States Meeting Transcript - 11th December 2013

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 11th DECEMBER 2013

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................5

1. Long-Term Care Scheme (P.99/2013) - resumption .....................................5

1.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:.........................................................5

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................7
2. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : .........................................................9
3. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John : ....................................................10
4. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:......................................................10
5. Connétable J.L.S. of Gallichan of Trinity :..............................................11
6. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:......................................................12

7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................13
8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................15
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................16
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................16
11. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey: ............................18
12. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................19
13. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................19
14. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................22
15. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................23
16. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ..................................................24
17. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................24
18. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................25
19. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................26
20. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement:......................................................26
21. Senator L.J. Farnham : ...............................................................27
22. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................27
23. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................28

2. Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 6) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.138/2013)..............................................................................34

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................34

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................35
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................35
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................35

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................37

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................37
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................38
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................38

3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................45

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................45
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................45
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................46 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................46

3. Draft Social Security (Amendment No. 21) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.139/2013)..........46

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................47
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................47

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................47
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................47

4. Draft Long-Term Care (States Contribution) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.140/2013) ...........................................................................................48

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................49

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................49
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................50
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................50
4. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................50
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................50

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................51

5. Draft Long-Term Care (Health and Social Services Charges) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.141/2013)..............................................................................53

1. Deputy A.E. Pryke (The Minister for Health and Social Services): .....................53

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................54
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................54
3. Deputy A.E. Pryke:.....................................................................55

2. Deputy A.E. Pryke:.....................................................................55

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................55
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................56
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................56

4. Deputy A.E. Pryke:.....................................................................56

3. Deputy A.E. Pryke......................................................................57

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................57
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................57

6. Draft Long-Term Care (Residency Conditions) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.136/2013) ...........................................................................................57

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................58

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................58
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................59
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................59
4. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................59
5. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................60
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................60

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................62

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................62
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................64
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................64
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................65
5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................65

7. Draft Social Security (Hypothecs) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.137/2013)....................70

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................70

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................71

2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................71
3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................71
4. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................71
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................71
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................72
7. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................72
8. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................72 Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..................................................73
9. Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier : ......................................................73 Deputy M. Tadier : ............................................................................73

Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................73

10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................73

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................75

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................75
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................76
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................76
4. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................76 H.M. Solicitor General: ......................................................................76 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................77 Deputy M.R.Higgins:........................................................................77

3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................79

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................79
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................79

8. Draft Long-Term Care (Jersey) Law 2012 Appointed Day Act 201- (P.142/2013)....80

8.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................80

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................80
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................80

9. Draft Public Finances (Amendment of Law No. 1) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.133/2013)..............................................................................81

9.1 Deputy E.J. Noel (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):........81

1. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................82
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................82
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................83
4. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................83
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................83
6. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................83
7. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................83
8. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................83
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................84
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................84
11. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................84
12. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................84
13. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................84
14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................85
15. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................86
16. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................87 Senator S.C. Ferguson (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):......................88

10. Ratification of the Agreement between the Government of Jersey and the Swiss Federal Council for the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters (P.134/2013)......89

10.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................89

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................89
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................90

11. Draft Taxation (Exchange of Information with Third Countries) (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.143/2013)..................................................90

11.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):.........................90

12. Draft Wills and Successions (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 2013 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.146/2013)....................................................................91

12.1 Senator P.M. Bailhache (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):........................91

1. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................91
2. Senator P.M. Bailhache :.............................................................91

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................92

13. Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ...............92

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS....................................................................93 Senator P.F. Routier:..........................................................................93 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:.....................................................94 Deputy R.C. Duhamel:........................................................................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................97

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................98

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Long-Term Care Scheme (P.99/2013) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well, we now resume debate on P.99, the Long-Term Care Scheme and I call on Deputy Hilton to speak.

1.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

The Health, Housing and Social Security Scrutiny Panel started their piece of work during the last week of August when the proposition was lodged by the Minister for Social Security. The timeline has been tight and the panel made a decision early on to engage an expert adviser, Dr. Susan Harkness, to help us look at the proposals, which has proved to be a very detailed complex piece of work. Dr. Harkness undertook a desktop study to assist with covering the terms of reference for the review and her report enabled the panel to draft its final report. Dr. Harkness was also appointed to provide an analysis of the regulations and legislation surrounding long-term care and Members will be able to find her paper appended to the panel's comments. I would like to mention that the Long-Term Care Scheme, which has been undertaken by the Social Security Department was, in their own words, as a result of extensive research and modelling undertaken during the last 2 years to develop the details of the long-term care contribution and benefit scheme that is sustainable in the long-term. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our chair, the Deputy of St. Peter, my panel member, the Deputy of St. Ouen, and also to recognise the work that the past members did on the Scrutiny Panel. Also to thank our Scrutiny officers for working so ably to tight deadlines and also the Social Security Department for always being available at short notice to brief the panel and answer the innumerable questions which always flowed during briefings. The panel met with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and received written submissions from Jersey Finance, Citizens Advice Bureau, Institute of Directors and members of the public for which we are grateful. I would like to bring to Members' attention a number of key points made in our report and I hope this will help inform Members as we move further into the debate. There is no doubt that the demand for long-term care and the cost of its provision will rise substantially in the coming decades. There are compelling reasons for States intervention and, as the demand rises, the need to address the issue is becoming increasingly pressing. Estimates in the 2011 proposal showed if we were to do nothing to reform long-term care provision, the cost of long-term care to the States

