General comments |
I think the way that you have disseminated (or failed to) information about the changes to the scheme - in particular the transition process has caused a lot of people undue stress and anxiety. This is evident in comments in the media and comments I hear as a teacher dealing with working parents, as well as my own anxieties. I know you are working in a less than perfect world but I feel that the balance has been lost, the focus should be on getting prices of rents etc and costs of childcare down so that some of us working parents would not need to rely on benefits to allow the money to flow straight out of our pockets into others. I have lived in both the UK and the US so have vastly different experiences of welfare systems and it is all well and good having zero financial support for those who do not meet minimal requirements, but that if it is humanly possible to survive financially in the country without having access to benefits. As I mentioned earning over £30,000 a year and I cannot pay my own rent and childcare I feel is a ridiculous situation. When I was contemplating a return to the island I had no idea these new rules would come in and it would have certainly made me think twice about coming back. That may be what is required, after all I am a drain on the system, however, as a teacher, I make a contribution to the society and do the best I can. I feel that persons like myself are being punished for trying to make a go of things. |
I think low Income Support could bankrupt the Island, unless very careful checks are kept on unemployed people |
All fraud should be recovered at a minimum rate of 25% of all benefits until fully repaid and advertised as such so everyone knows it will be different to present practice where it doesn’t make enough difference to stop people committing fraud |
I have concerns about 7.4 Respite Care – Health & Social Services have provided respite care for individuals with nursing needs with Health Service provision – free of charge. However this excludes many people who need care but do not have nursing needs. These people have to go to residential homes which may cost £800 a week which many cannot afford. |
This DTA is untrue I know of hundreds of people who claim it are driving around in their car some picking up their grand children from school, they just bank it all I know someone who hasn’t touched it for 4 years – doesn’t need to – my inheritance from my mother was all Disability Allowance (never had a taxi in her life). I think you should blame the Social Security Doctors they seem to give it to anyone also the doctors, people in nursing homes don’t use it – they have hospital transport to go to the hospital for appointments. |
In assessing income from lodgers no mention was made of expenses for the person keeping lodgers – which may include cost of meals, hot water, electricity, provision of TV etc. The discretionary powers of the minister will be important in cases of returning natives I.e. wounded servicemen, victim or accidents or illness. |
The Maternity Grant should be given to all mothers so as to provide for their baby, whatever age the mother is, or marital status. These proposals seem fair and will help those in need |
I receive DTA at present as for one of many reasons I am unable to drive, it appears that this will no longer be paid to certain claimants if they are earning marginally too much to be eligible for Income Support. I find the allowance invaluable at present in many ways as I have a young family, also when we leave Jersey for Holidays etc as I and my family obviously require transport whilst away and unlike most people am unable to simply hire a car. Please consider this carefully when implementing the new scheme as I can assure you one does neither choose to, nor enjoy having a disability and they do not suddenly disappear when one leave the island. Finally the cost of raising a family today is very high and does not only include everyday essentials such as food and toiletries etc, my health seriously affects my ability to earn a decent living to provide everyday essential and small luxuries for my children e.g. school trips, going to the cinema, swimming or bowling with their friends, as you may understand if you have teenage children there is a huge pressure on the children as well as the parent, please consider this when setting the levels of acceptable income for the new scheme. Finally, I believe that the forthcoming changes to the system are causing much worry and concern too many people, please remember, some choose not to work, some have less choice, please try not to make a difficult situation even worse. |
Concerned about the citizens fund – if there is enough money put into it. There are people now, e.g. those in shelter who may not fit the boxes, for many reasons, but have had support from the parishes. How are you aiming to access them? |
Many thanks for your efforts for the vast improvement of the benefits system |
I hope you do not make the same mistake as ITIS. It is obvious that ITIS was introduced before the computer system and staff were ready. Income Support involves the most needy. We cannot allow this vulnerable group to be put at risk because the system is rushed through. The current system is not perfect but it is better than a bodged introduction. Please learn from mistakes already made by the States. Better, Simpler, Cheaper does not mean rushed, ill prepared and uncheck. But that is what we appear to be getting so far. |
Despite persistent reference to promoting work self reliance and avoiding poverty in the principles underpinning the Income Support system, there is a major impediment to this claim when taking account of the ageing population. I will provide evidence of my own case in order to substantiate this statement. Although not Jersey born, I have spent the majority of my adult life living in the island, having been resident here for 33 years. Having subscribed strongly to the work ethic that dominates the proposed Income Support system, and, despite having had two children, I have always worked, albeit that this was part time for a substantial number of years. However, a consequence of these choices meant that I was not only ineligible for the means tested Family Allowance of past years, but face the near future on a reduced pension. As a civil servant currently on a reasonable salary, but also a single person, within the next three years I will face much altered personal circumstance that I can only describe as abject poverty. I make this assessment based on the concept of “relativity” in Jersey Society, and the forecast of GST on a very high cost of living on basics terms. I consider that I am well able to continue in full time employment in my current post beyond the age of 65 years, and have specialist skills and knowledge to offer both in this role, and to the States of Jersey. However, current policy does not give support to this belief; so, on my 65 birthday I will be relegated to the status of unemployed. Taking account of the work ethos dominating Income Support, and the claimed recognition of an increasing population, surely an increase in retirement age has to be considered as part of the Income Support package? I am undoubtedly going to become an Income Support statistic drawing on public money, whereas I could be a contributor to the economy through tax, and contributing to, rather than drawing from, my occupational pension. Is this not the time for broader thinking on policy, to include different choices about retirement from full time to occupation, and enabling as well as encouraging individuals to work? |
Drug and alcohol cases should be given vouchers with names and not many (A) to ensure the allowance is spent in the right way and (b) to avoid selling them for cash to allow drugs and alcohol to be purchased. If report is required for disabled parking (badge) it should be covered by the new Income Support scheme |
If Jersey is genuinely committed to those who live on the breadline (or below it) we need to make sure we have a system that will not fail them as is the case in the UK. We need to make sure right at the beginning that there are enough staff members to help with the administration of the new proposals and that people are queuing up for hours and that people are not held on the end of a phone line for up to an hour. Good planning is essential to phase this new system in and if it means creating more jobs on a temporary basis to ease this then so be it. This is no picnic of a project. Your playing with peoples lives. Also you mentioned absent partners having to pay maintenance for children in lone parent setting, there a dozens of parents who have remarried and will be eligible for Income Support under the new scheme who will also be pursuing maintenance from ex partners/ spouses in respect of their children. Will they not be entitled to help with their pursuit as well? I’m all for everybody learning to stand on their feet, many of us in housing want to get to the point where we will become home owners. Will there be an incentive for us to save deposits for our first home. Consideration needs to be given here to help us out of the social housing sector. Some sort of saving scheme or incentive to make us save, like what Tony Blair proposed. At the present moment there are many of us who pay at least one third of our income to housing and will never get out of the cycle. My household earns £305.50 net per week. There are 3 children in the house aged 6, 9 and 14. Rent is £95 per week including charges, (no arrears) food is £210, p/w we are not entitled to family allowance and we receive no other benefits at all. The rest of the money goes on bills; there is no money for clothing shoes or school uniforms. One parent works, the other is a full time student seeking to better their employment chances. It Is pure hell trying to live like that. |
Well thought out scheme |
Deaf person to interpret social worker |
These proposals are such a great improvement on the present system! |
We are very concerned that there seems to be a funded size pot, which will not cover adequately the needs of some vulnerable groups. We will watch closely how far the pot goes. We are also concerned that Jersey people returning from a time abroad may need to take 5 years to qualify |
I do hope that this new system will help the genuine people not the work shy |
Child care benefits consist of a very tiny percentage of the proposed Income Support scheme and have totally different objectives. They should therefore be excluded from the Income Support scheme proposals and continue as a separate benefit managed by the Education Dept. if not many families currently receiving child care benefits will not get them under the proposed scheme and will either have to stop working or leave their children on the streets |
There is a desperate need for financial help with childcare costs, particularly nursery fees and this has been lost. There is no indication of a threshold so most questions cannot be answered. The middle income bracket who need support will lose out and the rich just get richer. Rent overtakes everything – so let’s sit back and watch private businesses close down, particularly day nurseries and childminders. Parents will be forced into illegal, unregistered childcare unless provision is made for Income Support to cover nursery fees. JCCT do not have any control over childcare costs and it is pointless to presume they do (p 24). |
