By Ben Shenton
FIRSTLY I must apologise if this article comes across as a little patronising, but I have been astounded by the sheer ignorance of some parties in respect of my concerns regarding the ‘raiding’ of our Social Security pension pot.
The government’s 2026 Budget includes plans to take £50m a year for the next four years from the grant to the Social Security Fund.
Firstly I’d like to deal with the actuarial report that some are using to justify their actions.
The actuarial report, a report written by professional experts on pensions, will be based on what the States tell them are the assumptions they should use. Assumptions can be used (ethically or manipulatively) to justify funding decisions, contribution rates, or even benefit cuts. It’s like changing the gravity in a physics model — everything moves.
Assumptions are the scaffolding of actuarial models – get them wrong and the pension pot may look like a palace when it’s really a shed, or vice versa.
So if the States ask the actuaries if there is enough money in the fund to keep the current woeful pension levels, that are not sufficient to live off in high-cost Jersey, rising them annually by an RPI / earnings equation, and keep the unethically long contribution requirement to qualify for a full pension (47 years against 35 years in the UK), then the pension pot may well be big enough for them to steal from, and they will tell the uninformed that the actuary says there is enough money. Note: if you retire in Jersey with 35 years of contributions your pension will be lower than the UK pension.
If the ambition of the government is to actually pay a living pension, one much higher than current levels, that gives a comfortable living standard, and simultaneously reduce the number of years required to qualify for a full pension so more people get the full pension, then the pension pot needs to be significantly higher. Unfortunately they will not use these assumptions for two reasons: firstly because they need this money to cover budget/fiscal deficits, and secondly they don’t need to because they know politicians and the public are very gullible when it comes to pensions and simply saying “we have an actuarial report” will be enough to convince them they are doing the right thing.
The actuarial report is kept top secret so we don’t know what assumptions the government told them to use when deciding whether the pot is big enough – but we have a good idea, and they were certainly not assumptions based on trying to make life better for pensioners.
Today, after nine years of honorary service, I step down from Age Concern Jersey. The main beneficiaries of my concerns are the pensioners, who may end up with significantly higher pensions if I stop the States using their pension pot like an ATM. Yet the most active on media outlets trying to discredit me are members of the Reform Party, who are supposed to represent the very people being ripped off.
On Sunday morning I visited a gentleman called Mark at his home, after a colleague at Age Concern drew my attention to a post on his Facebook page. As the JEP reported on Saturday, Mark reached pensionable age several years ago, but they won’t let him draw the pension he contributed to all his working life.
A widowed father of two grown-up disabled children – one with severe autism, the other with Down syndrome – Mark has spent decades contributing to Jersey’s Social Security system. He’s worked, he’s paid in, and he’s cared. But now, at pensionable age, he’s being told that his reward for a lifetime of service is… less.
Under the Social Security (Overlapping of Benefits) (Jersey) Order 1975, Mark cannot receive both his Home Carer’s Allowance and his State Pension. The law, carved in bureaucratic stone half a century ago, effectively penalises him for the crime of caring too much.
Let that sink in. We live in a society where I, and many others, can draw a pension and earn a wage simultaneously, yet Mark, whose “wage” is a modest allowance for round-the-clock care of two vulnerable adults, is denied the pension he’s earned. Why? Because the system sees his caregiving not as work, but as a benefit to be offset. It’s a cold, clinical calculation that ignores the human cost.
Mark’s wife, Heather, died of cancer 13 years ago. He didn’t crumble, he stepped up and became the sole carer, the emotional anchor, the advocate, the everything. And when he reached the age where society should say “thank you”, it instead says “sorry, rules are rules”.
This isn’t just unjust – it’s inhumane. The government’s response? A shrug – “The law is the law.” No flexibility, no compassion, just the echo of a system too rigid to recognise reality. But laws are not sacred texts, they are meant to evolve. And when a law punishes the very people it was designed to protect, it’s time to rewrite it. In Guernsey, the law was changed following States approval in October 2018. This change was explicitly designed to improve the financial position of carers, acknowledging that they continue to provide care even when unable to work due to illness or other circumstances. Guernsey’s move was widely welcomed by carers and advocacy groups as a long-overdue correction to an unjust system. Guernsey now allows carers to receive both their pension and Carer’s Allowance, recognising that caregiving continues even when someone is retired or unable to work.
This is why we need strong Social Security reserves. A resilient system should be able to support those who’ve given their lives to others and it should prioritise compassion over convenience, people over process. Carers like Mark are chronically undervalued and if they were to walk away the cost to the state is estimated to be £250,000 per annum. The financial benefit of Mark being a carer far exceeds the pension we’re denying him.
It goes back to my original argument – the strength of the investment performance of the Social Security Fund should have been used to make Islanders’ lives better, not to cover up the financial mis-management of the public sector.
Jersey has the means to be more compassionate and more generous. We’ve seen tens of millions poured into grand projects, shiny infrastructure, and visions of the future. But what about the present? What about the quiet heroes like Mark, whose daily reality is not a ribbon-cutting ceremony but a battle for dignity?
This isn’t just about one man, it’s about what kind of society we want to be. Do we reward care, or do we penalise it? Do we honour contribution, or do we discount it when it’s inconvenient? Four years ago Mark launched a petition – but no one listened, no one cared.
It was not just for him, but for every carer, every parent, every person who believes that fairness should not expire with age. What sort of community are we if can’t ensure that those who give the most receive at least what they’re due?
Ben Shenton is a senior investment director. He is a former politician, Senator, who held positions such as minister, chair of Public Accounts Committee, and chair of Scrutiny. He also assists a number of local charities on an honorary basis.