would double, reaching £60 million in real terms by 2026. The cost of care is predicted to more than triple over the next 30 years with cost projections suggesting that by 2044 long-term care will cost around £186 million at today's prices. Looking at population projections and, in particular, the share predicted to be over age 80 is an important input into modelling costs. The number of residents that are over the age of 80 is expected to treble over a 30-year period. This trebling of the elderly population is close to the estimated growth in the cost of long-term care provision, which is also estimated to treble. The ageing population is predicted to lead to increased pressure on healthcare services and spending on pensions which suggest that the taxpayer contributions will rise significantly to fund these areas in future. Seventy per cent of the population supported funding of long-term care by compulsory contributions but it is important to note that opinions on taxation are at odds with this as there is little support for increased levels of taxation. The scheme proposes that homes worth up £394,000, together with assets to £25,000, would be disregarded for means-testing, which is not limited to homeowners. Therefore, both homeowners and non-homeowners are on the same level of asset disregard. Property bonds were introduced in 2009 and currently no interest is charged by the Social Security Department. Under the scheme interest will be charged at the Bank of England base rate plus half a per cent. The scheme proposes a cap of £50,000 which provides protection for individuals against the very high levels of costs that affect one in 10 over-65s based on U.K. figures by the Dilnot Commission. The Dilnot Commission's proposal for the cap in the U.K. was £35,000 although the Commission noted that values within the range of £25,000 and £50,000 were appropriate. A cap of over £50,000 would do little to protect those on lower incomes or with less wealth. Therefore, on the grounds of equity, a £50,000 cap in Jersey seems to be appropriate. However, the scheme does not just benefit those incurring these costs but rather acts as an insurance against such costs for the wider community thus removing financial uncertainty as people move into care. Couples who both require long-term care will have a care cost cap set at £75,000. The scheme assumes that income will be assessed on the basis of an individual and their partner's incomes. It is unclear, however, how much income a partner will be allowed to retain when their partner enters long-term care. We recommend that prior to the implementation of the scheme this should be made clear. All individuals in receipt of residential long-term care will pay accommodation costs in the form of a co-payment. The proposed value of the co-payment is currently £300. There is no co-payment payable by those receiving care in their own home which results in a saving of £300 per week although these savings are arguably not real because costs of living still have to be paid. The fund will be financed from a combination of funding from central Government and new funding is to be raised from contributions paid through the income tax system. It is proposed that the States will transfer current annual spending on long-term care into the fund which at the time of presenting the report stood at £31 million a year. Although this amount is going to be increased by R.P.I. (Retail Price Index) on an annual basis there will be no growth in the real value of this contribution over time and, as Members are aware, we did debate Senator Breckon's amendment yesterday to allow for growth but it was not successful. During the development of the scheme it was recognised that the benefits it would provide for older people needed to be balanced against the cost it would impose on younger people. So pensioners will also

be liable for the long-term care contribution with payments liable on all earnings and other income. Therefore, the scheme covers everyone from the age of 18, and younger people in receipt of long- term care will be treated the same way as pensioners in the proposals. Between one third and a half of all pensioners are expected to be liable for the contribution. I believe the switch from the 2011 proposition, which was to charge the working population via Social Security contributions to include the retired to contribute towards the Long-Term Care Fund, if they pay tax, is the fairest way forward. Generally speaking, it is the generations born in the 40s, 50s and 60s who have most benefited from a massive hike in property prices and Final Salary Pension Schemes in some cases compared to the young people of today and the past decade who struggle to get on the housing ladder and will not enjoy the pension benefits of their parents and grandparents, this has to be the fairest way to deal with contributions and who should pay. The average duration of long-term stay data has been taken from U.K. evidence. If we had improved data specific to Jersey it would enable better assessment of the cost implications by setting a cap on the cost of care. We, therefore, recommend, in our report that improved data should be gathered in order to monitor and assess the cost implications of the fund. We must not forget that the level of migration plays an important role in determining population trends in Jersey and estimated population numbers are highly dependent on assumptions about migration patterns. This has potentially important implications for both the demand for long-term care and for its finance. Similarly, we must not forget about the work being carried out by the Health and Social Services Department in implementing P.82, Health and Social Services: A New Way Forward'. Investment in cost-saving measures, such as more suitable housing and technologies to enable people to stay at home for longer may reduce costs of long-term care provision. The Social Security Department commissioned Oxera to develop a forecasting model specifically for Jersey. One omission from the Oxera report is discussion of pensioners' income and how assumptions about variation in pensioners' incomes may impact on the value of State spending or means-testing support. Finally, the panel learnt that discussions

between the Social Security Department, the Treasury and Resources Department and the Health and Social Services Department are taking place to determine what services currently provided by the Health and Social Services Department will be passed on to the Long-Term Care Fund.

[9:45]

The panel is concerned that this work has not yet been completed and although the Minister for Social Security is determined that the Long-Term Care Fund will be ring-fenced, there is a risk that the criteria for care could be expanded to include other healthcare services broadening the original intention and cost of the fund. The panel concluded its report by saying it broadly supports the aims of the Long-Term Care Scheme. There are no simple answers as to who should pay but it is ultimately up to us, the States, to determine whether the proposed scheme will meet the needs of our community both now and in the future. There is no escaping from the fact that we shall all have to pay more in the future for our healthcare, our long-term care and pensions. To do nothing is not an option. A Long-Term Care Scheme which addresses the issues most people have most concern about is, in my opinion, of the utmost importance. The public have been waiting for this for a very long time. I hope our report will inform the debate and assist Members in determining whether to accept or reject the scheme.

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

I thank the chairman for that good overview. I think it has enabled us to get a fix on the issues. I would like to go back .. there was a discussion and I must admit it has confused me, as I am so easily confused these days. It has confused me about the difference between a tax-based system, which Deputy Young was really .. and he had a strange form of logic yesterday. He ended up by saying: "It looks like this. It looks like this. Therefore, it is a tax." I must admit I cannot go with him on that because an insurance scheme is where society decides, as was the case in Britain with the Beveridge report, it says: "There are certain needs that can only be shared among the generality of that society. The needs that are being met are often random." In other words you have no wish and indeed no expectations that it will happen to you, that you will fall seriously ill, for example, just as with motor insurance. Most people, except those who stage these crashes, it appears, do not go out to have a motor crash when they enter their car for example. It is a random consequence often of what happens. Similarly, with insurance, we bring about insurance, as Beveridge made very clear when he wrote his report, in order to deal with needs that are often random, that we have no idea are coming, but that could well cripple us financially. That is why, whatever it quacks like, whatever it looks like, and whatever form of logic Deputy Young chooses to use, as he did yesterday, that is why at the end of the day, despite the Minister for Social Security having confused us by tagging it on to the collection system of the Tax Department, that is why I think it is an insurance and I think it is long overdue. I think the current Chief Minister needs to be congratulated. I know he is a bit short in the congratulations department. He needs to be congratulated because he did push through these principles, albeit as a Social Security scheme, like indeed the Guernsey one is and has remained. I think this notion that we would grab people's houses even though, as Deputy Hilton of St. Helier indicated, there is this feeling that property owners have done very well in Jersey over the last decades, as they have, it seemed to be arbitrary.

