The Great Escape---The Jersey Connection

On 9^th of May Jersey will be celebrating the 70^th year of its Liberation after almost 5 years of Nazi Occupation. Much has been written of the hardship encountered by those living through the Occupation years. However little has been written about those who were captured on the Island whilst serving in the armed forces and this blog is dedicated to one of them: P/O (Sous Lt) Bernard Scheidhauer who was a French Airmen.

I suspect that the many Readers will have seen the film "The Great Escape" but will not be aware of its loose connection with Jersey.

The film, which was made over 50 years ago has a pivotal scene where Roger Bartlett played by Richard Attenborough and Andy McDonald (Gordon Jackson) were about to get on to a bus after showing their papers to a Gestapo agent. McDonald fell for the same trick he warned his fellow POW’s earlier in the film by replying in English.

Athough the film shows McDonald saying “thank you” after being wished good luck by the Gestapo agent, no one can be certain that the “thank you” was said in real life but what ever led to the arrest it had tragic consequences for the real airmen the actors were portraying. Both were shot in cold blood soon after.

The characters in the film were based on real men, and in some cases were composites of several men. The character of Bartlett was modelled on RAF Squadron Leader Roger Bushell, a habitual escaper who spoke good German. In the real ‘Great Escape’ Bushell’s travelling companion was Free French Air Force pilot Bernard Scheidhauer who was captured in Jersey. 

Bernard Scheidhauer was born in August 1921 and was a French pilot before becoming a member of the Free French Air Force serving in the UK. On 18^th November 1942 he was returning to England following a raid in Bayeux France. He was flying his Spitfire over Jersey when he ran out of fuel and crash landed in a field a short distance from a farm owned by the Binet family and about half a mile from my present home. Lewis Binet was aged 18 at the time and had been with his father Philip at a neighbouring farm making “black butter.”  

I have known Lewis for almost 60 years when in my youth we played football for Rozel Rovers. He is still living on the farm where 73 years ago he met Bernard Scheidhauer. The meeting is still well remembered and the following is Lewis’s account of the incident.

Lewis said he left his father around 4pm to return to his farm to tend to the cattle, on the way back he saw a Spitfire circulating overhead with its engine misfiring as if running out of fuel. Lewis saw the Spitfire land in a neighbouring field of turnips and he ran towards to it. As he got closer he saw the pilot get out of the plane, was unhurt and was walking towards him. On meeting they shook hands and were having had a general chat in which Lewis wanted to know how the war was going. Lewis said that Bernard had a good understanding of English.

They were soon joined by a group of neighbouring farmers with everyone in high spirits as they gathered round the plane which was undamaged. Surprisingly it took some time before a German soldier appeared who Lewis said had a rifle and spoke good English. He told the group that they were free to talk but as soon as his senior officers came they would have to go and leave Bernard with him.

 Bob Hill with Lewis Binet in the field where the Spitfire landed.

Soon after a number of soldiers arrived and took Bernard away. Lewis never saw him again,

After his capture Bernard was sent to Stalag Luft 111 which was a high security prisoner of war camp for airmen and deemed to be escape proof. Of the 76 who escaped only 3 reached their destination. It could be said that Bernard was unfortunate to have been teamed up with Bushell who had been threatened with death should he again attempt to escape. However it is evident that who ever was captured with Bushell was likely to be shot with him. Hitler was so enraged by the escape and ordered that 50 of the escapees be rounded up and shot in total disregard of the Geneva Convention.

Bernard Scheidhauer’s landing and short stay in Jersey is recognised, with due thanks to Ian Le Sueur who was responsible for erecting a memorial dedicated to Bernard.  The Memorial which is some 300 yards away from the initial landing was unveiled by Bernard’s sister on September 17^th 1999. Over 300 people attended the Service which included Free French Air Force veterans.