The way that is going to work from January 3% increase + 3% VAT = 6%. I think that will be very difficult to every person. Parents need some support (financial). If not we have to give up work and start asking for help from the States etc….. |
It is difficult to see immediate hardships that this new system will bring with it as no thresholds are talked about. The system will not be without flaws. It sounds as if it will be fairer to all and that is what it is claiming but the detail is in the detail and there are no details |
If some body is prepared to be able to work and pay all the taxes and deductions for the island. Should be entitled to all the benefits like any individual |
The aims of the IS system – in this particular instance – would be best fulfilled by granting the full old age pension (single householders rate). The present reduced rate paid is due to misunderstanding that long-term HIE certificated Welfare payments were to cover benefits, on certificates and presently make-up pension rate. Medical incapacity was covered by credit to pension payments. The single payment through the old age pension would be beneficial to all parties and would make a nice 75th birthday present for the applicant. Thank you for reading this note. |
Please take note of Q5 Childcare for working mothers is crucial. Many working parents will not be entitled to Income Support. Many rely on the school age discount scheme. Children will definitely be left unattended if this becomes unaffordable with a growing youth problem this is of even greater concern. Thank you for providing this questionnaire. I do hope the issues raised will be taken into consideration. For future reference this questionnaire was requested. I would be surprised if you got a good response. Circulation to areas where people access services would have been helpful. Perhaps they could have been sent out island wide with tax assessments/ GP surgeries/ JEP inserts etc. Master copies to these agencies is not reaching enough people. |
Thanks for the opportunity to attend the discussions which I found very interesting and certainly gave me food for thought when commenting. There are areas I feel I am not able to comment as I have no background to them and we ran out of time to get a general view around the table. However, I am delighted the support will be available to all instantly if needed and not judged on previous tax forms as in the past. It makes it a more level playing field for all this way and a positive step forward. |
I write in connection to your invitation to take part in recent consultation which I attended my opinion is this policy is a Blatantly bad policy and will see the less well off penalised yet again. You talk about encouraging people out to work and saving for the future but on the other hand you have introduced an Employment Law that employers are taking full advantage off by offering contracts that offer no sick pay/leave, no compassionate leave, no pension, no maternity leave or redundancy pay together with low pay. Where are the jobs for the people as it is obvious there will be further unemployment? How do you expect people as it is obvious there will be further unemployment? How do you expect people to save when they barely have enough to live on? What migrant workers will have no protection what so ever and under the EU constitution the following policy is law Social security and social assistance 1) The union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment in accordance with the rules laid down by union law and national laws and practices. 2) Everyone residing ad moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with union law and national laws and practice. 3) In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by union law and national law and practices. Article 11-34 Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. 18th July 2003. So not only is your employment laws against ILO and human rights this fall foal of the constitution of Europe. Your Low Income Support will do nothing but bring further relative poverty, the black market and drug and alcohol abuse will increase as will crime rates a fact that you as a States Member know is historically documented. Time and time again people have given up free time willingly to research and assist but yet again as true to many States Members you listen and do nothing totally disregarding information given and continue down the road that you want. Time will tell but my bet is those who I know who have tried to assist will turn out to be right. |
Question one – Residence Qualifications |
I don’t think it should depend on this - if you are employed and making a contribution to the economy of the island in that way, you should qualify immediately; if you are not employed, you should need to wait for 3 years - but in the meantime, if you gain work, you can qualify immediately as a result of that. |
Including Partners moving over from other countries |
Those who suffer accidents or sudden ill health are covered, I understand, from contributory benefits independently from Income Support or its present equivalent |
How about those who are homeless or in shelter, where do they fit in this scheme? |
Immigration needs to be looked at here – currently any woman marrying resident is eligible for help – after 5 years can apply in own right, so basically any immigrant can get help with very little connection/ input into island (can we afford it) |
People come to the island to work and then cease for any reason should not have any benefits. They should be told to leave the island |
At least 5 years continuous residence contributing to the social security fund immediately prior to claim. |
Settled by then |
People should show a commitment to the island and a willingness to work BUT there should be some sort of emergency help for those in dire straits before qualifying period of residence is achieved |
We recognise that people who fall ill are helped under social security once they have been here for 6 months. Most workers are doing jobs needed in Jersey, so should be part of it. |
On arrival when circumstances justify it. Single parent nurses/ teachers coming to the island to fill vacancies should be entitled to claim child care support from day one of arrival in Jersey. |
Other – please specify 1 year. Immigrants are isolated already and may need support earlier. One year is a long time if you are poor. |
I think they should be eligible from the day that they arrive in Jersey |
This will allow for the population to be adequately supported. Under 5 years will spread the allowance too thin for it to be effective. |
Answer D - Individual Assessment. It is not possible to envisage all the potential problems and difficulties individuals and families may find themselves in |
5 years residency is currently sustainable. Any reduction in the number of years would need to be based on availability of funding |
The Bureau would recommend that the residency condition is 3 years. There is no safety net for immigrants who have an accident or long term illness. Short term incapacity benefit is insufficient to cover rent and general living expenses. We note, however, that the minister has discretion to pay Income Support to applicants who do not meet the qualifying criteria and this may be appropriate for those who cannot return to employment due to an accident or serious ill health. |
Whether residence need to be continuous – 5 years continuous residency agreed. Whether it needs to be immediately before claim – yes. How many years – 5 Years. Treatment of absence from island – Absence from the island should only be in special circumstances I.e. health, education etc not extended holidays. Treatment of time spent in prison – some penalty should be imposed. How many adults in a household need to satisfy residency conditions – All |
Whether residence need to be continuous – yes, 5 years continuous. Whether it need to be immediately before claim – yes. How many years – 5 Years. Treatment of absence from island – Absence from the island (special circumstances). Treatment of time spent in prison – only if locally born. How many adults in a household need to satisfy residency conditions – All |
People should have shown a commitment to the island before claiming benefit by residence and no less than 3 years, 5 years is too long. BUT there must be a safety net for those in dire straits – especially where children are concerned: health care costs for children must be accessible no matter how short a time they have been here, 5 years is only the period from birth to school age. ONLY is wrong word! A most important period in a child’s life, during which ability to learn is fostered – or dampened if living/social conditions are poor. |
Still have concerns surrounding what happens to children needing childcare – younger children are in un-registered and illegal childcare situations and older children are left unsupervised out of school hours. |
A five year residency condition is much too long and this should be reduced by one or two years. A person coming to Jersey and working is contributing to the islands economy and as such should equally benefit. A 5 year qualification is likely to increase “division” and reduce possibility of harmonious community relationships. Methodist ministers and lieutenant Governors are often preaching in Jersey for only 5 years. Are we saying that said as there are not fully paid up members of its very community? |
I am very anxious about the rights of Jersey Born people who leave the Island and their entitlement to Income Support if they return to Jersey – their native land. Under the “parish” system this was a right, although they were at a disadvantage to the non-native as their relief was financed by the parish and was therefore likely to be more closely scrutinised by the Connétables. In the future, unlike UK natives who can come and go from their home locality and even go abroad and still get UK relief, Jersey natives will be denied this right on their return. Jersey Natives can be the victims of road accidents, terrorism, and crippling illness if they had been long enough in Jersey to acquire housing rights they should have the right to Income Support without delay on their return to Jersey. (for clarification please ring 858002) In Law native and housing quals- people who have done 5 years soc sec? |
Some control needed over non residents. No benefits for prisons. I think 5 years is too long for someone to wait for benefit. There will be single parents that return to the island to be with family who may have been absent for some years. |
I think that the residency of 5 years is too long. I think it should be 3 years. Discretion is a good idea. Nb. Concerns re benefit system not being adequate, and therefore these not eligible, will still return and need support/ care fro, charities or third sector |
People who have accrued housing qualification usually A-H should benefit, be entitled, I.e. born here and ten years continuous residence. Other than that I agree with 5 years. |
