed a fickle bunch! It’s not an impossible job though.

Take this case – I don’t think many people would disagree with you in your efforts to cut HSSD wastage. As an IT Consultant by trade I find the T-shirts issue particularly pathetic – most IT people I know would laugh at the idea of wearing a “trendy” new uniform….in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the HSSD IT Department aren’t making cynical jibes at the idea right now!

On reflection perhaps I was a bit hasty in my criticism, as it appears we all want the same thing – we are just approaching it in a different way.

In my first post I commented that the issues with HSSD wastage should not prevent potentially life saving healthcare – and I stand by that position. I fully support a review of HSSD budgeting and wastage – I just think the States have got the timings wrong. In my opinion, this is the correct chronological order of action:

- Implementation of bowel cancer screening programme now, using the money earmarked for Culture & Leisure.

- A review and subsequent debate in the House about HSSD budgets and wastage.

- A proportion of the cost savings transferred to Culture and Leisure to improve museum storage.

Surely this would satisfy all parties?

Report abuse

117

Barry Brehaut

In response to ‘wasting money on signs’

The last HSSD board were presented with a paper in 2007 suggesting that the signs throughout the PEH site should become uniform following complaints from members of the public. Those with a visual impairment and the elderly in particular, at times, found signs were confusing, different colours, sizes and typeface, some were written on paper and stuck over existing signs.

The board felt at that time that it would not be appropriate to spend on the PEH site signs.

Following the completion of the clinical block the site (quite obviously) would have signs directing you to places and wards that had been demolised. New signs were erected in a clear uniform style. The alternative was to have new signs alongside old signs that would have already been reconfigured.

If you are calling in to see a friend or relation then perhaps you cam slowly find your way around, however for emergency cases signs need to be clear and leave you in no doubt.

BB.

Report abuse

119

Archie

Paul Le Page made the most sense with his last post. If HSSD are wasting money on ‘non essential’ stuff like David Jones says, then I can fully understand why some of the States Deputies get annoyed and why they voted the way they did. I totaly agree with Paul Le Page! Nice one Paul!

One way HSSD could raise money for itself is to introduce paid parking at the hospital with a designated free parking areas for hospital visitors and for staff.

Report abuse

121

Dave

I havn’t had time to read over all the comments as I’m on my lunch hour and pushed for time. Health and lives should always come first when States members make any sort of decision. What the States needs to take a serious look at is how they are using the Islands money. The decision is madness, disgusting, lacks thought for the community, the people in it and a healthy lifestyle of whom everyone is entitled to. An excellent proposal Matt but unfortunately your piers havn’t seen the light. I know the majority of them and think they need to understand they are running an island not a circus.

Report abuse

123

Dave Jones

Bella

I have answered the question, I voted for what was in the billet and that was money for the museum service. The amendment was attempting to divert money from the museum service to health for bowel cancer screening, I took the view that as Health had not made BCS their top priority and given their huge budget, they could introduce it any time they chose to and voted accordingly. Now you may say that was wrong but I think it was a fair vote and the narrow majority of the states agreed with that view.

Archie
I do believe the States has wasted a lot of money in the past and although I have been critical of health the are addressing the problem and I have every confidence their board and Chief Exec will get on top of it in the end ( I have never said it would be easy, just that money wasted should go to things like BCS and yes I think we will have a BCS programme, possibly sooner than you think.

Report abuse

125

Archie

Thanks for your reply David Jones. Appreciated.

Report abuse

127

Shelly

You want Bowel Cancer Screening up and running asap!!! I have a very good friend who has been in St.Marks in London which specializes in cancer. She’s heard people with bowel cancer, crohn’s disease, hirschsprung’s disease, breast cancer screaming in pain at night and there was one lady when she was in there, she had 1 colostomy bag already abd she was in so much pain, she begged the doctors to do something. They took this lady in theatre, put her in a 2nd colostomy bag, so now had 2, and was only 40 years of age. She did not survive.

When my friend was in Oxford, there was a lady there 75 years of age, they found she had bowel cancer which her GP did not diagnose, put it down to colitis and my friend nearly lost her brother in the same way. For years he was told it was colitis, but it was cancer. Before being found with having bowel cancer he was put on steroids for 7 years prior, which, after being so long on steroids, caused internal bleeding.

My friend kept on at her brother to get a 2nd opinion due to what bowel trouble she had been through and the doctor he was under kept saying there was no need for a 2nd opinion as the doctor did not believe it was more than colitis. In the end, after having to be tken to A&E, in so much pain, it was a polish doctor who diagnosed the cancer. She saved his life, unlike the local doctor who was clueless and could have killed him. Now the brother also has a bag, and if the doctor in the 1st place had of listened, he might not of needed one, and the sad part about this, not only did the local doctors fail my friends brother, the lady who saved him, had to leave the island as her license to live here, after 4 attampts, would not be renewed.

If the BSC had been in place a few years ago, my friends brother would not have had to go through all the misery of wrong diagnosis, years of pain, agony, and would never have had to be as close to death as he got. Cancer runs through my friends family in Guernsey and the UK. My friends family suffer with a lot of bowel problems and one of her cousins has the same as her brother which means he needs a bag aswell. So she believes BSC should be in force to save other families what she has been through with her own Father dying when she was 13 and her younger brother was 3 and her Mum was left a widow at 39 with 5 children.

Report abuse

129

eh?

I predict a kinight in shining armour coming to the rescue. I see the fog clearing. It’s a man. No it’s two men. Knight Trott and knight Jones. They have money in their hands. Spare money. And its coming from Treasury and Resources. Heroes! Heroes! Heroes! Shout the crowd.

Vanquished are HSSD. Save are the 35.

* Fallaize signed original Amendment available on Ebay. Bidding starts at £40. Money donated to good cause.

Report abuse

131

Mike

This is a very emotive subject but take a slightly different view and the headlines might read:-

“The States sent a clear message today to HSSD that they must manage within their own Budget when an amendment, by Matt Fallaize, was defeated by 2 votes. HSSD who receive the largest budget of all departments were seeking to acquire an additional £200k at the expense of the Heritage Department whose budget is just a fraction of HSSD.”

Bowel screening is a priority! £200k is a very small proportion of the funding received by HSSD. We should be looking at HSSD to ensure it is brought in as quickly as possible. The public outrage should not be at the States as a whole but at HSSD. As a department it seems neither capable of working within its budget nor able to prioritise it’s spend.

The amendment put forward by Matt Fallaize did no favours to the States. Either the States agreed to rob one of the least funded departments (who work within their budgets) to pay the department which has by far the biggest funding thereby setting a very dangerous precedent for the future or they were seen as uncaring and callous. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Personally I hope at least some good can come of this:-

i. HSSD – please get your priorities right? You must be able to within your budget find £200k to be able to fund Bowel Cancer Screening!

ii. States – please review the processes for submission of Requetes. The method currently allows far too much abuse by individuals intent on gaining personal kudos at the expense of the states as a whole.

Report abuse

133

Islander

Having read that little lot, I come to the conclusion that the deputies vote as they think right.

That’s not what you were voted to do: you were voted into (governing) to fulfil the wish of the people-
May I- without being rude ask how many of you consulted with your constituencies

Report abuse