Backbench politicians continued to fight ministerial proposals to slash spending on public services and welfare in an attempt to plug a forecast deficit of £145 million in Jersey’s finances by 2019.
After meeting with little success on the first day of debate, those opposed to the Council of Ministers’ policies came into the day hoping to convince the States Assembly to approve amendments which they believe are in the best interests of Islanders.
On the agenda on Wednesday were more attempts to reverse welfare cuts, including to free TV licences for the over-75s and an income support freeze, as well as a proposal to approve the expenditure proposals set out in the Medium Term financial Plan on a year-by-year basis.
States vote to keep TV licences for the over-75s
JERSEY’S elderly will still be able to claim a free TV licence when they reach the age of 75, if the Medium Term Financial Plan is approved this week.
An amendment to the MTFP proposing to cut funding for personal assistants and secretaries in the Chief Minister’s and Treasury Minister’s Departments to preserve the benefit was approved yesterday.
Deputy Judy Martin, who lodged the amendment, said that it was ‘quite a simple proposition’, which she hoped would be passed.
She said: ‘It transfers money that is being spent by two departments, the Chief Minister’s and Treasury Minister’s, which has never been agreed by the States as it does not appear in the MTFP or States accounts.
For (21): Senator Cameron, Constables Crowcroft, Le Maistre, Taylor and Le Sueur, Deputies Martin, Southern, Labey, Hilton, Le Fondré, Lewis, Tadier, Vallois, Higgins, Maçon, Mézec, Doublet, Labey, Bree, McDonald and McLinton.
Against (20): Senators Routier, Maclean, Gorst, Farnham, Bailhache and Green, Constables Norman, Mezbourian, and Le Troquer, Deputies Pryke, Noel, Pinel, Luce, Bryans, Moore, Lewis, Wickenden, Norton, Johnson and Truscott.
‘I think that this money would be better spent on the means-tested TV licence for over-75s, which the Social Security Minister is trying to stop.
‘I think this benefit has been targeted because it was easy to take away.’
The Deputy pointed out that £157,000 was being allocated annually to the two departments.
She was supported by a number of Members including Deputy Geoff Southern, who said: ‘It will bring a little bit of joy to some.’
Defending her plans to axe the payment, Social Security Minister Susie Pinel said that cutting the benefit would not impact on any households.
‘For those who will turn 75, they will already be paying the TV licence so there will be no change to their household budget.’
She added: ‘It is a small change which will make no change to existing claimants.’
Support for the minister came from Deputy Andrew Lewis who said that the money spent on the benefit could be ‘targeted in a much better way’.
Deputy Murray Norton suggested that the Island’s government should negotiate with the BBC to provide the TV licence free to over-75s, as was the case in the United Kingdom.
Commenting on the proposed cuts in his department, Treasury Minister Alan Maclean said: ‘It is important for ministers to have support but it is equally important to have it at the right price.’
Chief Minister Ian Gorst said that he ‘could not do half the things he does’ without his personal assistant.
The amendment was narrowly approved 21 votes to 20 by the States Assembly.
States members including St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft, Senator Zoe Cameron and Assistant Treasury Minister Tracey Vallois voted in favour of it.
FUNDING for States Members’ pensions will not be provided until 2018 if the Council of Ministers’ four-year spending plans are approved this week.
An amendment to the Medium Term Financial Plan for the funding of the new benefit to be cut from States expenditure was approved by 39 votes to one yesterday.
Under the proposal, £100,000 for both of the next two years and £41,700 for 2018 will be no longer be allocated to introduce the pensions.
The only States Member who voted against the proposal, lodged by the Council of Ministers, was St Clement Constable Len Norman.
Mr Norman, who is keen for Members’ pensions to be introduced, said: ‘The pensions will be important for raising the calibre of persons wanting to run for office.’
Other States Members pointed out, however, that it would be inappropriate to increase benefits for politicians at a time when cutbacks were being made to welfare and services for Islanders.
‘To bring in extra benefits for ourselves at this time is laughable.’
Deputy Andrew Lewis said that he did not think providing a pension would ‘make much difference’ to whether someone wanted to be a politician or not.
And Chief Minister Ian Gorst pointed out that cutting expenditure now would provide more money when the pensions are planned to be introduced in May 2018, when the next States Assembly is elected.
Meanwhile, the Assembly also voted overwhelmingly in favour of an amendment to the MTFP to bring forward funding for public-sector redundancies payments.
Treasury Minister Alan Maclean explained that when the MTFP was lodged, the initial civil service voluntary redundancies scheme had only just closed and now more funding than the £2 million set aside was required.
The amendment proposed that funding be brought forward from the 2017 budget to fund redundancies this year and next.
An extra £4 million will now be allocated to 2015 and £6 million to 2016 if the MTFP is approved.
The amendment was approved by the States Assembly by 29 votes to two, with only Deputy Sam Mézec and Deputy Montfort Tadier voting against it.
No free bus passes for the disabled
A PLAN to provide bus passes for the disabled using money saved by postponing the introduction of States Members’ pensions was rejected by the States.
An amendment to the Medium Term Financial Plan deferring the funding of politicians’ pensions until 2018 was approved yesterday.
However, a further amendment, which was lodged by Deputy Montfort Tadier, requesting that the money saved by this measure should be used to fund bus passes for disabled Islanders, was rejected by 22 votes to 20.