For many 5 years is seen as too long. However we don’t want to become an easy target for immigration, and need to be looking after those already in the Island. If people are coming over with small children other areas of support could be looked into and Income Support provided on interim, say “x” months to settle and find work. If people came over to live in Jersey and cannot support themselves after a certain period of time if shouldn’t be a case of others covering for them. |
We are concerned about the welfare of young children of economic migrants with less than 5 years residency. There are increasing numbers of children who will be affected. Some are born in Jersey. These families often need financial help and will not be cushioned from the effects of GST, as originally indicated. This will exuberate the current gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” in our community. Children from poor families often suffer from poor health. |
Introduction of a sliding scale of benefit access. Main access after 5 years for individuals but access to certain support relating to 3rd party dependents – Esp. Children I.e. development of island future. Residence need not be continuous but 3 years continuous to qualify I.e. 3years on year break 3 years. Or prison no credit. Concerns “benefit tourism” – there is of value allowing as many discretionary decisions as possible |
Five years residency would seem the most logical. Exemptions on breaks should be considered if people have to leave Island for Medical reasons, study or professional development. People in prison are still residents – and Human!. The issue of residency prior to a claim is subtle and more complex – people coming back to the Island specifically to make a claim etc. |
There is a clear need to distinguish between people born and/or educated in Jersey, who go away for a longer or shorter period and those who move here as adults to start work. Those starting work here will hopefully have their rights clearly explained under the migration policy. They are now, with the ITIS system, paying tax as soon as they arrive and will generally be people who should not need Income Support, so a 5 year qualification seems too long. What do you expect to do if someone is here for 2 years, then through accident or divorce they need support for a while. Do you ignore them? Send them home? Say “No support available”? We should not shuffle our problems onto someone else. We need immigrant labour and should accept the occasional downside. |
We agree in principal with the five year residence requirement. An equal number of committee members were for continuous residency. An equal number of committee members were for banking of year’s residency. We require further information. As to how this will be applied to rent abatement/rebate, where current qualifying time is presently 10 years, in particular financial aspect of level payment. |
Question two – Work and Jobseeking |
If Failure continues benefit should keep on being deducted until minimum |
Loss of benefit should start at 10% but increase to 25% for failure to complete training or after 3 months if no change by 6 month 50% 9 Months 100% |
Possibly needs a full assessment to determine competency to work including psychological assessment |
Difficult! – would need to be continually assessed. Complete loss of Income Support would probably effect other family members |
Amount consistent to all individuals on percentage base |
I think the bottom three suggestions would have merit in certain situations. Small loss of benefit would be good and hopefully work. Compulsory training activities may be good, but this would need to have recognised training providers having clear outcomes for the jobseeker, not just holding bay for both parties. Complete loss of Income Support could work, but could be harsh as people will still be around the Department. The ultimate question is how do you prove job seeking activities. |
Penalty should be graduated to give the person time to comply. Initially a small loss of benefit, increasing until the benefit is removed altogether. Suggest over 6 to 8 week period. If they start to comply care must be taken to ensure that they continue. If they don’t then immediate, complete loss of benefit. |
You will end up with the dole situation otherwise |
But consideration would need to be given to the position of the rest of the family who would otherwise lose benefit without any choice in the matter |
Complete loss in certain cases subject to a mental health reports. |
If fail to take part, then small loss, but if still no attempt to look for work, or apply, and had training – then complete loss – but last resort |
No one should expect a free ride in life as it is today Jersey is an expensive place to live for us all |
People have to take responsibility and not expect to be kept by the State. If they are capable of some form of work – and that work is available they should work and support themselves |
If they wont cooperate they shouldn’t be given any benefits |
Compulsory training activities e.g. community service or a technical course encourages skill development. Overall this should reduce crime and social disturbance, demonstrating earnings regard gives a mutually worthwhile cost/benefit. |
No Dole – must rob or beg |
Compulsory training activities and some loss of benefit. Dependent children should not be penalised and should not be allowed to truant or cycle will probably repeat itself |
It is a 2 varying process. Support should be offered v opportunities provided, which the person should be required to attempt |
Too many people are “working the system” They soon find work when benefits are lost |
We cannot allow lazy people to have support at tax payers expense |
Complete loss of Income Support will penalise children |
Psychologist assessment – counselling – identify appropriate support. Some people suffer with conditions such as agoraphobia – therefore without a proper assessment and support sanctions would only perpetuate their problem. Children may suffer etc. |
There needs to be much more flexibility regarding the employment of people with Autism. Benefits need to be flexible to encourage them to work. Current system does not. Voluntary work must be classed as work. It is an invaluable tool to getting people into open employment |
Reduction of benefit but recipient must have right of appeal against the decision. Benefit to be maintained at original level until decision of appeal known. |
Definition of remunerative work – The benefit should be reduced. Definition of full time work – 37 hours – average working week. Definition of actively seeking work (jobseekers agreement) – to have some evidence that they have been actually seeking employment |
Definition of remunerative work – I agree 37 hours per week. Definition of full time work – I agree 37 hours per week.. Definition of actively seeking work (jobseekers agreement) – some evidence from prospective employers . What sanction – no benefit |
Benefit should not be “a free lunch” unless a job seeker has valid reasons (Illiteracy?) for not actually job-seeking, some sanctions should be applied. Maybe ad hoc jobs – maybe compulsory training. BUT children should be protected financially and prevented from truanting (Some unemployed “inherit” poverty from chaotic lifestyles and therefore their children do not have example and encouragement. |
I think there should be a place for a period of structured and supervised voluntary work to help a person back into remunerative work – where appropriate. Carefully trained staff to advise a very necessary component |
Incapacity Benefit say 40% cannot find part time should be entitled to make up |
Anyone working should have their other expenses taken into account I.e. parking, child care, clothing. You should not be worse off if you work. It would be useful to see what a person has left in their hand after rent work expense and child care; does that person have more in their hand at the end of the day? You should not be penalised for working. 35 hours is full time. 25 hours is part time. |
Need to look at employment opportunities. Work benefits a must due to immigrant population. 35 Hours should be full time criteria. Look at employment market? Fair opportunities in sector e.g. some health staff cant gain f/t work due to lack of hours available. |
There needs to be a firm incentive to encourage people to work if they can. The benefit should not be a barrier to people. Because they cannot afford to work. Perhaps the allowance/ support should cease after a fixed period as in the USA. Full time work is no less than 35 hours unless qualified by the reasons above! |
Why should someone be helped that wont help themselves? A good reason would be required by that person. Sanctions should be perhaps: Given two months further Income Support and no more after? Or reduce support. Voluntary work good start, especially in the view that some people need gradual re-introduction to work for whatever reason. Not to be taken advantage of by the organisation though. |
If it is “proved” that people are abusing the system then benefits should cease but with a “security” zone in terms of notice. Work is anything (sheltered or otherwise) that produces an economic or ergonomic outcome and is “productive” – including to the individual |
We need more of the carrot than the stick – good training, job opportunities, before we start talking about cutting benefits |
Should be degree of certainty within the system, with clearly written guidelines drawn up and setting out making the whole thing crystal clear. 2. There will be cases that fall outside the fixed parameters, in which case, each one should be assessed, on their special needs, and specific problems. 3. Sanctions should be in ascending order of degree, if they are not making the effort to search for employment, and actually they are just being lazy, my own point which I mentioned at our meeting would be the course of action to request they come into see you, and then as I suggested 3 months to find employment, if after that period that they have not even being trying, then as mentioned and agreed by my committee, sanctions should be considered, as I also mentioned that depending on the age of a person, or their skills maybe limited, which could in fact mean they are at a disadvantage of being restricted to the type of employment opportunities open to them, in that case I would put the suggestion of some form of training, maybe the way forward, and I’m a great believer in if you are not prepared to help yourself why should we help you. Again every case must be judged on its merit; after all we don’t wish to punish a person if they have really serious problems with self- confidence as an example. |
Question three – Property Maintenance |
as someone with my housing qualifications I have struggled hard and not been able to afford to purchase, why should the system subsidise those who can afford it and not those who cannot? More support for those of us who would like to have this luxury. |
Perhaps if over pension age it would be reasonable to put charge on property |
If people get into financial difficulty, if they are supported, maybe they won’t need ongoing support or have to sell house and not be able to support them selves. |