Everybody that was drawn in to the scheme .. and it raised issues: "Why houses? Why did we not grab - I do not know - other assets that they had like classic cars and so forth and so on?" It was all starting to get out of control and why, if we felt property values were running out of control, if we felt the profits were reaching, in some cases, obscene levels, did we not look at other tax measures like, for example, capital gains tax. It was always unfair. I know this will be raised because there is an undercurrent of criticism which has been presented to me that you are favouring a certain class in society. I think there are other ways, if we do think there is an issue there, of dealing with it. Deputy Hilton has given a good analysis of all the financial implications so I will not dwell on those but I think we ought to be aware that any big piece of legislation always has .. sometimes it has perverse consequences but the best financial modelling in the world cannot deal with unexpected happenings in the world economy and so forth. Despite the optimism that radiates continually from Senator Ozouf , and radiated over the airwaves this morning from the deepest parts of the Middle East as he spoke to us, despite that we know that Western economies are in for a rough ride for a fairly long time, turning around the economies of the West. The notion that we can keep the growth going based on the kind of materialism and credit-fermenting system, which underpins so much of the, quite frankly, the falseness of British economic growth, the notion that we can keep that going at the same level in the West is problematic. I think we have to realise that this may cost, as Deputy Hilton intimated, a lot more. I have got no problem with that but let us not believe that financial modelling, the assumptions we build in now, are assumptions that will remain true for a long time. There is absolutely no guarantee and we would be stupid to think that given the way that world economies are going at the moment and despite the optimism that was coming over the airwaves from the farthest corners of the world this morning. The other thing, if I may switch, is the issue of the costs that the providers charge us. They provide massive charges and in England it was basically based on a Ponzi mortgage-type scheme. A lot of that has collapsed. In other words, there was this idea that people rushed into residential care, they bought residential homes up to the hilt on the mortgages, they relied on a steady flow of revenue from local government and then all of a sudden that flow was rudely interrupted by Government cutbacks and these companies started collapsing, as we know, and there were, in a couple of cases, implications for their Jersey branches, or there appeared to be. These companies started collapsing and then all of a sudden the question arose that Government would have to move back in to directly provide care, which is a model we have been moving away from in Jersey, or it would, quite rightly, as the Strategic Health Plan stresses, have to continue its switch to community care, but we would be naïve to think that is cheaper. Quite the opposite, as the Minister for Social Security knows only

too well. That, in fact, can be more expensive. The notion of the angels, because that is, in a way, the whole temperament and their attitude of the angels of Family Nursing and Home Care appearing at night and keeping the system going. We have been mightily fortunate but we have stretched that system almost to breaking-point. I get constituents saying: "I cannot get people later in the evening so I am being put to bed at 6.00 p.m.", because of the sheer stretch of resources that is occurring. So let us not kid ourselves, community care is going to be very expensive. In fact in some instances, maybe later in many instances, it will exceed the costs of residential care. The other issue with the cost of provision as related to this is, how do we negotiate with the providers and I was .. the then Deputy Breckon, when we were on his panel, we went to Guernsey and looked at their scheme and it was very impressive. It has been running for 10 years now. Okay, it did not cover community care, which I think it will be moving to, but one of the interesting things was I felt the Government was essentially pressing the residential care sector almost in a cartel fashion and saying: "If you charge above this, this is all you will get", and the rate that was fixed was quite a way below what the providers were arguing was their economic rate. They were saying: "We will pay you this", and of course it has to be remembered, and this will affect the purists of competition law, even though we know that the purity of our fight is not quite as good as it used to be, even though the Government is the major buyer now of the services. So it had the muscle to say: "This is what we are going to pay you." Not unreasonably, not so people were being fed 2 bits of cornflakes instead of 20 in the morning or whatever, but the impression I got, it made sure it told the providers: "The days of making hay over residential care are over. You will charge realistic rates", although it was not told to us, but I imagine: "We are not going to support outrageous financing schemes for residential homes", for example; the issue that led to the collapse of large sectors of the English system. So I would like to hear the Minister for Social Security's views on that because he has a lot of negotiating power and I want to hear that he is going to use this effectively and not, as I said, unreasonably. So, to sum up, I am a great fan of this system. I

think the Minister for Social Security has to be congratulated, as do his predecessors, for being committed to it. I think it will not be a gift to those who have made large profits because I know there is this feeling in certain quarters and similarly there is the feeling: "Why should we reward people?" and the phrase I hear and repeat is: "Why should we reward people who have been at the pub every evening." That is a famous phrase you pick up as you go around. So I think by making it an insurance, albeit using the tax system as the collection agency, you spread the risk among society of what is an emerging problem and one that is capable of financially crippling a lot of people.

2. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

With the potential debate of P.93/2013 to remove Senators from this Assembly still hanging over us I would like to pose a rhetorical question of the Assembly, if I may? Do any Members know who topped the poll in the first ever Senators Election in 1948? The answer is a name that most of us use quite regularly, Philip Le Feuvre; the very same Philip Le Feuvre whose name is on the front of our Social Security Department building. In 1937 Le Feuvre was first elected to the States as Deputy for St. Mary and he quickly joined the Labour Department working hard to provide employment for Islanders. Later he became chairman of the Social Assurance Committee, charged by the States with studying the question of social insurance in its entirety including old age pensions. Between 1946, when he was a lowly Deputy , and 1951 this ex-Centenier and farmer became the architect of the Social Insurance Scheme, Jersey's version of National Insurance now known, of course, as Social Security. I make no apology for this brief history lesson for I see many similarities between the 2 poll-topping Senators, Le Feuvre and Le Gresley. [Approbation] I also see parallels between today's debate and the one back in the 1950s to introduce Social Security for the first time although there is one aspect that I am confident will not be repeated. Some Members may know that back in 1951 the then Deputy Venables attended a meeting of 1,500 people protesting against the new Social Security Law in the People's Park. When a vote was taken he was the only person to raise his hand in favour and ended up having to escape to the Town Hall . Similarly, on the day when the legislation was finally passed there were ugly scenes in the Royal Square, where according to the Daily Graphic potatoes, tomatoes and other missiles were thrown at supporters of the new law. I am very confident Members will not face a similar fate when we come to leave the Assembly later today. Back in the 1950s, although they were not particularly happy about it, States Members realised that they needed a scheme to help the less well-off when they became ill or after they had retired from work. Today, although we are not overly united about how we find the money, we realise that the funding of long-term care for the population of our Island is not something that will look after itself. Just as they did back in 1951, we need to take some tough decisions now in order to fund the care of our population in later life. We must not shirk from this challenge, this responsibility, because we know that life expectancy has increased by well over 10 years since the 1950s. We know that medical science will continue to keep us alive for longer and we know that medical inflation will continue to outstrip average inflation on an

annual basis. [10:00]

In short we will be here longer. We will need more caring for and that care will be increasingly costly. We need to prepare for this and I, for one, am very grateful to the Minister for Social Security and previous Ministers and the Social Security team for producing this proposition for us today. Reaching an agreement on how we fund this new scheme was never going to be easy and now that we have negotiated our way through the amendments, I hope we can move on quickly to agree this hugely important and significant piece of work. In the same way that we now look back with gratitude that our predecessors had the foresight to introduce Social Security my hope is that others will look back in 20, 30, 40 years' and be grateful that we, in our turn, passed this long-term care proposition today. It should come as no surprise to Members that I will be supporting the Minister for Social Security today and voting in favour of this important proposition.

3. Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

I am fairly happy with this but have a concern [Laughter] being the 5-year rule of somebody joining the system. We are told that a person can come over here and after 5 years be eligible to join this system. I thought I heard the Minister for Social Security say 5 years today but I was not feeling very well so I do stand to be corrected. So whether it is 10 years or a 5-year rule I have got concerns because we have people come over here to stay with their next-of-kin at the age of 70 or 75 who will not have paid anything into our system whatsoever in that 10 years, and when they will be needing care, we will be expected to pick up that bill if that particular family, or that particular person, has got no funds, per se, to make contributions. Our children and grandchildren and ourselves would have paid something into the system. I, being an old-age pensioner will pay considerably less than what my grandchildren will be paying but at least we will have put something in place. I am concerned that we have an influx of people, shall we say holiday retirement people, who will come in here and will be a burden on this particular fund. I am a little sceptical with anything to do with Social Security given what has happened in recent years. Let me say I am heartened that it is the current Minister for Social Security who is bringing this and not one of the 2 previous Ministers who under their tenure millions of pounds of Social Security ring- fenced money was removed or given away by taking away prescriptions..

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Would the ..

The Connétable of St. John :

I am not giving way. Millions of pounds .. please, I am not giving away. The Deputy Bailiff :

Chief Minister, you will be able to address the Assembly.

The Connétable of St. John :

Absolutely. Of course, the Chief Minister, himself, was responsible for helping to raid the Social Security funds of many millions of pounds before there was a law change. We are now being told, and it was Senator Breckon who raised it yesterday, that currently we have a situation where employer and employee and Government pay in equal parts towards Social Security per se. We are now being told that the Government wants to take a lesser bit of responsibility and drop that, instead of 33 per cent, down to 28 per cent. This proposition has got the fingerprints of the Treasury all over it. I am going to listen carefully to Senator Le Gresley when he sums up later on, because, as I have said many times in this House, I have got a lot of faith in this gentleman, this Member. He has done an awful lot in the short time he has been at the helm of the Social Security Department and I am going to put a lot of trust in him. I will listen to what he has got to say later in the morning or in the day before deciding which way to vote. At the moment I am in the air, if anything, in relation to this but he might well have put my mind at rest, the way he sums up.

4. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

It is always a pleasure to go after the Constable of St. John. This proposition represents a forward- thinking approach by the States faced with an ageing population and rising tax-funded costs of long-term care. We need to do something. What other option is there? We can sit back and do nothing? Leave older people potentially with no support, no care and no money. The current system and its funding is just unsustainable. The States are acting in advance of the real problem arising by introducing a workable solution today. The proposed scheme is fairer. It shares the cost

of long-term care across the community at large. It relieves the individuals of bearing the whole burden. It removes financial uncertainty and the worry that many families face when a close family member moves into care. It sets out a maximum contribution to care costs that everyone is clear about. If people want to, in the future, they may insure against these costs. Means-tested support will also continue for those who cannot afford the co-payment and care costs. The existing tax funded Income Support Scheme will also continue. The scheme fits with people's strong desire to be cared for as long as possible in their own homes. The scheme will be funded by a new charge rather than a tax. On balance it is more like a charge than a tax because the money raised will be going into a special ring-fenced fund. It cannot be used for anything else other than for long-term care. We do not hypothecate general taxation in this way. However, yesterday I appreciated Deputy Tadier 's point when he referred to the proposed funding mechanism as being a hybrid. It is like a charge because the contributions are going into a ring-fence fund designed to provide a specific range of benefits. It is a charge because the contributions are capped at the same level as the current Social Security contributions. It does, however, have tax-like features because contributions are calculated on the net taxable income and not the gross income. I agree with Deputy Le Hérissier: is it a charge/is it a tax debate, in my opinion, is completely irrelevant because at the end of the day long-term care needs to be provided and needs to be paid for. Senator Ferguson claims that there will only be 2 types of winners, one of them being a married couple of £40,000 a year with 2 children, a dog, 2 cats and a budgerigar but I do not really see it that way. In fact, if I recall it is estimated that one in 4 of us will require long-term care at some point in the future. To me that simply means that 3 out of 4 of us will be winners because we will not need long-term care. Nobody requiring long-term care is worse off under these proposals. Those who have difficulty with a co-payment will receive help from the Long-Term Care Fund. People's inheritance will be largely secured. A primary residence is set at a 3-year rolling average of the average price of a 2 bed-roomed house. This will hopefully encourage people to downsize and therefore may stimulate movement within the housing market. The asset disregard also applies to

non-homeowners and again this is much fairer. The scheme will be easier to understand and access than the current system. Let us not forget that as well as helping to achieve dignity for our older people, the scheme also covers all adults over 18 years of age who need long-term care. This is something I particularly welcome as a trustee of Les Amis. The scheme strikes a balance. There is a relatively low contribution rate paid by all taxpayers and a realistic and affordable, potentially insurable, co-payment. The proposals will help those who are asset-rich and cash-poor. Lower interest rate bonds will be more readily available to homeowners and registration will be simpler than at present. Naturally, there will be rules around disinvestment of property. Any transfers of property will be treated as divesting if not done at full market value. Transitional provisions will also be available for those who are on care before July 2014. The scheme is designed to have one collection method using the existing I.T.I.S. (Income Tax Instalment Scheme) system and one application process. Therefore, there will be no new army of bureaucrats. This proposition is in tune with the public mood. The majority of the sponsors of the original Green Paper made it clear that there is a desire to change the current system. In July 2011 the States unanimously agreed and passed the Long-Term Care (Jersey) Law 2012, the framework law, to which we now need today to add the details. This scheme is well thought out. It delivers a balanced and relatively simple solution to a very complex problem that faces all jurisdictions around the world. Members today will be putting their heads in the sand if they do not support it.

5. Connétable J.L.S. of Gallichan of Trinity :

I have been here long enough to be one of the Connétable s that used to do welfare requests and I must say the worse type of welfare request was when a member of a family came to the Parish Hall and said: "Sadly my parents have now come to a certain age, they cannot cope at home. We have one family property that has been in the family for generations and is there any way we can help

with their care in a private care home without selling our property?" because it would affect their parents because it was their wish to pass it on to another generation. It was always tricky and I think it is fair to say the Comité des Connétable s - certainly since 2002 since I have been on the Comité des Connétable s - have met on several occasions with the Social Security Department to say: "This seems unfair, unjust", when people who have never spent or asked the State for a penny. They have maintained their properties forever, they have looked after it. Then they came to the state where they had a property worth a lot of money, not their own fault, only because they have held it for many generations, property prices has escalated since the 1960s which, I think it is fair to say, no one would ever have thought that and we wonder now, today, if they will move like they have done in those years. It seems hard to think that people who may have been 85, just because they have lived and suddenly come to have ill health, they had to divest of their property. I think it is fair to say that we thank the Committee Presidents in those days, and also the Minister for Social Security of the day for coming forward with this sort of proposition. It is only fair that there is a liability. I think if you mostly look back in history there were some people who divest their property just to try and avoid having that done or they sold it on or passed it on to their children so that it would not happen that their property would be sold. This is far fairer. I do not think anyone will say this is unfair. There is a limit and hopefully all those who come to this situation in the years to come will say: "Well, at least I have paid something in now and there is some help and I do not mind parting with some of my assets", but at the end of the day it is capped. I thank the Minister for Social Security for his work and all the past Social Security Committees and the people who worked there. This has been taking a while to come and for anyone who thought yesterday afternoon: "We can just change it and it will not take long. We can do it in a couple of months." Look how long it has taken to come. This seems forever, an age, it has been going on. They have worked hard. I think at the end of the day it will only affect those who pay tax. It will not affect those who are poor and this is the way forward for the future and I am sure, as the Deputy of St. Martin has said before, in years to come we will say: "Are we not thankful that we put this in place for those who need care?" I think in the wider community there are a lot of people that want to stay in their home and if there is care available to have some nursing just pop in in the morning to get him out of bed and to get him up and get him moving for the day so that they can stay in their home that will be of great benefit to the community in general. These over-55 homes, retirement