It is believed that Bernard and Roger Bushell were taken to a quiet clearing in the woods and shot in the back of their heads whilst relieving themselves. Their bodies were cremated without dignity and all evidence of their existence obliterated. I don’t know if there is a memorial dedicated to Roger Bushell but Bernard’s is situated in a quiet corner of Trinity and serves as a poignant reminder of his short time in Jersey and the tragic loss of a brave young man.

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (9)--- "The Magnificent Seven"???????

The debate relating to the additional funding for the Committee of Inquiry was concluded yesterday with a resounding victory for Chief Minister Gorst.  However his victory was sullied by the immature actions of five of his Ministers and two Assistant Ministers who let their personal feelings take precedence over those of the victims and the Island’s reputation.

Deputy Tadier’s three amendments were as anticipated kicked into touch, however his concerns over the capping of funding and time schedule should not be ignored by the Chief Minister or the Committee of Inquiry. Due diligence must be given to the money paid to Lawyers and all expenditure in that area must be heavily scrutinised. As mentioned in my previous blog the need for legal assistance should not be taken as a licence to bill. All legal expenses must be justified and not just met because of who is making the claim.

As with every debate there were some good, bad and hypercritical speeches and Senator Bailhache’s should not have been made. Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured and he made some good points however I was hoping to hear that he was going to ask his Ministers to account for the £1.8m already spent on legal fees. Perhaps suitable words of advice had been given to his big spenders prior to the debate in exchange for their votes.

Senator Bailhache as the Island’s former Solicitor and Attorney Generals, Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff should have had the nous to know that because of his past positions he is heavily conflicted so should have declared an interest and left the Chamber. He made it clear from the outset of his speech that he was going to abstain yet took the opportunity to attack those who questioned his past positions and openly proclaimed that he had nothing to fear from any scrutiny. To abstain fooled no one and was a clear vote of contre.

It should be noted that the next issue the COI will be reviewing will be paragraph 13 of ifs Terms of Reference which is "Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –  Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;  Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level. If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee."

Jersey does not have an Independent Crown Prosecution Service and the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General who apart from being the Advisor to the States is also the Titular Head of the Island's Honorary Police Force whose Centeniers have the sole right to Charge. For a lengthy period for the past 25 years Senator Bailhache and his brother William have held the position of Attorney General so presumably will be key witnesses when the COI addresses paragraph 13.

William Bailhache who is now the Bailiff rightly stood down from chairing the debate because he recognised his conflict. Sadly his older brother did not.

For Senator Bailhache to abstain was a vote against his Chief Minister, the victims and the Island of which he is its External Minister. One is entitled to ask whether Senator Bailhache’s behaviour in the Chamber renders him fit to represent the Island. The Senator also appears to have forgotten the support he received from Senator Gorst after denying he had read confidential documents on an aircraft.

Deputy Tadier made an excellent speech; left no stone unturned and had the courage to challenge the actions of people holding key positions. His comments about the burden Sark residents have to carry with the Barclay brothers and Jersey’s burden with the Bailhache brothers was illuminating. I did however wonder whether a similarity with the Krays brothers was to be included but perhaps that would have been unkind to Ronnie and Reggie. 

If Senator Gorst’s opening speech was measured it was surpassed by his closing speech in which it hit the nail bang on its head. He spoke of the cost and how difficult it was for anyone to hazard a guess as to what would be the final bill, but the States had made a commitment and it would have been far better not to have made a start at all than to stop before its completion on the grounds of cost.

He spoke of the impact the stoppage would have on the victims who at last had a feeling that not only was someone listening to them but they are being believed. Do we not owe them the closure they deserve? The third point was of equal importance that being the Island’s reputation. How could we as an Island conclude an Inquiry because we claim not to have the funds? The repercussions world wide would be too horrendous to contemplate. The backlash would have far greater financial implications than the funds required for finishing the job.