Should be sufficient to maintain basic water and weather security and outside decoration on a property in good condition |
It should be borne in mind that old properties with development restrictions are often subject to higher insurance premiums |
Important to support responsibility. Maintaining the house maintains its value and may allow the person to support themselves more in the future – selling or renting |
Subject to suitability of size of property for person concerned |
This is likely to be abused |
Rather than giving a small amount on a regular basis maybe the sum could be ‘banked’ as is the sum for doctors bills and applied for when need arises. State of house rather than size of household might be appropriate gauge. |
Surely the more relevant factor is the size of the house! Though I recognise it mean there may be more than one person to share the cost |
There will need to be a tight system for deciding that work has been done to an acceptable standard and that the work is prioritised |
Individual Assessment. It may be cheaper to keep a family “safe” in their own environment than to take into Housing. Health of children and their safety need to be taken into consideration. |
The reduction from 25 years to the proposed 21 years is very much welcomed but why 21 when the age of majority is 18? The availability of the Housing component to people in lodgings after 5 years residency (rather than the current 13 years) will make a great difference to a group of people who have been disadvantaged by the qualifying rules for rent rebate. New arrivals over 55 years of age qualify after 5 years for Income Support/ welfare currently 10 years. Could be a cost to bear in the future. |
What costs will be included for owner – occupiers – depending on financial status I.e. income, savings. Whether owner-occupier components will be based on the size of the property – depending on circumstances – financial. Whether mortgage payments would be included – Depending on circumstances – financial. Maximum rental levels for different types of property – Agreed. What costs will be included for lodgers and hostel residents – for hostel residents: accommodation, food & pocket money. For lodgers: Depending on their income if they are working. Whether a minimum age will be applied to this component – agreed but depending on circumstances. |
What costs will be included for owner – occupiers – Yes depending on income. Whether owner-occupier components will be based on the size of the property – depending on circumstances. Whether mortgage payments would be included – yes, Depending on circumstances. Maximum rental levels for different types of property – Yes, Agreed. What costs will be included for lodgers and hostel residents – depending on income from lodgers’ hotel residents. Whether a minimum age will be applied to this component – yes at least 21 years of age but depending on circumstances |
I have heard “doom & gloom” comments from some civil servants about the effect of removing rent rebate………. I know that rents are too high very often, and that rent rebate helps to make high rent “affordable” – on the other hand if rent rebate removal is not adequately replaced might there be extra pressure on Housing Department?? |
Problem of 18 to 21 year old particularly if come out of care |
There needs to be a time limit for mortgage payments. I’d suggest 6 months as a time limit to get on your feet. |
Discretion re age if too high will younger – care or shelter |
We didn’t talk much about this and its an area I’m not well versed on so I’m going to pass |
If people have to live independently 16+, 18+ they should be able to claim benefit. If somebody is unable to continue mortgage payments they should be able to claim benefit? If people are living in hostels/lodgings are paying rent and can claim benefit they should receive housing component. Levels of ‘fair rent’ essential |
There are young people 19 or 20 years old who have a baby and have to crowd into a parent’s house. There are young people who leave care at 18, with no family support, who need some support to get started with independent living. If they have to live till 21, without support for housing, they are very vulnerable. The system must have something to deal with this 18 to 21 age group without having to go to the minister to please exception in every instance |
1. The prime objective is the setting point of the fund to provide social rent subsidy, and abatement. 2. The concerns of my committee are these, by adding on all the other components that will result in spreading the resources too thinly! 3. In relation to hostel residents and lodgers, our concerns were very simple, extending the system to accommodate these components, and the committee’s concerns on spreading resources too thinly, which could result in people falling through the net, which is of grave concern to my committee. It’s not going to be as easy as we are well aware of the mammoth task this entails, however caution must be of paramount importance, as we could be leaving ourselves wide open for this component to abuse the system, it’s not the case of their human rights, in fact if people are demonstrating commitment by getting employment and become a good citizen of our island, well that’s fine, however we also have the element who are prepared by whatever means they can including turning to crime to make a fast buck, it’s those type of people born locally or not, who put the whole of our young people in a bad light with especially the police, it’s all well and good to uphold the law, that’s fine, but we should also remember to be very careful as not to drive the Jersey born people from their home, and we must invest in our young people, after all they are our future, and with them, where will the island be in lets say 20 years? I have watched very carefully the attitude of some high ranking states of Jersey police officers who take great pleasure in telling the youth of this island off, or move on, it’s points like this must be tackled by government now rather than later! As later may in fact be too late |
Question four – Residential Care Costs |
People who have worked hard deserve to be treated fairly and not forced to sell their property to pay fees that others who have not contributed get free. |
Providing position of partner living in home was protected if the property is the only capital asset that the claimant has – pressure that there would be a disregard on an initial part of value in same way as capital in the bank would be disregarded up to a certain level. However would disregard be increased as benefits increased on a year by year basis? |
Things need to be across the board |
The majority of people who own property have scrimped and saved all their working lives in order to buy the property. It is unequitable to treat them differently to those who have squandered their money. By imposing a charge on home owners we are encouraging people to be irresponsible and not save towards their retirement. Already we are hearing comments such as why struggle to buy a home – spend all you money enjoying yourself. The state will look after you. N.B it is reasonable to expect an income from the property by renting it out – if it is not occupied by a spouse or partner. |
They have worked hard to own a home and not be a burden why should their efforts subsidise those that have not |
Home owners have gone without, maintaining their homes, and then need to sell it to go into care. Other people only pay occupier rates, have no maintenance costs and do not have to pay for care, would the law cover making home owners pay? |
The mechanism provided by the Income Support Law allows a legal charge registered in the Royal Court against the property. Unless this is with the consent of the owner it could be against Human Rights legislation. It should be borne in mind that vulnerable dependents may depend on this property for a future home. Some Connétables recognised this, others did not. No charge should be made against the main property often the fruit of a lifetime’s work and self sacrifice of the owner. It brings fear and depression among elderly thinking of their direct descendants. I am certain it led to suicide in one case I know brought about by the prospect of dispossession in view of vulnerable adult children. |
Many comments received, that these people have worked hard all their lives, paid their way, not been a burden – and now only have their property to leave to their children – should not be penalised |
It is disgraceful that people should have to pay again for something they’ve already paid for in their taxes |
But they should not receive a household component or help to maintain property. Would also expect income to be raised from the property, unless partner resides in it. Question is – who handles the property if there is no relative or curator |
If someone has a fixed asset then the tax payer should not have to contribute. Interest should be added to the debt assets outside jersey should also be taken into account |
Home owners applying for a residential care component should contribute to the scheme up to their home total value as a loan. However, where possible, home care costs should be met as this would normally be cheaper than residential home care and may well be preferred. Either way, unless a relative or carer inherits the property, the component should be recoverable after death of the homeowner. |
Fear of “losing” the house and being unable to leave it to children is very real. BUT some charge should be made on the property in most cases, especially if it is very valuable. |
A difficult issue, but most of the elderly going into care will be long term Jersey residents, who have worked hard to own their own home, and we feel that they and their family should not be penalised. |
Those who have been tax payers all their lives and prudent with their savings should not be penalised. |
Why not lease the property out as a contribution to the cost of care? If related family still live in the home then they can pay rent or claim Income Support to pay rent towards the care of the person in residential care. |
Home owners should contribute to their care – to what extent would need to be assessed – consider implications of unlawful euthanasia where a property may have been unfairly inherited and deprive co family members – families choosing to care for home owner to save inheritance. Vulnerable adults – medically unable to voice their concerns consider patient choices etc. |
Question five – Childcare |
Obviously working parents are making an effort to contribute to the system and they should not have to wait five years. I am in a somewhat luckier position now I know something about your transition process as I will hopefully qualify for some payment until I have been back in the island for 5 years which will be in August 2008. However, with my own commitments, to my job and to the 3 year rental agreement I am tied into commitments made and you have to honour that. I am fed up with the rug being pulled from under me in Jersey - if things were not so expensive here, I could (and should) as a professional earning over £30,000 a year not have to rely on state benefits to survive (albeit that I am a single parent with three school age children). I lived in the USA for 10 years, did not earn much and did not have to rely on benefits which in reality mean that the states are subsidising landlords and agencies that provide child care. Someone is getting very rich off the backs of taxpayers and it is not the people receiving the benefits. We are struggling to survive. |
