States Meeting Transcript - 10th September 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 10th SEPTEMBER 2014

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

1. Survivor's Benefit: repeal of 2012 changes (P.122/2014)................................6

1.1 Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:......................................................6

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................10
2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................13
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................16
4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................17

5. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement : ........................................................19
6. Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour : ...............................................20
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................20
8. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................21
9. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................21
10. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity : .......................................................22
11. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................23

2. Draft States of Jersey (Amendment No. 7) Law 2014 (Appointed Day) Act 201- (P.131/2014)..............................................................................26

2.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................26

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................26
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................27
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :....................................................................27
4. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................28

3. Draft Amendment (No. 24) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.132/2014) ...........................................................................................28

3.1 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):................................................29

4. Draft Amendment (No. 25) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.133/2014) ...........................................................................................30

4.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour (Chairman, Chairmen's Committee):...............30

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin: ........................................................31
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................31
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................31

4. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................32

5. Jersey Innovation Fund: Board remuneration (P.134/2014)...........................33

5.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................33

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................34
2. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................34

3. Senator L.J. Farnham :..................................................................35
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................35
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................35
6. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................36
7. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................37
8. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................37
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................37
10. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................38
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois:................................................................38
12. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................39
13. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :............................................39
14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................39

6. States of Jersey Complaints Panel: appointment of Deputy Chairman (P.142/2014) .44

6.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ...............44

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................45
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................45

7. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 201 (P.138/2014) ...45

7.1 The Connétable of Trinity (Chairman, Comité des Connétable s):.......................46

1. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:.................................................................46
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................46
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................46

4. The Connétable of Trinity :..............................................................46

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS....................................................47

8 Vote of No Confidence: Minister for Treasury and Resources (P.148/2014)..........47

1. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................47
2. The Deputy Bailiff :.....................................................................47
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................47
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................48

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................48 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................48

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................48 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................50 Senator I.J. Gorst :............................................................................50 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................51 Deputy J.H. Young:..........................................................................51 Senator S.C. Ferguson: .......................................................................51 Deputy S. Power:.............................................................................52 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................52

9. Draft Income Support (Special Payments) (Child Personal Care) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.135/2014)........................................................................52

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................53

1. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................54
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................54
3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................55
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................55

5. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................55

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................56

10. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 12) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.136/2014).57

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................57

1. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................57
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................57

2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................58

11. Draft Income Support (Special Payments) (Cold Weather Payments) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 201- (P.137/2014)..........................................59

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................59
2. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................60
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................60

12. Draft Amendment (No. 26) of the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.139/2014) ...........................................................................................61

12.1 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ...............61

1. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................62
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................62

13. Social Security Tribunal: re-appointment of members (P.145/2014)..................62

13.1 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security): ........................63

ARRANGEMEN OF PUBLIC BUSINESS .....................................................63

14 Vote of No Confidence: Minister for Treasury and Resources (P.148/2014)..........63

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................63

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................63

SHORT ADJOURNMENT ......................................................................64

2. Vote of No Confidence: Minister for Treasury and Resources - reduce lodging period to debate at additional sitting on 16th September 2014 (P.148/2014) ..................64

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................64

1. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................64
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ............................................................64
3. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................64
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................64
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................64
6. Deputy E.J. Noel:....................................................................64
7. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................64
8. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................64
9. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................65
10. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ..........................................................65
11. Deputy J.A. Martin: ..............................................................65
12. Deputy M. Tadier :................................................................65
13. Senator I.J. Gorst : ................................................................65
14. The Connétable of St. John : ......................................................66
15. Deputy G.P. Southern : ............................................................66

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................67

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

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

Deputy Higgins has asked if he can be défaut excuse because of the imminence of the air show. The Deputy Bailiff :

Do Members agree he should be marked défaut excuse? Défaut excuse.

Connétable P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Can I pass a comment? I was under the impression that this took priority over anything else if you are on-Island. I appreciate the air show is important but he could have come into the Chamber and given his apologies and then go on to his meetings later on and explain to the Chamber himself, I am sure.

The Deputy Bailiff :

This is why I invited any comments from Members. Do Members agree he should be marked défaut?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

If Deputy Higgins gets paid for doing the air display, then any other Member doing a paid job would be criticised. If he is doing it for entirely zero, and it is not clear, perhaps he might be able to report to the Assembly exactly what the situation is because if it is being paid for, then any other Member would be severely criticised for not being here.

Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier :

This House has tolerated long absences  [Members: Oh!] of Members from this House. The Deputy is merely asking for a small indulgence and I think that should be permitted him. The Jersey Air Display is of considerable importance. He organises it and he should be given the possibility to run it; he is essential to it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are not going to have a debate about this. If Members feel he should be marked défaut excuse would you please stand?

Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : May we have the appel, please? The Deputy Bailiff :

No, we cannot take a vote until we are constituted. Now can I ask Members who feel it would be appropriate to mark Deputy Higgins défaut excuse please to stand? The appel is called for. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Deputy is marked défaut excuse.

1. Survivor's Benefit: repeal of 2012 changes (P.122/2014) The Deputy Bailiff :

We now turn to P.122/2014 - Survivor's Benefit: repeal of 2012 changes - lodged by Deputy Southern and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to refer to their Act dated 6th December 2012 in which they approved the Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 2012 and agreed, inter alia, to restrict access to survivor's benefit to those surviving spouses or civil  partners  who  had  the  care  of  a child  or  who  had  attained  the  age  of  55  before  the commencement date of Part 5 of the Regulations, namely 1st January 2013; and (a) to agree that the measures relating to survivor's benefit approved in December 2012 should be repealed and that the benefit should be restored without conditions in the form previously set out in Article 24 of the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974 pending a full consultation through a Green Paper process on the subject; (b) to request the Minister for Social Security to bring forward the necessary legislation to give effect to the proposal in paragraph (a) and to take the necessary steps to commence the required consultation process.

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

Thank you to Members for allowing me to postpone this particular motion. I am back and fit, although I do not know about 100 per cent. I have an ear infection and if my volume goes up and down sharply then it is because I cannot hear myself. A rescindment is a serious matter and I do not bring it lightly. I bring it because I think there has been a serious mistake made and I bring it so research can be done in order to see what options there are on this particular issue and how we might proceed, and not to apply the decision we made back in 2012 which I believe is an unreasonable one. When we accepted the Minister for Social Security's amendment to the Social Security Law on survivor's pension the Minister put forward 2 arguments. He said that the scheme itself was generous and he needed to save money and this is the crunch of the issue. The Minister for Social Security has made a commitment to save, first of all, £3 million from the Social Security budget and then a second commitment, a second £3 million; I think it is in total £6 million savings, at a time when conditions for people in the Island were getting worse. A lot of unemployment, a lot of difficult situations, people reliant on food banks, so it was a very difficult decision to make. I take nothing away from the Minister for Social Security in managing to do that. He also said that it was old fashioned, that it is an increasing participation of women in the workforce making survivor's pension irrelevant. To both of those 2 I would have said: "Yes, that is happening but there are still lots of women around, largely in their 50s, who may not have worked for 20 years, and technology as such to upskill themselves is very difficult. The fact is, as I demonstrate with the statement from one particular 54 year-old: "It is almost impossible to get an interview, certainly to get a job, as a 54 year-old woman." It is a very difficult thing to do. There are a lot of young people out there prepared to work and apply for jobs; 50 year olds, 50-pluses are seen as not employable or difficult to employ. The argument I put forward is one in which there is an implied contract between the Government and the people who pay contributions compulsorily at 6 per cent throughout their working life to the Social Security scheme. They do so in order to gain benefits in the long term. One of those benefits is obviously a pension; another of those benefits was the widow's or widower's pension, now named survivor's pension, and 75 per cent of those claimants are women. In some cases, whether through a red card or through their husband's contributions, some of these women, survivors, have paid in 30 years of contribution in the expectation that the Government will honour its side of the contract to deliver a set of benefits, one of which, although people do not think about it all the time, is a survivor's benefit. So you can have paid 30, 35 years of contributions to be told, as one person was via the newspaper, that that had changed, it had gone, was indeed a shock. It was a shock to one particular family because the husband, who is substantially older than his wife, he is in his late 60s, had just been diagnosed with a tumour of the brain. He was aware that his wife who was in her 50s was going to become a survivor, a widow. He read in the paper that one of the benefits which he had talked about with Social Security previously when he was diagnosed as suffering from this tumour had been withdrawn and he was, quite frankly, shocked. He is still receiving treatment now but he will not be with us much longer and he has seen what he has contributed as taken away from his soon-to-be widow. I think that is a shocking thing to have happened. It is not the only person to whom it has happened. I wonder how

many people in their 50s it has happened to. We have not got research. [9:45]