homes, seem to extend the lives of parishioners in a wonderful way. [10:15]

They are on the flat area. They seem to live longer, which is good, but they also have their independence and they feel that they are still in charge of their own capabilities. I fully support this and I wish the Minister for Social Security well throughout the day and I am delighted to hear that we nearly have the Connétable of St. John on our side.

6. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier :

I want to thank Senator Le Gresley and previously Senator Gorst for bringing this to the House, the Assembly. He has always set out his agenda to protect the more vulnerable members of our society and I think this document is remarkable. I think it is quite historic. In my previous life I dealt with insurance and Deputy Le Hérissier is quite right, this is an insurance contract. Long-term care was spoken about for a considerable amount of time certainly towards the end of the 1990s and lots of companies dived into the marketplace having ridden in on the back of things like critical illness cover and the like and they thought this was the new saviour. Virtually every company, and there was a myriad of them, created these long-term care contracts. The trouble with it was, it was not a very long time before they dived back out again. It was too complicated and in fact nobody could sell the contracts because nobody wanted to buy them and why was that, because simply this was a problem for the future. It was nothing that they wanted to deal with. They did not consider that

paying some small sum early on in their lives to reap the benefits at a later stage in their lives would be important so they put it on the back agenda and it was something that somebody else would have to deal with and it has been the same for Governments around the world. Jurisdictions have struggled with this because they would never bring it to the parliaments because it was somebody else's problem. It was something to be dealt with in the future. I was attending one of the care homes a couple of years ago and I sat with this woman and I said to her: "When did you arrive?" and she said: "3 weeks ago" and I said: "Oh, really. Why was that?" She said, and she pointed to her husband who was sitting next to me staring off in to the middle distance: "Because he has got Alzheimer's and I just could not cope anymore." So I thought that was sad enough in its extent and then I said: "Oh, where did you live by the way?" She just pointed through the window and she said: "Just over there", and I said: "Right, okay, so what is happening now?" and she said: "I am having to sell my home because otherwise I cannot afford to live in this place." That encapsulated, that little vignette, really illustrated to me the depth and the sort of clarity and the kindness that this scheme is going to provide future generations. That is why I say this is a historic document because it has foresight. I was reading a Guardian article just yesterday in relation to long-term care and once again it was stating that all of the jurisdictions that we see around the world in the way that Deputy Hilton has illustrated and various other Members have talked about the detail of this burgeoning baby-boomer situation that we see, are struggling with it and yet here we are today about to, and I am hope and I am sure it will go through, accept that we are grasping that nettle and getting on with the job. I heard a phrase this morning talking about why schools were failing in the U.K. and the phrase was "poverty of expectations" which stuck in my mind. I think that what this proposition deals with is the poverty of provision and that is what everybody struggled with. So I think this is a remarkable document. I give praise to the Senator. I give praise to the team behind him because I think they must have done a massive amount of work to bring this to this stage. I think for my part that I want to thank him for my children and for my children's children and generations to come because we will not see the benefits of this directly, but in the future people will have to pay for the sort of care that the Constable of Trinity was talking about. People know that what they have worked for will be living on for generations. Just one last thing, I

attended a conference a few years ago before I came into politics and one of the Saga Insurance guys at the conference said: "That whatever you had previously seen in generations before you, what your mothers and fathers had done, which is to build up the homes and build up this capital that they hoped to pass on, will disappear. Everybody will be spending every penny that they have on provision for the future." This document provides the security for people knowing that this will look after them in future lives. So I thank you, Senator Le Gresley, and I will be supporting this proposition.

7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

In common with other Members, this proposal is the most important Social Security measure since the Social Security Fund was set up. I think the Minister for Social Security, undoubtedly, deserves the highest congratulations and his team have worked tirelessly on this. There is absolutely no question the cost of care will escalate and sadly unless something is done about scientific research and we step up the amount of our efforts on dealing with the causes of Alzheimer's, that particular group that suffer dementia, sadly can only increase. I would certainly like to see Governments make more efforts in the prevention of that part of it. Of course physical mobility as well, disability and other care needs are probably the larger proportion and here we need to make sure that the community provision is there to ensure that this package is matched by quality services meeting those needs. I cannot help feeling that one thing we should think about doing in the future is thinking about having a dedicated Minister for this purpose because at the moment I think the Health and Social Services Department is very wide, too wide I think, and secondary healthcare and treating illness is always likely to take first priority in funding. This is about long-term care and a major strategy. I think the Minister for Social Security and his team have produced a tremendous model, financial model and a service-based model weighing up all the contributing elements of the contributions, the care costs cap, the costs of residential care homes, the limit on the amount of property protected, the co-payments, the rules of the scheme and so on. That has been, I am sure, an absolutely difficult thing to do and they have had to make those judgments and come forward with the scheme. Also I think it is going to ease pressures on families and remove sources of worry, particularly for relatives, and remove pressure on the elderly that comes from families to transfer homes and to enter complex arrangements and devices to try and protect their wealth. The families now will be excused the stresses and those stresses will not be there which is an enormous benefit and also removing the uncertainty of care for, sadly, people at the other end of their life, in younger years, who suffer very severe disabilities. I know their parents are desperately worried about the future and how those youngsters can be cared for in the future when those parents are not around and they can be comforted that this scheme is here. So I am clearly wholly behind the principles of the scheme because why should people, who have worked all their life and adopted prudent financial measures and brought up their families and managed to acquire small modest homes, very adequate homes but modest ones relative to some of the homes that we have in this Island, and then to be faced at the end of their life, with everything they have worked for, being lost due to their health conditions of which they are entirely unable to do anything about. I think having such a situation, allowing it to continue, would be an incentive to an alternative lifestyle of state dependency. I think this scheme is very encouraging for people to adopt those, I think, fine values. Not any criticism of others but I think it is important to have policies that work as a whole. I do have some issues, which I would like to raise, which are the detail. I do believe that this is a compulsive scheme. I agree that the debate about whether it is a tax or an insurance policy is a sterile debate. I accept the fact that I contributed to that yesterday but I did hear and I certainly worried when I heard the Minister for Social Security say this morning, because it was one of my questions: "Is there any facility for people to opt out or contract out of such a scheme?" because there could be, it occurred to me, there might be legitimate reasons for people that may wish to exclude themselves from benefits and from contributions. Yes, I listened carefully to Deputy Bryans. It occurred to me that some people may have entered into private health insurance arrangements to provide for themselves. When the U.K. addressed these issues in its Social Security Scheme, it produced an arrangement for contracting out and I did wonder whether such a facility should be thought about here but I have to accept what Deputy Bryans has said, is that those policies were not very successful. The main reason is that there will be people who will come to Jersey and work for a lifetime but have absolutely no intention of retiring in Jersey. Probably, maybe, children live on the other side of the world or frankly that it is just very expensive, enormously expensive, for retired people. So I think there should be consideration given to some opt out provision because at the moment, unless I have missed something, there are no reciprocal arrangements. So, for example, somebody in that situation, who paid a working lifetime of contributions would not be able to get any benefit from that by coverage within, for example, in Guernsey or the U.K. for the credits for those contributions. Another question I got, and when we get to the regulations I will ask the Minister for Social Security to read it: "What happens when people do receive that care and are receiving the benefit they also have to pay contributions?" I think this is important because we are talking about 3 per cent. At the moment we are only talking about half, one, but this scheme is going to go for 3 per cent. There is no question. The issue is there, clearly the scheme does readdress the imbalance of wealth between the generations and it is absolutely right but I do not think that is absolutely not the fault of the elderly generations. The big bang, the financial boom, the free market, all that sort of stuff, gave rise to the escalations of property values so I think we should encourage young people .. sorry, to bore Deputy Southern there, apologies for that. We should encourage young people to take prudent measures and provide for their futures. So when it comes to the law I shall be raising some of these questions of detail