However somewhere this needs to be highlighted before people arrive should be discretionary however. |
Encourages people in less well off parts of the world to come here |
Qualification should have no exemptions |
Why treat parents differently to anyone else? This is unfair, particularly to others who have medical conditions or who care for someone. |
Why should they |
If people from abroad are brought into the island with dependents and are allowed to take up work (in the absence of work permits needed) they should be given current support. |
These parents work, contribute to society. But only way they can work is leaving their children in centre etc – but it costs. How about paying “mums” to stay at home – up to three years. |
If they haven’t put into scheme why should they take out |
Parents who have been here more than five years should receive the same discount they receive currently |
Discrimination – either all claims are handled in the same way (claimant satisfying residence rule) or open up a bucket of money on counter free to anyone who dips in |
JCCT should not be involved in distributing the grant, but this should occur from the dept of Social Security. The grant should continue and linked to registration of these facilities (? ESC Dept) |
Recently arrived working parents should not normally receive school care costs if they do not qualify for Income Support. Part 10 covers special payment situations |
Working and Contributing |
Children who are not cared for in a positive environment are likely to underachieve in education, become antisocial and find themselves in trouble – this will cost the island more in the long term. |
We feel it is up to parents to care for their children |
Affordable child care is no 1 necessity here |
Child care support is designed as an economic benefit to enable both parents to go out to work and thus benefit the economy of the island. It should continue as a separate benefit paid directly by Education. The child care trust should be absorbed back into Education as it is a waste of taxpayers money |
Not until they have made tax contributions PAYE will support this |
Parents who have applied and secured employment prior to moving to Jersey should receive this SAD; this supports single parents particularly and applies to nurses, teachers, social workers etc. who are all essentially employed. |
Many parents won’t qualify for Income Support – but with GST (increased child care costs 2007) and Loss of subsidies – children will be left at home unattended. This is of utmost importance – many “essential” employers are nurses and teachers and not as well paid as the finance sector. These are female dominant professions. Women are encouraged to work without proper provision and support – children will be left unsupervised at home if childcare costs are not affordable. There currently exist problems with teenagers getting into trouble. It would be quite ludicrous to implement plans to tackle this and yet not support childcare in families where there is hardship and many of these youngsters are likely to emanate from. |
We do not agree with the proposal to provide separate financial support for parents who do not meet the residence qualifications. However, the minister could use his discretion in cases of hardship, for example in situations where a mother/ father is abandoned by her/his partner or in cases or serious illness or death of a partner. |
The number of separate rates for childcare costs – parents should be encourage to look after their children up to school age. The maximum rate for each age group – Await these rates. Any restrictions in respect of earnings or the employment of the parent – yes there should be restrictions depending on total income. The treatment of parents who undertake work-related training – parents should receive help in these circumstances. The treatment of parents with a medical condition – depending on condition and medical reports. Should there be separate financial support for parents who do not meet the residence qualifications? Only in exceptional circumstance I.e. death of one partner. |
The number of separate rates for childcare costs – not prepared to comment on what rates should be at this stage. The maximum rate for each age group – not prepared to comment on what rates should be at this stage. Any restrictions in respect of earnings or the employment of the parent – depending on total income. The treatment of parents who undertake work-related training – should receive help. The treatment of parents with a medical condition – only in exceptional circumstances. Should there be separate financial support for parents who do not meet the residence qualifications? Only in exceptional circumstances but should be 5 years. |
I am delighted that there will be child components to allow Mothers of under 5’s to stay at home. And that mothers in training – or who are sick will be eligible for child care components MUCH IMPROVED on present system! Child Care components for after school care and holiday care are important to. If children are left to roam aimlessly that builds up trouble for future family friendly work hours should also be encouraged. Children and parents who do not meet residence qualifications are also children who matter. Respecting children probably costs the State more in underachievement and social problems when they become and adult. |
Costs must be split into 0-2, 2-3, 3-5, and 5-11. Will Income Support be paying GST which potentially is being added to childcare costs? Childcare is billed in advance of service given – will Income Support be paid in advance to meet these bills – currently paid in arrears. NB. Draft Income Support Law – this doesn’t mention accredited nannies in the “day care” definition. Point 5 of Draft Income Support Law – components and rate of Income Support – Point C ref “reasonable costs of daycare” will these be linked to JCCT Annual fee survey and altered annually? Will the figures ref: Income assessment be linked to cost of living increases annually? Shift workers need child care during times of not actually being at work – say night shifts needing sleep during the day. |
Continue means tested care for 0-5 years. Continue means tested care for after school hours care |
Important to provide incentives for mothers to work if they can and be better off for it |
Pass, Sorry |
This component should apply to all households with children, regardless of residency qualifications |
Financial support should be available under special payment scheme until sliding scale takes effect |
Limited experience of children and thus child care. Single parents should get support for nursery fees, if working. Parent on training courses should get help. Income a vital determinant on who gets support. Rates based on level of care needed at each age range. |
It is proposed that children become ‘latch-key kids’ after 11? Why is the cut off at 11? There is a need for joined-up thinking about childcare issues with education if parents are to be brought back to the workforce. |
My committee raised concerns and as several of them have children of their own they wished to express their views on this issue, it’s economically desirable to enable parents to work, nursery care also benefits the social development of young children. Taking those views mentioned above, its also where possible some companies have facilities to look after the children, while the parents work, and pre-school or I believe it’s reception school, I believe is very good and beneficial to young children, to learn, and become a little independent I can only mention the finance industry, that do have such facilities for young children, and of course it help’s develop communication skills in acting with our children, sometimes parents can be over protective, and that can result in the child rebelling in later life, as I have been deprived of mixing with other children at an early age, again another area which needs to be explored by the council of minister’s, enough said! |
Question six – Pension Contributions |
We should bear in mind that the individual may not live for a very long time after retirement so may not get full benefit of the contributions they have made. |
Difficult to read the paragraph above and make clear sense of it. |
If people are making the effort to secure a comfortable retirement they should not be penalised |
Self employed individuals might abuse the system unless a percentage ceiling (of income) for such contributions was indicated. |
Short term pain, long term gain especially as we are all living longer |
Encourages people to save towards retirement |
Private pensions should not be excluded if occupational pensions are included. Some firms do not operate schemes and it would be unfair to penalise the responsible person who is thinking of the future |
15% of Income |
A higher pension would reduce the future liabilities and would benefit the tax payer in general |
100% of all pension contributions should be allowed for when calculating “deemed” income as this is responsible planning and should be encouraged. |
50% or 100% not sure which |
People need to become accustomed to ‘saving’ for old age – paying into a pension scheme shows realism and responsibility and should therefore be encouraged |
We feel that people who save for retirement should be fully encouraged but not going as far as private pensions |
Not sure |
You state that you want people to become responsible for themselves so by deducting private pensions you are supporting this thinking. |
Unsure I would need to look at current figures predicted over an average lifetime/ life expectancy. This is not immediately obvious but yes if Income Support only covered a short period of time then pension should not be jeopardised |
Again, people with Autism need to be seen as separate households |
The definition of earnings – Earned income presumably. The treatment of earnings from children – Should be taken into consideration when calculating assessment. The treatment of pension contributions – Don’t understand the statement! The treatment of ITIS Deductions – if paying ITIS must be working. Depends on what income is necessary to maintain family. The treatment of war pensions – Excluded. The treatment of charitable income – Depends on reason for charitable income and total income received into the household. |
The definition of earnings – Earned income. The treatment of earnings from children – Should be taken into account. The treatment of pension contributions – (unreadable) The treatment of ITIS Deductions – Depending on income. The treatment of war pensions – Should be Excluded. The treatment of charitable income – depending on reason for charitable income |
No specific comments – but I agree that incentives for paid employment for those able should not be diminished |
Monies for paid work. Children in full time education should not be penalised for working part time. ITIS should be taken into account except where a person has fallen into arrears while working. |