Senator Gorst’s closing speech was one befitting his status. Although to those listening it was pretty clear that he was heading for a handsome victory it was therefore disappointing that his pleas for unity and a unanimous vote were ignored by Ministers who did not have the humility to think of the bigger picture and of its impact on the victims and the Island. I defend their right to speak and to oppose, however when the time came for the vote it was obvious that they were in a tiny minority and it called for Statesmanship and to act in a manner befitting of high office but alas it was sadly lacking.

The photographs of the “Magnificent Seven” are published below. Given their concerns over the impending costs I await their explanations regarding financial prudence particularly from Ministers Refault and Bryans as their Departments have already incurred in excess of £750,000 in legal fees.

The Magnificent Seven ----Senator Bailhache, Connetable Refault of St Peter, Deputy Pinel, Deputy Bryans, Deputy Luce, Deputy Noel and Deputy Truscott can to seen below.

Senator Philip Bailhache

Connetable John Refault

Deputy Pinel

Deputy Bryans

Deputy Luce

Deputy Noel

Deputy Truscott

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (8) ---- A Licence to Bill?

Next Tuesday the States is due to debate a proposition lodged by Chief Minister Gorst seeking approval for additional funding to enable the Committee of Inquiry (COI) to complete its review which is just about to enter its second year. Trying to come up with a figure for any Inquiry is not just difficult but almost impossible because no one knows how many witnesses will come forward or what evidence will come to light. The Jersey Inquiry is proving to be no different.

It was anticipated that around £6 million would be suffice but 12 months on not only has that figure been spent but a further £13.7m is being asked for. Senator Gorst has repeatedly proclaimed his support for the COI and although his proposition (see below) is well meaning I believe it is flawed so it's pleasing to see that Deputy Tadier has lodged amendments seeking to delete 3 of Senator Gorst's proposals.

The Amendments can be read below but in summary they seek to delete the sub-paragraphs which will cap the £13m, impose a time limit and interfere with the way the COI is conducting its Inquiry. All 3 sub-paragraphs have a single theme and that is to save money. That is a theme I don't have a problem with but Senator Gorst and the Panel Chairman Frances Oldham should be keeping a close check on how the money is being spent and whether it is justified. From the payments made to date it is evident that there is little monitoring particularly of the legal fees incurred by States Departments which appear to be obscene.

Although the proposition and amendments have been lodged there is no certainty they will be supported as there is a school of thought that much of the extra funding will go into the pockets of the Island's Lawyers. There may be more than a whiff of truth in that claim as can be seen from the answers given to a set of questions asked by Deputy Mike Higgins at the last States Sitting.

The full set of questions and answers can be accessed below and readers will see how the money has been spent to date. As anticipated a fair chunk of the money has been spent on set up costs, accommodation, travel and other expenses some of which will not be recurring. However one will note that several millions have already been spent on legal fees with over £1.8million paid to lawyers representing States departments and individuals. Who approved the appointment of the lawyers, why were they appointed, who are the individuals, do they include former staff and/or State Members, why is the money coming out of the Inquiry fund and not from the departments and individuals concerned? Perhaps if it came from Department funds they might be more than circumspect about spending it.

If £1.8m has been spent during the stage when only the victims have given evidence, how many more millions will be spent when the COI starts looking into the Departments (in)actions and Operation Rectangle. In football parlance we have only had the pre match warm up, the match is only about to begin.

It is also worth noting that on top of the £7m a further £4.6million has been spent in relation to the Redress Scheme. Ex-gratia payments totalling £1.8million have been made to 116 victims. The victims would have been entitled to compensation much earlier had the climate which prevails today been open to them in the past but the legal fees need an explanation. The legal fees incurred by lawyers representing the Care Leavers (Compensation Scheme) amount to £408k. However the lawyers representing the States have been paid over £2 million. Why is there such a discrepancy in the fees, who has authorised the payment and were the fees justified?