When we debated this first time around we got into an argument about at what age it was appropriate to say that survivors must seek work. We had an argument over whether it should be 50, 55 or 57. I went for 50, the Minister for Social Security went for 57 and Deputy Young went for 55 and typically in the States we often go for the compromise position: 55 will do. But that was the sum of the debate. It was about what age it is appropriate to do this; it was not about the principle. But, hang on, when people have paid in 6 per cent compulsorily into a scheme which we have devised to allow them to claim a pension and the survivor's pension, to be told suddenly that one of those benefits is gone is really not fair. I think that is unreasonable behaviour. If this were a works pension, the people running the pension would be negotiating with their workforce about one of the ways to institute change which would be to close particular bits of the scheme to new entrants. That is the normal way of doing things. So from now on new entrants will not get this

particular benefit or that particular benefit and that is what I am suggesting here. We have to take this away, look at it again. Now I do not know what the numbers are between stopping it now and eventually nobody will be receiving it and stopping it to new entrants and in some 40 plus years' time there will be nobody receiving it. It seems to me that those are 2 ways of delivering this change, if that is an acceptable change, one of which I believe is unreasonable and one of which is more like normal practice. But it is interesting, when I was looking at this proposition, to see how it was in fact the work entirely of the now Minister for Social Security but started when he was a Back-Bencher where he has brought forward one, 2 and now 3 things which he says: "This is the best way to save money" and the aim is saving money. In particular, when he brought as a Minister P.105 of 2011 he was requested to carry out a comprehensive review. Unfortunately, he did not do that, so this House was aware that we needed some more research on this to find out what the consequences would be and instructed the Minister to carry out a comprehensive review. When he came back with his propositions he said on page 4 of his report: "It was not possible to undertake a complete review of survivor's benefits within the timetable proposed by P.105." We asked him to do a comprehensive review, he said: "I cannot in the timescales." Nonetheless, he went forward with his proposals. So this rescindment says: "Let us do the research." We have acted without the research; I think we made a mistake. I think we should take time to go back, review that decision, do the research, see what it means, look at some alternatives - alternative ways of delivering this particular saving - and see if we can get it right because I believe we have not yet. That is what this proposition says. It does not say: "Walk away from this and forget it, we are going to restore it." It says: "Let us halt this process while we do the research. Let us have a Green Paper, let us have the population properly consulted." Has anybody talked to people who have been bereaved recently? Has anybody talked to this aspect? Has anybody talked to how readily over-50s women can get work? Have we researched that? No, we have not. Have we researched the relative costs in terms of savings of delivering one way or the other? No. A generous benefit, have we investigated how to cut that down perhaps? We have not. The research has not been done and I think that is a serious failing. In the Minister's own words he points out that we tinker with Social Security legislation at our peril. It is very, very complex actuarially, financially and pragmatically practically very, very difficult. Just talk to anybody who has to deal with Social Security issues time and time and time again, as I do, when they go down to Social Security and leave none the wiser. The Minister said: "Social Security benefit legislation is complex. Changes to legislation must be carefully planned as they affect a large number of benefit claimants. The suggestion in the report accompanying P.105 that a Green Paper should be published on this single topic will need to be carefully considered. In order to provide the general public with a realistic range of options and sufficient background information to understand the finances of the Social Security Fund and the relative implications of different proposals, a comprehensive paper should be made available." That did not happen. This proposition says: "Go back to that and make it happen. Do the research." In terms of the relationship that I am talking about, this contract, this implied contract, this social contract between us, the Government, and the governed, and certainly the contributors to Social Security, were addressed by this Minister when he said: "These proposals will have no impact on the entitlement of existing claimants who will all still continue to receive survivor's allowance, or survivor's pension, under the current rules." That is those who are already claiming who have been bereaved. Those who are already paying and have paid for substantial numbers of years, are also, I believe, entitled to have their relationship acknowledged. You have paid in, you should get what you paid for. Senator Le Sueur , the previous Minister, had this to say about the relationship. He said: "If the Jersey Social Security scheme is to maintain its credibility, we must ensure the benefits accrued by those already in the scheme are honoured and at the same time introduce changes which will benefit our society in the future." Wise words indeed: "We must ensure that benefits accrued to those already in the scheme .." and I believe "those already in the scheme" means those who have contributed often for substantial years: ".. should be treated