Pension contributions should be supported to avoid dependencies in the future |
Income is the amount coming to any individual or household – from whatever source. Inc benefits/pensions etc. this has to be included in any assessment of earnings in relation to the level of benefit awarded. If charitable sources irrelevant – income is still income? All assessments based on gross –as universally accepted? |
School age children’s income should not be counted in a household income |
The committee agreed in principal and had no reservations, however other points were made that as long as loads of deductions are set at a reasonable rate, however at present and also invalidity benefit and LTIA are not included in income assessment, and care will be needed to be taken not to unfairly disadvantage those receiving it. |
Question seven – Capital Allowances |
Why discriminate by having a different amount for single vs. couples, calculate per household like US taxes. |
Because they may not have sufficient income to increase the capital in the longer term. The Capital sum may diminish in value versus inflation when interest rates are very low |
Pensioners, especially those over 70 do not go out as much or spend money like more active people therefore their capital is likely to grow each year |
Consistency is key to Income Support being seen as a fair benefit for all |
Pension schemes often give a lump sum on retirement. This lump sum may be spent immediately but it is often used to invest in order to provide an income or as a nest egg for large items of expense (car maintenance, repairs to property etc) allowing a higher capital limit will encourage this form of saving. |
This is a civil service nightmare. The main residence should be excluded. Apart from this factor, an amount for funeral expenses might be added. Owner occupiers should not be penalised. |
Many pensioners rely on savings for income and to pay for major expenses which they could not pay for out of their pension (e.g. cooker, furniture, funeral) |
Not above £100,000 |
A pensioner household should be allowed a 50% higher capital limit than working age when calculating deemed income. “Deeming” should not be seen as a capital levy. Pensioner cost of living is generally higher e.g. medical. Optical and dentistry bills. |
A pensioner is, by definition, past the normal working age and highly unlikely ever to add to capital sum. Some other households may become more self-sufficient and able to save more |
Unreadable |
Pensioners with savings should not be penalised majority working class households are unlikely to have any amount of significant savings. |
25% |
What for? However I do think that the huge rise in property prices during a lifetime in one house should not become the pensioner’s responsibility. |
Individual assessment – costs – healthcare – mobility- maintenance- appropriate sized property – lodgers- family support etc. working households may have higher costs raising children. |
There is a danger that rather than continue to live in the family home with support, that people could dispose of the home and assets and rely on the State to provide Housing |
We recommend that the capital allowance is higher for pensioners. We recommend that owner occupiers use any rental income from their home to contribute towards the cost of residential care but if this is unavailable we feel that it is unreasonable to penalise homeowners by taking a charge against their property. Jersey needs to follow the lead of Guernsey and introduce an insurance system for residential or nursing care. |
The definition of capital – Needs to be looked at carefully. People can be an asset rich – cash poor. The capital allowance for each type of household – When looking at this pensioners should not be penalised for saving during their lifetime. Others will need to be calculated carefully. The calculation to produce a deemed income – More info needed but certainly not less than states members salaries. The treatment of the value of the principal residence – A house should be treated as a sacrosanct. Should owner occupiers be required to contribute towards the cost of residential care – Definitely no |
The definition of capital – would want to (unreadable) information needed. The capital allowance for each type of household – ?. The calculation to produce a deemed income – Same as States members. The treatment of the value of the principal residence – This should be no go, in other words hands off. Should owner occupiers be required to contribute towards the cost of residential care – no way |
People who have worked to pay off mortgage shouldn’t be penalised/ prevented from leaving modest house to children – don’t remove incentive to work. Pensioners should have much higher capital allowance than younger people. Pensioners are unlikely to be able to add to savings. Many pensioners (occupation) has v.limited educational opportunities – should not be penalised for being thrifty. Generosity to pensioners won’t deter young people from trying to save. |
It would be difficult to include the value of property in calculating capital. However when its option of residential care is taken the owner occupier should contribute towards the cost. |
Seems reasonable. Capital does not always equal income. Perhaps in some circumstances support can be provided as an interest bearing loan when capital is realised. Some one can be very asset rich but very cash poor, especially some one old who wants to stay at home. |
Much discussion on this issue. Property owners will have paid into the system to have a house in first place. Cannot be viewed as deductible on allowance. If they have large funds in bank why apply for Income Support. If Income Support is long term (due to sickness, disability) a % could be set against property on death maybe? |
Conundrum - £300k cash and non homeownership or £300k house and no cash savings. If the person has demonstrated a history of prudence and saving +/or if the home is the result of life of work and contributing to local society it is unreasonable to expect such a person to dispose of fixed assets |
Should be a ceiling above which benefits are either not given or incremental – based on level of capital/ assets and ease of conversion. Formula easy based on capital invested + interest = income (Per wk/mnth/yr?). Value of principle residence is important and has to be included in any assessment (large houses one occupier for example) care costs relevant to income/ capital |
The committee agreed in the matter of general principal the response was yes. However the committee did express grave concerns on the matter of having close consultation with the children who inherit from the death of a parent. Also that another very important factor is that if they required support after the death of a parent can have strange effects on them, and some are able to cope, on the other hand, in some cases the children have gone off the rails, we feel that this also a very important issue, and support where needed will help them through a very difficult and sad time in their life. |
Question eight – Second hand Goods |
I have always managed to purchase by saving myself and have NEVER bought anything new - again it is about who is making the money here! |
Cookers - Usually new now from Euronics £115.00 |
Needs to be good quality. However, giving rubbish would not necessarily help people to look after the items, people need to be valued |
But only basic equipment I.e. not a 42 inch plasma TV |
Always supply second hand if available and cheaper than new ones, assuming the quality makes this the best economic option |
As officials would be involved, some small discretion should be allowed. |
Depends on the situation |
Electric items should be new. Auctions can provide good quality, cheap 2nd hand furniture and provides a form of recycling. Also ecycle on the JEP can provide free alternatives |
Care should be taken that those people are not treated as second class citizens |
No, good quality second-hand goods should normally be provided |
Yes Otherwise second hand goods will need replacing again in the short term |
Second-hand good quality goods should always be provided – this is constructive recycling |
It is said that far too much good furniture etc is dumped in Jersey. Unrealistic expectations cause many to get into debt. |
This will and does help with recycling |
Dependent on need |
It depends if you view Income Support as a right or charity handout |
There are good second hand stores – However these may not have hire purchase arrangements which can force people into “buying new” |
We would hope that more grants than loans are approved, particularly if repayment of loans is to be achieved by weekly deductions from Income Support. Detailed guidelines on how this scheme of special payments will operate need to be made available. |
Essential Household furniture/ Equipment – Depending on circumstances. Second hand furniture and equipment does not command the same saleable value as new! Essential medical treatment – Yes but over 65’s health scheme should be altered so that pensioners should not have to pay up front. Help to start work/ remain in work – a loan could be made until income is received from working. Help with cost of new accommodation – depending on circumstances. Household maintenance / security – tenant or owner should have some responsibility towards this. School uniform/trips – if working and receiving component for child care and other benefits, no. Debts – in certain circumstance only. Funeral – yes, where necessary. Funeral directors should be made to publish their charges. Vulnerable people often commit themselves to far more than they can afford. Emergencies – Emergencies after research only. Loans or grants – loans and grants could be made according to need. |
Essential Household furniture/ Equipment – Depending on circumstances. Second hand furniture?! Essential medical treatment – agree over 65’s should not have to pay in advance. Help to start work/ remain in work – yes by way of loan. Help with cost of new accommodation – yes by way of loan. Household maintenance / security – no or tenant should pay all at first. School uniform/trips – if working and getting child support this should be covered. Debts – only in certain circumstance case on merits. Funeral – yes depending on circumstance but cost should be made human UNREADABLE Emergencies – yes after investigation. Loans or grants – loans and grants could be made according to need. |
Good |
FNHC issues re membership costs, home care etc to be clarified |
Initially as a grant if genuine need. If person not helping themselves could be viewed as a loan. Help to start work – tools, uniform, and transport. Would there be a limit? |
Restricted to items essential for maintaining a designated quality of life. I.e. medical treatment/ uniforms school essential furniture NOT sky/DVD players. Starting new job tools etc – loan with possible cancellation of debt if in same work after a set period. |
Loan or grant dependent on: - Assets/capital, situation, income, personal circumstances, ability (or not) to repay. |