but I wholeheartedly support the scheme. My reservations are of detail and I do hope the Minister for Social Security will refine the scheme on these points of detail as it proceeds in the long-term future. I hope never to have to use the scheme and claim benefit but if I do I am going to make sure that I get the best value and survive as long as I can but I wholeheartedly support the proposition.

8. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :

I would just like to say there have been some good speeches and I will try not to repeat what has been said. Last week this Assembly made a momentous decision to have an approved financial envelope for the future hospital. P.82, last year, the redesign of the Health and Social Services Department. Today, this long-term care funding is equal, if not more momentous, and it will affect all Islanders and how care is provided into the future. In this Assembly we have spoken at length about the ageing population. Some Members still have a problem, perhaps, understanding the true effect of what it will have but it is real The number of over-65s will double by 2040 and we must be ready for that and we must be prepared. Many of us here know or have experienced the cost of providing long-term care to a loved one or relative. It is real fear that people have: "How can I afford it? Will I be able to afford it? If I do need it, how long and will my money last?"

[10:30]

The proposed Long-Term Care Fund is a ring-fenced fund that will remove that real fear on how care and funds will be paid into the future but not only if you go into a care home or a nursing home. This care fund will also pay for people having care in their own homes. For the first time it will give that family choice of where they receive that care. The level of care required will be assessed by social workers, those who are professionally qualified to do so and work with the Social Security Department for the appropriate funding. The Health and Social Services Department has worked very closely and will continue to do so with colleagues in the Social Security Department and the Treasury and Resources Department. This proposition is affordable, workable and will meet the needs of adults requiring long-term care. We are not the only jurisdiction looking at the challenges of an ageing society. Indeed in London with the G8 Health Ministers meeting today looking at improving life and care for people affected by dementia and carers plus social adaptation to global aging. The cost of the care will rise. Living longer and with..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sorry to interrupt you, Deputy , but the Assembly has become inquorate. If another Member could return from the ante room?

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

Sir, I may be able to help. May I raise a défaut on the Deputy of St. John ? The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Not while we are inquorate, I am afraid.

Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

I am just hoping to resolve the situation.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Back to my counting, we need 2 more people. [Laughter] Very well. The Deputy of Trinity :

Thank you, I will continue. The number of people in care will rise and that was acknowledged in the White Paper redesigned in the Health and Social Services Department. One of the emphases of that redesign is care in the community, so this long-term proposition will provide that care and will fit very well together. Vulnerable adults who require and support their long-term care needs will also be able to make the choice as to where long-term care will be provided. This scheme dovetails very well in the objectives to provide care in the least restricted environment, which for most of us will be in our own homes. I would like to thank the Scrutiny Panel for their excellent review which I know was under a tight timescale. I urge Members to support this proposition to make a real difference to people requiring long-term care in the future not only for over 65s but, for the first time, those over 18. It will give them peace of mind.

9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I would start by saying that most of the over 70s I know are infuriated at being labelled a problem so can we please not be quite so dismissive of the older generation? It is a sad reflection of our ethos that we consider our senior citizens a problem. I am glad to see that the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources is back because I do not mind being quoted but please do not misquote me especially when I am quoting figures that were given to my panel by the Treasury and Resources Department. Page 26 of our Budget report was quite clear that at 3 per cent long-term care, which is what we are going to get to eventually, and based on the Treasury and Resources Department's figures, the only net beneficiaries are the couple with 2 children, one at university on an income of £40,000, and a married pensioner on the full pension of £26,000 a year. Everybody else is a net payer. Now we have just sorted out the misquoting, I have a few points. The law is not very clear on the position of younger claimants. I know a number of cases of married men in their 40s disabled through no fault of their own and their families have not been allowed a property bond, and no doubt they will be descending on the Minister for Social Security to put their case in due course. Deputy Bryans talks about people not solving this problem. Singapore has dealt with it partly through their health fund which you start when you start work, plus the Chinese attitude to senior citizens. I am sorry Deputy Bryans is not here to listen. The costs in Jersey appear to be much greater than the costs in Guernsey. The report of the Health and Social Services Scrutiny Panel quotes Guernsey nursing care at £756 a week. We have places over here which to my knowledge are charging £1,400 a week for nursing care. Perhaps we should be looking into this just to see why. Are we regulating to such a high degree that we are causing these prices, but I leave this to the Ministers involved. We talk about home care. I can tell you for a start home care is substantially cheaper than throwing people into a residential home provided the family are part of the care plan. I know about this because I have been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I think the old Jersey system of dower houses reflected the family taking responsibility for their own and it would be nice for this to be an ethos that we could renew but unfortunately it is not always possible to

have sufficient room for 2 or possibly 3 generations in the houses we are currently building. Unfortunately if you have rabbit hutches, then you cannot get enough people in and in that case we need a plan B and this proposition is effectively plan B. We have been talking about this since I was first elected in 2002 and frankly it is about time. I do agree with some of the points raised by the Connétable of St. John, who sadly is not in this Assembly either. I can support a reduction in States expenditure through the reduction in supplementation provided it is not immediately spent by the Treasury. As I say, I am glad to see that we have a plan B as brought by the Minister for Social Security and I shall be supporting it.