The Deputy said that he believed this was a matter that the States Assembly should have ‘unanimity’ on.
For (20): Constables Crowcroft, Pallett and Le Sueur, Deputies Martin, Southern, Labey, Hilton, Le Fondré, Lewis, Tadier, Higgins, Maçon, Luce, Mézec, Lewis, Doublet, Labey, Bree, McDonald and McLinton.
Against (22): Senators Routier, Maclean, Gorst, Farnham, Green and Cameron, Constables Norman, Refault, Mezbourian, Gallichan, Paddock, Le Troquer, Le Maistre and Taylor, Deputies Pryke, Noel, Pinel, Bryans, Moore, Norton, Johnson and Truscott.
He said: ‘It’s a much better use of that money to give it to people who need it, which includes free bus passes for the disabled.’
Transport Minister Eddie Noel said, however, that not enough data had been collected to allocate funding towards disabled bus passes.
He said: ‘The proposal is not really targeted at those who might need the support that’s being offered.
‘This well-meaning but misguided amendment does not deliver what disabled people need.’
He added that the estimated cost of such a scheme would be £500,000, which would not be covered by the £100,000 made available through postponing the pension scheme.
Several backbenchers came out in support of Deputy Tadier’s amendment.
Deputy Carolyn Labey said: ‘When a disabled people get on the bus why is it going to cost an extra £500,000?
‘The bus travels the same distance and uses the same amount of petrol.
‘Why does that cost anything?’
Deputy Peter McLinton accused the Council of Ministers of ‘bean-counting’ rather than caring about Islanders.
And Deputy Judy Martin suggested that even if the funding was not enough for the scheme, it was still ‘a very, very good start’.
Housing Minister Anne Pryke opposed the amendment, echoing the comments made by Deputy Noel.
She said: ‘This amendment is well intentioned but to be successful and to make a difference we need to have the data.
‘We need to define which disabled people it would include, and what if £100,000 is not enough?’
FURTHER proposals to prevent welfare benefits being scrapped by raising taxes on high earners were rejected by the States Assembly yesterday.
Proposed amendments to the Medium Term Financial Plan to remove the planned income support freeze and to retain the rules on how incapacity benefit affects income support claims were defeated.
A further amendment to retain the use of emergency grants for income support claimants rather than loans was also thrown out.
It was proposed that funds to prevent the cuts could be raised by increasing tax on the Island’s high earners.
Deputy Montfort Tadier, who lodged the amendments, said: ‘People are working very hard for long hours and they need to be able to meet their rent and living costs.
‘It’s nonsense to not index-link income support when you live in a world that has inflation.
He added: ‘People don’t want our foot on their head when they are trying to work their way up.’
The Deputy called Jersey a place ‘run for the wealthy’.
He said: ‘The reality is Jersey is a place that is run for the wealthy and that has been the case for decades.
‘This government is so far to the right that they think that mainstream social democratic policy is ridiculous.’
Social Security Minister Susie Pinel said that her proposals would encourage financial independence and aimed to be ‘well targeted’.
On replacing emergency grants with loans, she said: ‘Claimants will receive help but it will reduce the cost to the department as loans will have to be repaid.’
She also pointed out that Islanders on income support had seen ‘an increase in spending power’ since it had been introduced.
Her assistant minister Deputy Graham Truscott added that the ‘sensible way’ to make savings was through freezing income support payments.
Six votes were held over the amendments, all of which were heavily defeated.
Spending plan voting retained
STATES expenditure targets will be approved as originally planned for the next four years if the States Assembly votes in favour of the Medium Term Financial Plan this week.
An amendment lodged by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel for expenditure levels in the MTFP to be agreed annually was defeated 24-20.
During the debate, panel chairman John Le Fondré questioned the accountability of the Council of Ministers if spending targets for four years were approved.
He said: ‘The Assembly would normally have a high level of detail when approving a Medium Term Financial Plan, but it’s not there.
‘What sort of organisation agrees to spending £3.1 billion without knowing the details?
‘There is a significant risk that the savings are not going to be achieved.
‘How can you hold people to account if you don’t know what you are approving?
‘The argument thus far been that we can raise tax, we can charge people for going to the toilet, we can cut the over-75s’ TV licence and the pensioners’ Christmas bonus because we need to, but we have no way to assess these savings.’
He added that he was concerned that capital expenditure, which used to be funded from revenue, was going to be funded from a States reserve account known as the ‘rainy-day fund’.
In response to his comments, Assistant Treasury Minister Tracey Vallois pointed out that removing expenditure targets could slow down public-sector reform.
She said: ‘We cannot take our foot off the pedal with reforms.
‘The Council of Ministers would like departments to be able to plan for investment confident that the States is committed to change.’
Health Minister Andrew Green warned that his department would find it difficult to plan for the future unless expenditure limits were set several years in advance.
He said: ‘I can’t make short-term improvements to things like Children’s Services.
‘We can’t make plans if we get to 2017 and then find that the funding mechanism is not there.
‘If there is going to be a future for health services, we need to have a plan.
‘This is a medium term, not a short term, financial plan.’
Treasury Minister Alan Maclean warned that the Scrutiny Panel’s amendment would mean taking the cap off public sector expenditure from 2017.
He said: ‘This would risk our reputation as a stable and credible economy. This is a retrograde step.’