The committee agreed that this was a very good idea as long as it was fairly administered, again taking each case on it’s merit, but not being tricked as you may well be aware classic being and asking for your rates bill to be written off, and then going out and purchasing a 42 inch plasma screen TV, those people who I refer to as the people in our society who consider the world owes them a living, and they are a total waste of space, I have come across several of such characters who you can reason with them as they want the world on a plate, and have no intention of going to work, they usually get into the wrong sort of company, get onto drugs, and from what, they don’t see what’s around them I know people who give anything to live on a beautiful island, and still a safe place in comparison to the rest of the world. What more can I add to that, only that it takes all sorts to make a world and maybe if we were all the same I really could not even put into words what it would be like, I just wish that the youth of this island stop taking it for granted, and also stop copying crime they see on TV on the news, and decide I will try that myself. I have nothing further to add. |
Question nine – Role of Parishes |
If anything because SS Office is hard to get to with additional costs for parking in town and their staff can be very rude and derogatory to customers. I have always found the parish staff (when I was on welfare) to be much more reasonable and personable (St Helier). |
Providing the Parishes accept the Income Support law fully |
not sure, so long as administered correctly – don’t think it matters – although satellite might be good for people who live say in St Ouen if no transport etc. |
Don’t agree with parishes at all especially on such a small island |
If Income Support is centralised, it needs to be consistent, therefore administered by those officers employed by the dept. Parish officers should be encouraged to apply for Income Support officer’s vacancies. |
Ticked important purely because they need to be on board with what is happening, I do feel strongly that the parishes should not have any control over specific advice about what monies should be given out as the past would suggest that some parishes were unfair as to what monies were handed out. All dependent on the parish though. |
Customers should be able to collect payments from a designated Parish Hall. I am extremely concerned about maintaining a consistent and equitable service and releasing Social Security data to staff in the Parishes. Would prefer Social Security staff to go out to the parishes to provide this service. |
It Is important to have a uniformity of approach. If people prefer to visit their parish hall and you can field substantially trained staff, that’s fine |
The Parish involvement smacks of poor law procedures used in England, Wales and Ireland. I do not know about Scotland. They were probably included in the 1834 UK act (Poor Law). Indeed its attributes are still discernable in this report. There is far too much money wasted in education, health and law enforcement with ever bigger bureaucracy overwhelmed with paperwork that the confirmed cheeseparing attitudes to owner occupiers and those needing long term care are nothing less than obscene |
Parishes know their parishioners – must be the link if some-one turns up on their door at 7pm at night – looking for support – where do the Connétables send them? The parish must continue to be involved. |
People claiming Housing benefits and Social Security benefits already deal with making the claim outside their parish. Having home visitors will negate the need for the parish to be involved. The parishes should provide payment pick up point only. Parishes do not know their parishioners, especially in the heavier populated parishes. I vote, but have never spoken to the constable, parish secretary or welfare staff. They know nothing relevant re an Income Support claim. |
Despite the claimed adherence to “oath of Secrecy” parish officials should not be privy to personal information, as this could be misused in the intimate culture of the parish unless they are employees of Social Security how can the legislation be enforced |
Locals should have a better knowledge of their own residents circumstance |
This form of application is archaic and demeaning |
Ultimate administration by the Parishes (Section 14 pages 34/5) is very important to minimise abuse (ministers letter xx/xx/xx to me refers). |
Hard to answer. For some claimants a familiar parish hall maybe more convenient and less daunting. BUT the perceived stigma of “going to the parish” is an argument against parish involvement. Good to know that Social Security will train any parish staff involved. Excellent that claimants will have a choice. |
The administration should be centrally done. The Parish may be a more convenient place for people to collect their benefits, but, should not be judging how much it is. There has been too much variation in the past between parishes |
The Parish authorities know those in their parishes and can continue to provide a valuable role in personal contact with those in receipt of benefits. |
It breaks down the work load to ensure that Income Support is going to the right people. Smaller communities are more aware of individuals so police themselves efficiently. |
Many locals and their individual needs are better known by the parish system. However some cases of sudden hardship may prefer the anonymity of attending a larger institution such as social security. Choice is therefore important |
We hold that the payment and assessment of all benefits should be centralised. We do not think any of the parishes should be involved in the delivery of Income Support. Community visitors have an important role in assessing any additional needs of house bound residents. |
What are the current strengths of the parishes – They know their parishioners and often their needs. What are the current strengths of community visitors – the support of their parish Connétable and knowledge of needs of those they are visiting. What is the future role for parishes – the hope that they will be allowed to continue their roles as support for their parishioners. Should Social Security act as an “information hub” – Information should be centralised at E&SS But given to Parishes when necessary or when requested – particularly when carrying out assessments and reviews of benefit claimants. |
What are the current strengths of the parishes – They know their parishioners. What are the current strengths of community visitors – they are a friendly face and know the needs. What is the future role for parishes – they should continue to assist all parishioners. Should Social Security act as an “information hub” – yes with the parishioners. It would be a retrograde step if we change the whole system because I believe the duty of the Connétables is to look after the well being of his or her parishioners, in fact the Connétables would be failing in his oath. I just wonder how much all this is going to cost and if S/S are capable or have they bitten off more then they can chew. |
Social Security should be the “hub”- information should also be disseminated from Soc Sec to Parishes for those who prefer to access info closer to home. Some people are more comfortable in own parishes. BUT – depending on reputation of certain individual officials – others feel ashamed to approach a parish. Parishes do know their people – for the most part. Whatever is decided – emphasis should be on ENTITLEMENT – to crush ideas of being “on the Parish”, “going cap in hand”. Equally skivers shouldn’t be allowed to! Difficult |
I would favour one central unit in order to maintain an equitable system. Aware the island consultation facilities could be offered xxxxx in Parish halls but not as parishes acting as agents. The whole of community visitors and assessments reviews both managed from centre |
Concerns re gaps + co-ordination. Is everything covered + addressed + highlighted etc |
Sounds like it is going to be very, very complicated |
Someone who has lived in one parish for a period of time (5+yrs) should be known well enough for a Constable to monitor that support without a feeling of having to go through several layers of States admin. Having said this and then listened to views, agree a centralised system could work with the Constable being approached to view character of individual. No idea of community visitors so could not comment on their strengths. A Parish should be the hub of the local community making people feel they are part of a community. Giving a sense of wellbeing and neighbourly values. This gives support and goodwill. Parish Hall/ community centre is a vital element of local life. Social Security has a good team of workers and should be an information hub but needs to create an acceptance to all that the Department is “user friendly”. What will happen to the welfare funds of each parish? Rates up island wide to cover St Helier because of high welfare payments – will this now come down! |
Parishes form an essential point of access for many people in our community. They also engender a local community spirit and enable the populace at large to feel involved in the management of their affairs. The exact role of the Parish hall may be altered but it is important they are involved in the process at some point |
Parishes are local and familiar – but ‘everybody knows everybody’s business’ SS system more anonymous and based on ‘right’! Parishes to continue in their social role – perhaps even having times set to link into SS staff for those with mobility issues. |
Parishes could be used to hand out cash but the amount must be decided centrally, not within the Parish. If the Parish have any reason to suspect a claim, they should (a) put their point direct to the claimant first then (b) if still suspicious put their point to the SS Department. Until the case and appeal has been heard benefit would still be paid. |
The committee agree that the parishes have a role to play, however we are 100% behind that role of the parishes, should be easier to get to for some people to pick up their money, under no circumstances are the parishes to have any authority over the amount of money they receive, or its going back to the cap in hand situation which we are trying to move on from, that will mean yes the parishes have many functions apart from dealing with welfare payments, they would be used only as a satellite, the central hub, will be the Department of social security where under the same roof will be all Departments dealing with Income Support, and I see this as you be going backwards, instead of moving forward, I consider especially I believe all information should remain at social security which will be the general hub, and hold all information, regarding claimants. I must stick to my instincts on this issue, and my committee back me 100%. The parishes in fact should welcome having that burden removed from them, and deal with and have the time to deal with parish matters, the system as it’s stands that if you face fits they will help you, however if that’s not the case the old saying was there is a boat in the morning get on it. I consider from this aspect the parishes have had their day, it maybe difficult for a claimant to get into town to pick up their money, myself and my committee are of the same opinion that yes they are their to pay out the money, with no questions or being made to feel very uncomfortable, as all these views I have come across since I have been chairman, and on a personal note I had experience of this myself, so to conclude we are in agreement that parishes hall payout the money, but the instructions are conveyed by your Department, the parish function is to carry out your instructions with no questions asked, the data base, should also say in the hands of your Department, and under no circumstances is their to be a link from parish to your database was to the very private information, which has most certainly not been available to the parishes before. |