Whilst I have expressed concerns over fees paid to local lawyers it would be remiss of me not to comment on the £2.7million paid to the Inquiry Lawyers. I understand that there is a fee structure similar to that paid to those representing the Care Leavers and victims. It should be recalled that legal teams have travelled far and wide taking statements from witnesses. They have also spent a great many hours at the Hearings. Can that be said of the lawyers engaged by States Departments?

I want the COI to continue and whilst I accept there will be occasions when lawyers will be required they should not be given a licence to bill for work that is not justified and at exorbitant rates. Sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph C of Senator Gorst's proposition will require the Inquiry and the States to jointly publish on their websites details of expenditure on a monthly basis.  This is much welcomed and I look forward to a much more detailed breakdown of the expenditure incurred by States Department along with reasons as to why legal assistance was required.

Deputy Higgin's Questions can be read HERE
Senator Gorst's Proposition can be read HERE
Deputy Tadier's Amendments can be read HERE

Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (7) Mounting Cost-- The Cost of Success?

The Independent Panel enquiring into child abuse in Jersey is coming to the end of its first year and it is quite clear that it is far exceeding the estimated cost. It is now evident that the estimated cost of £6 millIon was very much a poor guesstimate and Panel Chairman Frances Oldham made the Council of Ministers aware of the potential costs in May last year. Please see pages 24/25 of proposition 20/2015 which can be opened by clicking HERE.

It is evident that little attention has been given to the COI’s progress or resultant cost and it is only now that Chief Minister Senator Gorst has lodged a proposition asking the States to agree that up to a further £14 million should be made available in order to provide additional funding to allow for the Committee of Inquiry to complete its task.

One of the difficulties in setting a cost for the Inquiry was that no one really knew of the extent of the abuse or of its covering up. What is becoming abundantly clear is that as confidence in the Panel has grown further witnesses have come forward. That in itself is a success; however it comes at a cost.

What should be noted is that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) has yet to get its teeth into the Terms of Reference relating to Operation Rectangle whose spiralling costs were so heavily but unfairly criticized and was one of the excuses given for the unprecedented suspension of our police chief. As confidence in the police grew more witnesses, information and evidence became available and like the COI is now experiencing, this led to spiralling costs.

Sadly certain irresponsible and mischievous sectors of our community took pleasure in ridiculing the police investigations by questioning the cost of flights and menus of some of the inquiry team rather than expending their energy on supporting the police and encouraging witnesses to come forward. Fortunately the COI has not yet suffered that indignity however it does not mean that it has a licence to print money.

In her response to Senator McLean’s concerns about the spiralling cost Mrs Oldham quite rightly reminded him “of the extremely serious matters relating to the history for care of children in Jersey which must be explored and addressed if the victims and indeed the whole Island is to move on from what has been a very negative experience over recent years.” Mrs Oldham is clearly not enamoured by the Minister’s protestations nor will she be diverted from her goal. 

Goodness knows how much money was spent on covering up allegations of abuse and malpractice and those costs are now coming to haunt us. Whilst I abhor wanton waste and a tight reign must be kept on expenditure, particularly legal fees it is not acceptable for the Chief Minister to attempt to put a cap on the cost of establishing the truth.

It is interesting to note that Senator Bailhache who did not vote in support of the Committee of Inquiry is now suggesting that the final bill could be in the region of £50 million. Whilst I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t have a hidden agenda either and to curtail the Inquiry or to pull the plug on it because it’s getting expensive would be nonsense. There are some who might think that citing cost and putting caps on expenditure is not only scare mongering but another attempt to stop getting to the truth.

I note that the Chief Minister is proposing that the Inquiry and the States publish jointly on their websites details of their expenditure on a monthly basis. It was my understanding that that proposal had been agreed at the outset so the sooner more sets of eyes are looking at the costs the better.  

As mentioned above the proposition relating to the request for future funding is P20/2115 which also be reading by clicking HERE.

Voiceforchildren has recently published a blog on the funding and can be read by clicking HERE

Jersey's Dean--- Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.