10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I am somewhat reluctant to speak about this because I am genuinely torn as to whether I can vote for this proposition because I think it has too many defects, some of which were raised yesterday. It looks like a plan. I agree with the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources that we must do something, which is a statement of the obvious but is this what we need to do? I am reminded of my footballing days when we had a plan B. If we were getting thrashed, when we were 5-nil down we would do hoof and harry, and what that was was on receiving the fifth goal, we are 5-nil down we would pass the ball straight back to the goal keeper and all 10 outfield players rushed to the opposition penalty area and the keeper hoofs it up there in hope. It never worked, we never got to 5-1 but that was the plan. That was the only plan B we had, hoof and harry. We were really desperate. This plan it seems to me is a bit similar. It is a plan. It is not necessarily a very good plan. Where do we start? Unlike previous speakers, I think the debate on tax or charge or insurance is completely relevant to this because we have a Minister for Treasury and Resources committed to saying, repeating, promising, assuring us no new taxes. If we call this a tax he individually is in trouble. Is it tax or is it a charge? This system that we have been operating on for the last 3, 4 or 5 decades, is it working? Is it or is it, as I keep repeating to Members, a broken economic model, low-tax, low-spend? The big challenge to that is our ageing population and here we are seeing the beginnings of increasing charges or, if you like to put it another way, increasing taxes to cope with the cost of holding our society together, one of which is dealing with the demand for long-term care. What do we see? We have tax at a top rate of 20 per cent. We have 6 per cent on Social Security for individuals including the Health Insurance Fund. We have 5 per cent G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) in the last few years and now we have 3 per cent L.T.C. (Long-Term Care) coming on. That adds up to 34 per cent. It is looking quite substantial. When is the next change going to appear to pay for something else because the costs will keep going up and the revenue, the taxes, will have to go up if we are going to cater for the needs of our society? That is the reality. By all means, support this plan if you like but do not go round saying: "No new taxes. We are keeping taxes down", because call it a tax or a charge, it is going to go up. Why do we not admit it?  That is the reality because the costs of keeping together our society are going to increase. We are told that the Social Security Fund, our Pension Fund will require extra funding in the coming 20, 30 years. We are told that the Health Insurance Fund will need extra funding in the next 20, 30 years. Let us face up to that and admit that and say: "This is the start of increased charges and increased taxation", because that is the reality. One of the pressures that we will see in our society, and I keep saying this as well and I get ignored, I think, is that here we are again with a grand 30-year plan and no population policy. How can that be, a 30-year plan and no population

strategy or policy to deal with it. We are told .. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I am sorry, 2 Members have just left at once and left us inquorate again. If we could summon one Member from the ante rooms?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I can use the joke I had reserved if you like. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Very well, Deputy , you can continue. Deputy G.P. Southern :

Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Members. Can I apologise, like Deputy Young, if I was boring you? Where were we? Population. What I am talking about here is not the direct impact of population because I have been given an explanation of that by the Minister for Social Security and it seems to work whatever population figures we produce. However, what I am looking at is a secondary impact. One of the issues that we have faced in the last 20, 30 years is the inexorable rise and rise of the price of houses. If population policy comes up with large immigrant numbers and the population goes up because of a recovering economy which is what happens, then I fear that over the next 10 years, the next decade, we will see another 50 per cent rise in the price of houses as yet again supply does not meet demand. That is where the critical impact is and what impact does that have on the scheme we have just devised? If house prices go up by a further 50 per cent in the next

10 years are we funded for that? Is that something that we ought to be considering? The importance of a population policy which we have ignored for the past 3 years is absolutely critical, I think. That is one defect where voting for this and hoping, crossing your fingers and hoping that it works should the population go up and house prices go up, which I think is a risk.

[10:45]

Secondly, yesterday we debated amendments to this particular scheme and one of the issues was is this scheme underfunded? Senator Breckon suggested that it would be and proposed R.P.I. plus 1 per cent as the funding mechanism to make sure that the Government's contribution kept pace with the demand on it. I think that was a valid criticism and I think that is, in the absence of that amendment, an issue which we should be concerned about. Is this a sustainable, viable fund? That is the second question mark I have against it, and why it may be an issue voting for it. Thirdly, and this is one of principle if you like, in rejecting Deputy Tadier 's amendment yesterday that we allow this fund to be grossly regressive at the top end. The very wealthiest in our society will pay proportionately less into this fund than they otherwise might do. I think that automatically shifts the load down towards the bottom and the middle; it must, because the need and the demand is constant. If you allow those at the very top end, the very richest in our society to pay less than the rest of us must pay proportionately more and that has to be a wrong principle. That makes me question this system and say: "Yes, this is a plan of sorts but I think it may well be the wrong plan. It is done in the context of the fact that we have transferred taxation from businesses in the last decade, what was £400 million is now £70 million, and transferred that tax burden on to individuals who are now the ones that pay the £400 million to keep our society together. The Minister for Treasury and Resources promised 3 years ago now that he was going to fix the £100 million gap and he would make businesses pay, he has failed to do so and here we are another little creep, another little notch up on - call them charges, I will call them taxes - taxation in our society without admitting to it. We do not have a solution to what we did a few years back when we went for Zero/Ten and we broke our economy. That is the reality, we have to admit it.

11. The Very Reverend R.F. Key, B.A., The Dean of Jersey:

It seems to me that in this debate there are questions of ethics as well as economics. One of the marks of a civilised society is how we care, care for those who are in trouble no matter what the cause of that trouble. Whether that is simply advancing years or an horrendous accident or paralysing illness or whether it is the result of a life lived, how shall we say, without perhaps best care for one's own health? This, that is before us, seems to me to be an excellent provision which is a great answer to those critics of our Island who try to portray us as a place only of selfishness and greed. Of course we have to provide long-term care in the same way that we provide housing or healthcare to whomever needs it. The only question, and that is a matter for other Members, is how we do it. It seems to me though that we should not be rewarding the squandering of earnings, nor penalising years or generations of responsibility nor indeed making living on benefits a life- style option. It seems that the Minister for Social Security has tried to balance all of those things with it seems to me a great level of success. How we encourage responsible living, saving and providing for our futures is also a function of Government. If you can remember being in cinemas, goodness me it must be 40-plus years ago when the first credit cards were being advertised, one slogan I seem to remember for what was then Access, was that Access takes the waiting out of wanting. I use my credit card on a daily basis. It is great. I am also delighted to say that Barclaycard have never made a farthing of interest out of me. It gets paid off in full at the end of each month. We do have a society at the moment in western Europe that is living on a mountain of unsustainable personal debt. This scheme helps all of us by ensuring that all of us make some contribution towards the care of whoever is in need usually towards the end of their lives. I do not like paying taxes or insurances any more than anybody else in this Chamber or on this Island. I

tend to think that I can spend my money more effectively than Senator Ozouf can spend it but I know that is simply proud and wrong. It does seem to me that this is one of those things into which I will gladly pay with the prayer and hope that I will never benefit from it.

12. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

I too take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the Social Security Department and indeed the previous 2 Ministers for Social Security for working on this excellent piece of work. It is overdue but I think where we are today in this Assembly it is the beginning of dealing with an iniquity that has been in our society for so long that I do take great satisfaction in thanking Senator Le Gresley today as the incumbent Minister for Social Security for his presentation of a very complex piece of work. I think it is excellent to be able to bring this to the Assembly after years and years of work. I also acknowledge the work done by the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel because it is important that it was scrutinised properly, and it does tick all the boxes and has passed as many tests as were needed. As Deputy Bryans said, it is an insurance policy for the future and it is important that people realise that it is a form of health insurance. The Dean just said there are many reasons for people that not only just become elderly but are also in care and, as Senator Ferguson said, our elderly, and all of us, are heading in that direction, some sooner than others, including me. We should never regard that those who are economically inactive nowadays who have paid their taxes all their lives need to be looked after. There has been for a long time an inequity in the system and I do not know about other colleagues in the Chamber but one of the constant refrains that I have heard in the last 8 years that I have been a States Member has been the inequity when somebody approaches you and says: "My mum or my dad or my brother or my sister have scrimped and scrapped all their lives and now they have to go into care and we have to sell their house." It is one of those refrains that we have all heard and it has been a very uncomfortable one because none of us as States Members have been able to give them anything like the kind of comfort we should have. Today is a part solution to this and I think that the setting on which the new report and proposition comes through is an important way to fix part of this problem. Colleagues will also be aware of if a constituent contacted you and said: "My folks, my brother who has had an accident, whatever they paid taxes for most of their lives and why is it that they have to sell their house or they have to liquidate their property when somebody else who has not been quite so careful with their money has been taken care of by the States?". It is always difficult to answer these things but today is a good situation where we can redress and give assurance to those who have this worry. I think, as many colleagues have said, those that do come into their senior years and others this is a beginning where you take out some of the stress and tension and worry that people face as they go into retirement or become elderly or whatever. I think it is an excellent piece of work by a department that sometimes gets a bashing unfairly, a bit like the Housing Department. These 2 departments do an excellent amount of work and they get a bashing from certain sectors and I think it is unfair. I say to colleagues today that I am so happy that this has come through. I am deeply grateful to the department and to the current Minister for Housing for doing what they have done and the amount of work that has gone into it. I have no hesitation in

supporting this.

13. Senator A. Breckon:

I remember attending a Parish Assembly in St. Saviour about 8 or 9 years ago and I must say that the people involved were brilliant at the finances, the estimates and generally predicting what was going to happen. I remember at this particular Assembly there was an overspend of about £150,000 and it was due to the fact that there had been a number of referrals of parishioners requiring elderly care and it was realised then that not only could it not be predicted in the future but also for a Parish, any Parish really, it was not affordable. It was one of the levers, if you like, which changed the system from the Parish welfare system to the central system we have today. It was discussed in

some detail I remember at that Assembly. The other thing I remember as part of the Scrutiny Panel in 2008 we did look at the Guernsey system which has been in place as others have said since 2004. I do not think anybody should be proud of the fact that we are 10 years behind our neighbours on anything. We needed to do something and the question is what do we do? At the time of that Scrutiny Panel we recruited an excellent adviser - Deputy Le Hérissier will remember this person - Professor Julien Forder was an acknowledged expert. He advised the U.K. Government on the Wanless Review, which was the biggest review that was undertaken in the U.K. in elderly care and he is internationally accepted. I understand that the Minister for Social Security and the Social Security Department have utilised his services since then because he really does know his subject and is thoroughly professional. When we looked at the Guernsey scheme at that time, and that was in 2008, they had a surplus I think of about £16 million and the reason they had that was, from memory, I think everybody over 15 in employment paid 1.4 per cent of contributions towards this ring-fenced fund. Obviously it needs an update, I do not really know where they are at the moment and what the funding is but that was the situation at that time. I think what we have done is, through the Ministers for Social Security since then, looked at that and other things and tried to get the best we can out of different systems across different places. One of the things, and I am sure Deputy Le Hérissier will remember, and Deputy Power and Deputy Martin, at the time that in Guernsey they had an elderly housing officer who was truly independent, not part of Planning or part of Housing, whatever, and was really ambitious in utilising States land and properties for purpose-built elderly care facilities. I am not talking about over-55 flats in a field; I am talking about specific lifetime homes that were fit for purpose. The Constable of Trinity is laughing but I have seen the homes in Trinity and they are an excellent example of what is required, and I know St. Peter as well and other Parishes have worked on the scheme. These are places where people are comfortable and they can be assisted to live there as long as possible but it was not developer-led, it was needs-based led and that is the difference where I think we are in a trap. We have had this debate not that long ago about over-55s housing. We rezoned land for this purpose but they are in effect flats in fields. They are not necessarily lifetime homes. We have allowed that to happen and I think maybe the Planning and Environment Department have been a bit slow on the uptake. I remember at the panel we asked a former Minister for Planning and Environment what is a lifetime

home. He said: "Do not ask me, ask the Assistant Minister, she has more experience than I have. She will know what is required to do that." We said: "That is not good enough. You need to be more ambitious with the planning specifications to make that fit for purpose so that part of this object can be achieved."

[11:00]

It has been identified that many people have lovely homes but after a certain age because of their mobility problems and the like then they are not fit for their purpose anymore, so I think that is something that needs to be addressed. The other thing is I remember there was a period of about a year where every 3 or 4 weeks families to see me because they were in, let us say, some sort of distress because of what had happened to an elderly family member and said: "We did not realise this was going to happen", and the Constable of Trinity mentioned that before. Although we are bringing in a scheme now there are many people who have suffered some distress and hardship and difficult decisions because of where we were before and that is really why we need to move it on because those families had some very real concerns about that. The other thing that many said, even elderly people said: "Yes, we would pay into an insurance based ring-fenced scheme. We do not want to give the States money so they can put bends in Victoria Avenue or whatever they want to do. We will pay in providing it is an insurance based scheme. We cannot afford it on our own but collectively we would pay", and one of the reasons they said that was the cost of care could be around about £1,000 a week and that is still fairly common give or take a few pounds. They had a concern and a fear and the comfort was that a scheme like this was on the way. As I say, they