Question 10 – Delivery |
Depends when the interview is because I work in term time it would be near my school, in school holidays near my house. I would prefer not to go to SS! |
Should only be at Social Security |
Again seeking a consistent approach |
The “Experts” will be housed at Soc Sec would trust them to get my claim right. It is like going to a surgeon to operate or a GP. The surgeon has more practice and is trained fully. GP’s rarely operate – less knowledge |
If I needed Income Support in the future I would certainly go to my local parish hall |
A large, centred office is more ‘anonymous’ |
An impossible question! Obviously the most convenient in the future unknown circumstance |
Much more convenient, more user friendly and more locally aware. |
Depends on whether I would know staff well and feel comfortable. I would find it excruciating and would have to explore options at the time choice would be important |
3 additional questions were posed at Focus Group meetings: |
Question 11 – Definition of Household |
Still welfare depts are v judgemental and often do not stick to the criteria for helping someone |
It is very important that people with Autism are given careful consideration. Many will continue to live with parents until the parents die. People with Autism are therefore “separate households” in their own right. |
Test for living in the same accommodation – proof is needed. Sharing some financial resources/commitments – Both parties should be sharing before benefits are considered. Whether marital status would make any difference to the claim – Circumstances and financial status should be taken into consideration. Treatment of young adults in employment, still living at home – young adults in employment should be expected to make a contribution. Treatment of young adults with disabilities, still living at home – Depending on financial support received in benefits. Treatment of other adults with care needs – Where there is an elderly relative he/she must be treated as a separate household. |
Test for living in the same accommodation – Should be living in accommodation proof is needed. Sharing some financial resources/commitments –should be sharing resources/ commitments. Whether marital status would make any difference to the claim – depending on circumstances. Treatment of young adults in employment, still living at home – young adults depending on earning should make contribution. Treatment of young adults with disabilities, still living at home – depending on disabilities, and income should if able. Treatment of other adults with care needs – depending on need. Should be classed as separate household. |
Supporting marriage is better for children – shortage and cost of housing in Jersey sometimes causes people to forge hasty and unlikely relationships – maybe just living in the same accommodation is not enough to define a household. |
All members of household should be in island |
If someone genuinely needs assistance it should make no difference if they share, married etc. young adults in employment living at home should make arrangements with parents over financial payment which could be set off against I.S. for adult. Young adults with disabilities should be given what help is req’d to make life comfortable – as present allowance does. |
A Household is any dwelling where people live as an inter-dependent unit. That said financial imperatives are often individual and that individual may make a contribution based on income and capacity. |
The committee felt that this question was too complex to be able to give a satisfactory response too, as this component can include examples such as flat sharing, spouse or a relationship situation, single parent family. Not necessarily with spouse being young, in fact it maybe totally the opposite they may remain at their parents home, because they are not able to afford to do so, or they may not be confident enough to leave home and another relevant component student accommodation. Really a very difficult area to be able to pinpoint a certain sector of the population, I really wish we could give a better response to this question? |
Question 12 – Components for Lone parents and Children |
Yes – a lone parent should receive a higher rate than an adult. We agree that the child component should be spilt if a parent has shared custody, as evidenced by a written agreement or residence order. There may be problems with abandoned, immigrant, lone, parent families not being entitled to any benefits e.g. women staying at women’s refuge. Currently after 18 months residence (approx) they can at least receive family allowance. Again discretion of minister may have to be used in these cases. |
Should a lone parent receive a higher rate than an adult? A lone parent should receive benefit for a child so should receive more than an adult living alone. Should the child component be split if a parent has shared custody of the child? No |
Depending on circumstances |
Lone Parents’ probably need more money than single adults I.e. babysitting costs, - BUT might this encourage more illegitimate babies?? Splitting child component may give warring parents something else to fight about. Hard to say |
A lone parent will not be able to share rent/ bills/ living costs with a partner – this should be considered throughout Income Support |
? Means tested crèche support? (and after-school care) |
Again the incentive to work |
Importance of adequate child care provision to allow parents to get back to work. This needs a co-ordinated approach from council of ministers. We have economic growth target, and desire to control population. Need to make sure tray can work. |
Lone parents face duties normally shared and have little time to themselves. Maybe a higher rate could be provided which encompasses assistance to have the lone parent time to themselves once a week to study, or just go out and relax. I say this as when I was a single parent of 2 small children I worked full time but never had time to do anything else and no money. Quite often shared custody isn’t so simple. Father/ mother may have financial means other not, what maintenance received etc. |
Pro rata rates for shared custody – with both parents able to claim incrementally based on time/income. Any ‘single’ household should receive a higher rate as costs are greater for one person in areas such as food, heating etc |
The committee agreed that the parents should be given the opportunity to agree their own financial division, in many cases this will be the outcome! However, their should be a default solution where both parties are unable to come to an agreement |
Question 13 – Medical Component |
Is Autism to be treated as a sensory or mental impairment? What expertise will be used to assess people with Autism – many present as very able, but have major difficulties with life |
We recommend that there should be no age limit on the Carer’s component |
Rates for each element of medical component – we await to hear these rates. Treatment of individuals in employment with care/ mobility needs – we await this information. Single rate for carers component – Agreed. Age limit on carer’s component – not necessary. A carer can be any age |
Rates for each element of medical component – we await rates of benefit. Treatment of individuals in employment with care/ mobility needs – information before comment. Single rate for carer’s component – yes. Age limit on carer’s component – if carer required regardless of age |
My comments relate to people on low income but in “normal” health. I hope the health/medical component will allow for dental and optical bills – and be sufficient to cover £100 night time call out charge. Pleased to hear that the sum will be in a separate account that can be drawn when necessary. Whilst acknowledging that HIE people have sometimes abused free health care I also know that some children are not taken to the doctor when ill because of fear of expense. Fear and of bills is greater. £70 - £130 recently charged for fillings. |
Doctors call out charge for children financially crippling for some parents. Home care for elderly |
I think a small charge for GP visits in place of HIE is an excellent idea “free” services are abused without a doubt. |
Social Care issue – e.g. home care – is this in model. Have all items of equipment + transfer from Parish welfare being considered e.g. those not included in current schemes (safety gates, fireguards, dietary, medical equipment) is 35 hours a week too high! Main caring issue re mobility etc. + use of funds. Equipment criteria on island. (separate project) allied Health professionals. |
My only concern is that people who can call out a GP for home visits can abuse the system. Those on low income don’t pay at present and I have heard of those who do for non-emergency cases. Is there a clause that will ensure this doesn’t happen? |
Scheme mirrors current HIE with reference to prescription charges. Should the patient be levied charge and be able to retrospectively reclaim. An allowance under the “special payment” clause should allow for payment of private prescriptions if necessary. |
No age limit for carers – please! Medical component based on need, condition, prognosis and level of disabling (through condition) Employed adults with care/mobility needs may have additional needs/ expenses – but should be relevant to income vs. expenditure. Carer’s element – 35 hours minimum – too high? |
There needs to be help for a sudden rush of doctor’s bills, which can occur especially with a child. The plan to deduct regular amounts to build up a reserve seems very sensible. |
The committee were very concerned that the rates should be targeted to ensure that sufficient is paid to the neediest cases, and not a one size fits all rate, again special attention and means testing is required, I have heard so many people moan about forms they have to fill in, well to put it in a nutshell, if you give a person, for whatever reason it maybe, they should be grateful for the help, number one point, and secondly you have every right to ask about their circumstances, after all you are giving them money, I consider if a person moans or complains they have to fill out forms, they usually are not being truthful I have come across this as chairman a few times, and I can assure you, I’m far from a soft touch!!, if I consider that a person treating people like fools, I can tell at a glance sometimes the sort of person I’m confronted with, knowing that he thinks he is being very clever that sort of person that I make a phone call about, and nine times out of ten they are cheating the system. One thing about the new system it will remove part of that element |
gov.je