Sir Michael Birt has just retired after twenty years service to the Island serving as Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and for the past five and half years as Bailiff. As is customary he was asked of the highs and lows during his term of office. When speaking of the lows he cited the difficulties encountered by the Dean and the way in which he had been suspended, the split from Winchester and failure of Bishop Dakin to publish the Steel Report.

I always found Sir Michael to be fair and courteous and respect his views above however I can think of lows that would come far higher on my list. Given that the Dean was party to much of his own misfortunes of which he has admitted and apologised for he can hardly be seen as an innocent bystander. The Bishop of Winchester has publicly stated that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean or his colleague but has not said that the Dean has been exonerated of any wrongdoings as reported by some of the media. The Bishop has also stated that the Steel Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey. As the Dean is the Head of the Island's clergy is he not responsible for the concerns?

When it comes to suspensions I can think of dozens of ordinary States employees who have been suspended yet when I sought support for them to be represented by a friend at disciplinary meetings, I failed through lack of support. Among those suspended were equally illustrious employees such as the former police chief who was left on suspension for over 18 months until his retirement day whereby he was effectively dismissed by stealth. There was also the senior gynaecologist who was left suspended for far longer whereby he was deskilled. However unlike the Dean their plight was not worthy of support from the perceived great and the good. When propositions seeking support for enquiries into the suspension of the police chief and gynaecologist they were vigorously opposed, where is the consistency, where is the fair play? 

The failure of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister to support the proposition to establish a committee of inquiry into Jersey’s historic child abuse must come high up on everyone's the list of lows. The disturbing reports coming from the Inquiry is not only justifying the decision to establish the Committee of Inquiry but says very little for those who opposed or were silent when it came to supporting the proposition.

Sir Michael also commented on the split form the Diocese of Winchester. The split was down to Dean and the Bishop of Winchester being unable to work together. Where was the peace and conciliation and how could Canterbury consider the vanity of two of its senior members to be greater than 500 years of tradition? 

Regarding the issue of the publication of the Steel Report, whilst I can understand concerns being raised about the delay the more serious concerns should be why was the conflicted Dame Steele appointed in the first place? Also why did the Terms of Reference not include the arrest at the Dean’s behest, of the lady at the heart of complaint and her eventual deportation and being left destitute at Southampton airport on a cold October evening? One may also ask why Dame Heather did not interview the lady concerned or give me the transcript as promised of my meeting with her in which she was uncomplimentary to HG.

It should also be noted that the Bishop had been advised to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact of the Report on HG. He has assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an assessment and would be providing them with a copy of the report and other relevant information once he had received Counsel’s advice. He was asking them to advise him how the Steel Report can be published in such a way as to minimise the impact on ‘HG’ and the risk of harm to her. If the Report is likely to harm HG how Christian is it to press for its publication?

Radio Jersey has reported that following its enquiry with the Bishop's PR company a spokesman said "We don't yet have a date for publication, as the Steel Report is currently continuing to be reviewed by legal and safeguarding experts."   That answer could have been given months ago and in months to come.

The Sir Michael Birt's call for the report has been supported by some Jersey Synod members however there has been no call for any support for those affected by the Dean and Bishop's actions where promises have not been kept and continued speculation of the date of the Report's publication is causing distress.  Those who have followed the sorry saga will be aware of a catalogue of errors that have occurred from the time when HG first made contact with the Dean in July 2008 to this very day. For the reasons given above to publish the discredited Steel Report would be another.

It is said that publication of the Report will bring closure for Dean and Church, that is wishful thinking. Enough hurt has been caused and needless money has been spent on ego trips which have achieved nothing. Now is the time for closure and to let sleeping dogs lie.

These 2 related links will be of interest to readers. I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for this link which can be opened by clicking HERE

Following the Dean's reinstatement I published a blog which can be opened by clicking HERE 

2014=== A Reflection

As another year passes it is customary to review it. When looking back at the blogs published last year I note that I covered a variety of subjects and in no particular order I will comment on some of them.

