Let down by a bad bargain

Friday 22nd May 2009, 3:00PM BST.

THROUGH the termination of a major part of the reciprocal health agreement with Jersey, the UK has saved its taxpayers considerably more than £3 million a year.

And, like it or not, the end of the agreement in March this year also signalled a new and perhaps less intimate stage in the centuries-long relationship between Britain and its Crown Dependencies. The UK government might still recognise the ancient links between the Crown and the Dependencies, but it is clearly in no mood to feather-bed our communities if it is going to cost hard cash.

Unfortunately, the abrogation of the health agreement – overseen by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo, who has a track record of antipathy towards the Channel Islands from the perspective of taxation – is bound to have severe adverse consequences for the Island and Islanders.

It is all very well to say that private health insurance will plug the gap in care for Jersey people visiting the UK and for UK visitors to Jersey, but this argument breaks down as the personal difficulties and extra expense involved in individual cases become apparent. It is also clear that this new potential cost for holidaymakers coming to the Island can only be to the detriment of our tourist industry.

But new information – and allegations – about the termination of the health agreement have emerged. To begin with, the actions of the UK government appear to have been on the agenda for longer than had been acknowledged.

In addition, correspondence made public through a freedom of information application in the UK shows that Ms Primarolo was not prepared to give an inch on the issue, which she regarded as a totally unsustainable deal for British taxpayers. On several occasions she brushed aside requests for high-level meetings with this Island’s Health authorities, making it clear that there was no room for negotiation.

It has also emerged that Guernsey has been identified as the rocker of the boat whose demands focused new and critical attention on the health agreement. It has been alleged that Guernsey’s request for a larger payment led to questions being asked and sums being done.

Irrespective of precisely what led to the breakdown of an arrangement that had lasted for 30 years, we now know that we must not take for granted all aspects of our relationship with the UK, even if they are deeply entrenched in custom and practice.

Perhaps that is why our authorities appear to have so resignedly accepted a situation which has created real difficulty for so many people and which, given the wider ties of British citizenship which unite the Channel Islands and the UK, must surely be capable of a better resolution.

1
Adrian

May 22, 2009 at 5:21 pm

I suspected the Jersey authorities knew about this ending of the agreement a long time before the public found out. It is nice to know I have been proved right.

It is an absolute disgrace that this was ever allowed to happen. I strongly suspect that if Jersey had waved the £3.9M payment that we still would have had the recipricol health agreement in operation. However due to government failings the user now has to pay for something that should have remained free.

This has caused a lot of grief island wide and now we find out our leaders were less than truthfull with their side of things. Is it any wonder the electorate is fed up with politicians if this is the standard we now have to put up with?

I also find it odd that Guernsey are being blamed as the Jersey government is at fault in all this as well. Hopefully the culprets will now be repremanded for this failure to take action in time and the subsequent keeping quiet of the true state of affairs till one month from the end! It now appears that people in the government were aware at least one year earlier of the likelyhood of this happening why no earlier warning then? I wonder if they thought they could talk their way out of it?

Report abuse
2
bella

May 24, 2009 at 5:52 am

yes adrian,no wonder we no longer trust or believe anything we are told by they who know best.

Been pulling the wool over our eyes for years,and always trying to blame some-one else.
we definately need a reshuffle before the next disaster.

Report abuse
3
joker

May 24, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Adrian/bella

Did you two not read the article? Jersey’s government had no say in the matter. Exactly what were they supposed to do? Jersey had no choice in the matter – if the UK refuse to treat Islanders what exactly can we do about it? Dawn whatsherface has had it in for Jersey for years. Adrian you are always going on about fair taxation; surely if you were a UK tax payer you would refuse to pay for treatment for people who do not pay tax in the UK? Think about it!

Report abuse
4
Adrian

May 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Joker if Jersey had offered to pay its way why would the UK ditch the agreement? There is no logic in this. As far as I am concerned the only reason it went was because Jersey and Guernsey thought they could get away with it.

Unfortuantely the UK pulled the plug I believe because they had had enough of the Channel Islands messing them around. Also how come on Stuart’s blog they were talking about the ending of this agreement at least one year before it came into the public domain?

Because of this I think those in charge thought they could swing it but realised too late that it was doomed to failure. This has caused grief to many people due to the last minute nature of their admission that it was over. There was no excuse to leave it so late before finally admitting that yes it was going.

Someone should be held accountable for this debacle and should be fired as far as I am concerned.

Report abuse
5
joker

May 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Adrian

OK I see your point but I guess the powers that be thought that £3m of tax payers money would be better spent elsewhere. Personally I don’t see why tax payers who rarely/never travel to the UK should pay for those needing treatment there – it should be a user pays service like travelling to any other country i.e. through travel insurance. I’d rather the £3m go into funding the hospital here rather than funding those who require operations when on holiday in the UK (I believe simple A&E treatment is not affected and is still free).

I appreciate those over a certain age have trouble with insurance but the number of those not allegeable will not cost £3m a year to ‘fix’ if they require treatment in the UK. Perhaps the government should agree to underwrite private schemes for the elderly in case they claim insurance above a certain limit so they may be insured. That would be cheaper than paying the indiscriminate £3m every year.

As for those accountable, I guess they never expected the UK to come down so hard on Jersey (can’t say I blame the UK though for £3m – they need all the cash they can get to pay for their horrendous borrowing) and yes probably thought they could ‘swing it’. I think sacking is a bit harsh though. Let this be a lesson learned that the UK are no longer our best buddies when it comes to the pennies. In return I think we should refuse to cough up the £1m plus for our defence and may be put that to better use such as the underwriting scheme I mentioned above.

Report abuse
6
Adrian

May 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm

joker the point is the CoM kept us in the dark over this state of affairs. At least Stuart had the decency to publish this fact on his blog well in advance of this happening. If he can inform us of what is going on why can’t those in charge?

I am pleased you brought up the user payers service. If you have children I presume you pay for their education then? Would you say it is unfair to expect people without children to pay for the rest who do?

If you need an operation at the hospital are you going to pay for it or do you expect it for free?

I would be quite happy for the £3M to be spent to enable everyone to be happy whether resident or tourist. If we can waste money on things like steam clocks we can afford to look after the populations’ health can’t we?

Report abuse