The Plemont debate saw how a small number of States Members were able to “cook the books” to provide a get out of jail card for their colleagues who were then able vote in support of restoring the headland on the grounds that it was not at the taxpayer’s expense. The money came from the Criminal Offenders Confiscation Fund which is intended to be spent preventing, suppressing or otherwise dealing with criminal conduct and/or the consequences of crime. There is no way that money from that fund should have been used to purchase Plemont but a device was found and thus Plemont was “saved.”

What is ironic is some money in the near £8 million Confiscation Fund comes from criminals found in possession of cannabis and other illegal substances. Last month the States debated whether those suffering chronic illness should be permitted to use cannabis for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately none of those Members who wanted to spend money from the Fund on Plemont gave any thought of taking money from the Fund to fund cannabis based but legal “Sativex Spray” to ease the pain of those Islanders suffering from debilitating diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis.

In the lead up to the debate some Islanders admitted that they had to resort to breaking the law to obtain cannabis for medicinal purposes. If the Fund is intended to prevent crime would it not have made sense to use some of it to provide comfort for the suffering rather than putting them at risk by illegally purchasing cannabis for medicinal purposes or simpler still funding the cannabis based “Sativex Spray which is licensed but only available to those able to afford it. 

One positive move was the arrival of the Residential Tenancy Deposit Scheme which had been in the pipe line for many years. Regretfully there will always be bad tenants and land lords and there will be teething problems but the Scheme should prevent the abuse that has been all too prevalent for far too long.

One of my highest readerships was my blog on the bankruptcy of Trevor and Shona Pitman and how they were made bankrupt whereas Ian Christmas the Island’s former Magistrate was not. The Pitman’s pursuit of justice ended in bankruptcy and loss of their livelihood. Ian Christmas and his cohorts were involved in criminal activity which led to some Islanders losing their savings which will never be recovered. They could have received some compensation had the culprits been stripped of all their assets as was the case with the Pitman’s; however it was not to be. Who says that crime does not pay?

I published a blog about Connetable Crowcroft’s proposition which requested Members to agree that with the impending retirement of the Bailiff, the States should honour the Clothier recommendation that the Bailiff’s dual role of Chief Judge and President of the States should cease. The proposition was scuppered by the former Bailiff and brother of the next Bailiff, Senator Bailhache who felt the matter should be addressed via a referendum. The issue will not go away and we could be in for an interesting year where the Deputy Bailiff and Attorney General are both moving up a notch and a new Solicitor General and Attorney General taking up Office.

The role of those 4 unelected Members of the States conveniently leads me to the other unelected Member that being Jersey’s Dean who was not slow in coming forward when speaking in support of the Plemont proposition but was conveniently out of the Chamber during the cannabis debate. If it is deemed necessary for the Dean to be an unelected States Member is it asking too much of him to speak for the sick and needy.

It would appear that it’s not only the Dean who has been keeping his head down, has anyone seen Bishop Dakin or Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel or their Reports?

Whilst on the subject of reports I published a number of blogs relating to the Independent Care Inquiry which commenced with much optimism but is now coming up with more questions than answers. History is littered with Inquiries that started with good intentions but failed to deliver because those tasked with seeking the truth were more concerned with protecting the guilty than exposing the truth.

£6 million has been set aside for the Inquiry therefore the public, victims and those whose reputations were tarnished and careers ruined are entitled to know the truth and it is incumbent on Frances Oldham to deliver without fear or favour. The Terms of Reference appertaining to Operation Rectangle will feature this year and I’m sure it will spark interest and controversy.

I covered the Taser issue but am still unsure whether Tasers are a necessary evil, however if they are intended to be a substitute for firearms because they are supposed to be less lethal, then why are the US police officers are still using firearms and killing members of the public?

Jersey experienced its first ever General Election albeit that 17 seats were uncontested. Our Chief Minister was re-elected and will head an Executive which will operate a collective responsibility system which I understand extend to Assistant Ministers. In his Christmas message the retiring Bailiff commented on the reduction of propositions and questions lodged. Jersey does not have a party system however one of the features of our parliamentary system is that Members who are not part of the Executive can attempt to bring about change through propositions.  

What is of concern is that too much power is now with our Executive which will be required to close ranks and stifle what opposition is left among backbenchers. This will lead to even fewer propositions and questions being lodged and also to less transparency and accountability.

2014 was an interesting year and who knows what this year will bring. On Sunday morning just after the 10am news I will be appearing on Radio Jersey’s Politics Hour with Ben Queree and Amy Vatcher looking ahead to what could be the key issues for Jersey in 2015. As always population and unemployment will feature but I do hope that our Government will look to addressing some of the social issues such as why there is increasing number of people relying on charity to survive and of the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

On a personal note I am falling way behind with the book I am trying to write about the St Martin’s farms which I must devote more time to and prioritise my work load. One simple way is to cut back on the time given to blogging. 

I therefore I wish inform readers that I will be cutting back on the time I give to blogs which will mean that I will be publishing a lot less this coming year.  

I would like to thank readers world wide for their continued support and look forward to an interesting and informative year.

Sativex---------A Glimmer of Hope??

In my previous blog I mentioned that this week the States was to debate 3 cannabis related propositions. The outcome was predicable but it was the quality of the debate that was disappointing.

States Members have the ability of lodging propositions seeking States approval on a variety of issues. There are many Members who never do but fortunately there are a handful like Deputy Monty Tadier who do and he is to be complimented for lodging the 3 propositions which sought to improve the lives of those who through no fault of their own suffer pain and discomfort.

One of the propositions (P127) which can also be read below requested the Health Minister to take steps to make Sativex Spray available without cost to MS patients. The other 2 propositions were much more contentious because Deputy Tadier was seeking support to allow for cannabis to be prescribed for medicinal purposes.

Deputy Tadier decided to debate the Sativex Spray proposition first as it was relatively straight forward and I shall devote this blog to that matter. I will declare an interest because my wife has MS and when asked if she would be the petitioner to represent other MS sufferers she readily agreed.

Before Backbencher’s propositions are debated the relevant Minister normally lodges “Comments” indicating whether the proposition is supported, if it is not, reasons are given. Deputy Tadier lodged his proposition on 16^th July. The Comments which are below were published on 8^th September however the debate was deferred due to the impending elections. It should be noted that after the elections there was a change of Minister. However the new Minister Senator Green did not lodge his Comments until the 8th of December which was the day before the debate but his comments differed from the previous Ministers. 

Both Ministers opposed the proposition but it worth noting their reasons. The previous Minister Deputy Anne Pryke’s Comments could be summarised as follows.

Sativex can be supplied by any pharmacy, in accordance with the doctor’s prescription. It is, however, only available as a private prescription and costs have to be met by the patient.

Previous application from a consultant to make Sativex available via the Hospital pharmacy – in that case specifically for patients suffering with MS (Multiple Sclerosis) – has been rejected by the Hospital Drugs and Therapeutics Committee, based on assessment of clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness.

This decision has recently been corroborated by NICE in its draft revised guidance which does not recommend the use of Sativex for MS patients.

Current Health and Social Services Policy directs that the Department will not provide treatments at public expense where NICE has rejected that treatment. Final NICE guidance on recommended treatments is expected later this year and, should the advice on the use of Sativex for MS patients be amended, this position will be reviewed.

The issue within this proposition, therefore, is whether funding for a NICE non -recommended treatment should be met by taxpayers, at the expense of other treatments that are approved by professional, clinical expertise. The cost to the taxpayer of providing Sativex to any one individual patient would be in the region of £4–£5,000 per year.

There is no way to predict how many patients may subsequently be prescribed this treatment and, therefore, the potential overall impact on the Department’s already stretched annual drugs budget.

While it is available for prescription, Sativex remains a non-NICE approved treatment, and I cannot support a proposition for its supply to be funded by the taxpayer.

It is evident that the previous Minister could not support the proposition, because Sativex is not recommended by NICE, it is expensive even though Health does know how many people might need it but the Hospital Drugs and Therapeutics Committee, has already rejected the one application from a consultant based on assessment of clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness.

One is left to wonder whether the officer briefing Senator Green was the same who briefed the former Minister because it was not the information conveyed by Senator Green to States Members on Tuesday and confirmed by email to me.

Three weeks before the debate I wrote to Senator Green with a number of queries, unfortunately his answer below which was the information he gave to States Members was not sent to me until a couple of minutes after the vote had been taken. The following is an extract.

I am mindful that, ordinarily, Sativex is only available on private prescription. However, there is an existing mechanism in place for a recognised Consultant in an appropriate specialism, to make a request for public funding of such a treatment on behalf of a specific individual.

The treatment of patients must always be based on clinical assessment and professional expertise. But where clinical judgement can demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in an individual case, which would support the prescribing of this licensed product, a special request can be made for the cost of treatment to be met through public funding. To date, no application has been for exceptional consideration in such circumstances has been received. For these reasons, Monty’s petition is, to all intents and purposes, redundant and that’s why I do not intend support it.

Although the former Minister said there had been an unsuccessful application Senator Green says there have been none. If there have been none it would not be surprising because I doubt whether GP’s or their patients are aware of what appears to be a policy change introduced by Senator Green. I can confirm that my wife and her MS circle of friends are not aware of the policy change but know full well that if recommendations have to go via a consultant the whole process could take many frustrating months.

I mentioned above that the quality of the debate was disappointing and that was because apart from Deputy Tadier who proposed the proposition and the Minister responding the only other Member to speak was the newly elected Senator Dr Zoe Cameron who had made it known that she had been elected to try to get the health service fit for the future.

She had featured in the Jersey Evening Post that day in which she had expressed her dissatisfaction with politics mainly because she had not been given the Health Minister or even the Assistant Minister’s post. However on Tuesday she had the ideal platform to speak about the plight of MS patients, the merits of Sativex and informing Members whether she was aware that it was available albeit via the Consultant route. Also had she contacted Chemists she could have informed Members that the cost of Sativex in Jersey would be around £3000 and not the 4/5k as quoted in the Comments.

It is estimated that possibly one person in a thousand may have Multiple Sclerosis (MS). As there are around 100,000 residents in Jersey there could be around 100 people with MS who have various stages of the disease. Sativex is primarily to relieve spasticity which can be a problem for some people with MS. Although the number of people who would benefit from Sativex is unknown it is likely to be only a small percentage of 100. The reason why not exact figure can be given is because Sativex has only been available to those who can afford to purchase it.

Sadly it is evident that Senator Cameron did not pick up on the contradictions in the former Ministers Comments and the current Ministers speech. She had an opportunity of informing Members of how the current system is not working but failed to do so. Her short uninspiring speech added nothing to the debate, it was hardly the stuff of a potential Minister and she was one of the 29 Members who voted against the proposition.

The debate lasted less than 20 minutes and Deputy Tadier’s proposition received 16 votes which were around the same number he received for his other propositions. He might not have won the vote but he shook some branches in relation to the issue of Sativex because not withstanding the previous Minister’s Comments the current Minister says that Sativex can be freely prescribed if supported by a GP and Consultant. 

I have written to Senator Green asking what steps he is taking to ensure that MS patients and their GP’s are informed of his policy.

Readers might find this blog posted by Tony the Prof to be of interest---Please click here

Sativex Proposition P127/2014

Details of the Vote for P127

Bedrocan Proposition P126/2014

Cannabis; Possession of cannabis for treatment purposes P128/2014