reasonably and that their benefits are honoured." An interesting word: "honour". Again, in another particular document Senator Le Sueur said: "Changes to legislation must be carefully planned as they affect a large number of benefit claimants." Be wary of going in without the required research and changing things in a perfectly acceptable aim to improve things and to make things better, in this case to save money, because we know that the Social Security Fund will peak and will diminish unless we do something. There are lots of things we can do, perhaps this particular one is not something that we should do. The Minister said: "Rescinding this decision would create a significant additional financial burden on the Social Security Fund leading to the need for cuts in other benefits and/or an increase in the contribution rates." There are a lot of ways of doing things. We already have the contribution rate under consideration. We have a ring-fenced fund starting at 0.5 per cent for long-term care. There has already been one increase. We have already put an increase over the earnings level of £47,000 for employers to pay an extra 2 per cent for highly-paid employees. We know we could adjust the ceiling at £47,000 and we could, if we wanted, introduce charges about that limit because nobody pays anything at the moment apart from this 2 per cent, and that would produce substantial income. So there are ways we are already looking at. We could, and we have done it, extend the age at which you can claim the pension to 67; that stretched it a bit. We could talk, and we will talk, about increasing contribution levels to make sure that this becomes a totally sustainable fund. We are told that we reach the breaking-even point in 2016 when income and expenditure is going to equal expenditure. I would suggest that that is a perfectly adequate timetable. It is tight but here we are in 2014, rescind this, do the research 2015, come back with a new scheme to deliver the savings 2016 and here we go. In the meantime, as we know, we will have to take a look at the overall funding, the overall structure of the fund, and there may be major things we have to deal with it. So this, while admittedly does not help that situation, can be done. We might look, for example, go back to that thing, the statement about: "Further, the benefit was too generous. It could pay a widow or widower the standard rate of benefit over a period of decades until they reach their pension age with no element of means testing." So, question mark, is it time to introduce means testing into some of our benefits? That is another solution: should be in a Green Paper, should be discussed, should be investigated and should be consulted on with the people who are paying in. The only scrutiny that this particular measure has got was it was notified to the Social Security Advisory Council. It said that the Advisory Council is able to offer an informed perspective independent of the department. In fact, the Advisory Council is a body of lay people who have got no particular expertise necessarily in pensions or in actuarial matters. It is a commonsense piece of advice that they can give because they are all, as I say, ordinary laymen. In fact, when they produced their advice they said: "Well why do we not just phase-out survivor's pension for all, including current claimants?" It seems to me that that sort of advice shows a lack of sensitivity and a lack of what is possible politically and yet that was the only scrutiny it got. The Minister himself in his statement on page 6 of his comments says: "That said, I fully accept that there is a social contract between contributors, benefit claimants and the Social Security Fund. As the Minister for Social Security, I take this contract very seriously. It is my responsibility to protect the long-term sustainability of the fund, to make sure that the fund continues to provide pensions and other benefits into the future; to adjust both contributions and benefits in line with changes in our society and with the ability of workers to meet these costs. Workers who are making contributions now need to be confident that they will be able to draw a pension in their old age, just as they are supporting the current generation of pensioners." Absolutely vital.

[10:00]

If one replaces the word "pension" with the words "survivor's pension" for the moment, you see the nature of the contract and the respect which it is being given. I believe that contract, that social contract, is there and I believe it should be upheld. I believe we have made a mistake, research has

not been done, this rescindment motion says: "Go away, think again, do the research and come back with something that you can back up." At the moment we are talking survivors, mostly women, faced with the prospect in their early 50s of rushing around and seeking work if they have not worked, of re-training, re-skilling themselves, faced with difficult situations and a benefit for which they have contributed, often over long years, removed from them and finding out only when it appears in the paper because no consultation took place and no flag-waving saying: "Look out, have a think about this, this is what we are planning to do." Did not happen. Senator Le Sueur said: "Changes to legislation must be carefully planned as they affect a large number of benefit claimants." I have heard from 3 claimants who fit this exactly, as I have there: "Not such a merry widow." The death of her husband occurred only a matter of months after this decision was made. It came as a complete shock out of the blue to her that she would only get a year's comfort from survivor's allowance and she would not get survivor's pension. I have talked about the other person who is older than his wife, his wife is in her early 50s, exactly the same situation, and he learnt that this was going to happen. He was extremely upset by the actions of this Government. I have heard from another person who says: "I would come forward because I have been severely hit. I maybe have to sell my house. I do not know what I am going to do yet but I work in a government department and I fear if I make a fuss I may lose my job." That is the reality of what is happening out there. I urge Members to support this rescindment. It does not say: "Put this away and change our minds completely. Do not do it." It says: "Do the research, come back with the evidence. There is time before 2016 to decide what the right way forward is and let us see if we can get this right" because we have got some much more serious and expensive changes to make to the Social Security Fund. Let us please get this starting point right before we move on.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if I could raise a point of order. I find the curriculum vitae quite worrying because it is very, very easy to identify the individual who is the subject of Deputy Southern 's research. Is it right that this material be published?

Deputy G.P. Southern :

May I contribute? I consulted extensively with the person concerned and took out all the names and, yes, she was perfectly content to be public about this. In fact, she has done an interview - I do not know when it is going to be shown; maybe it has been shown - with television. She is quite happy to go public with this and was happy with the format that I have proposed. It has been authorised by her.

The Deputy Bailiff :

It seems to me there is no ruling to be made immediately because what is done is done. But it may well be something that the Privileges and Procedures Committee might want to address so that proper procedures can be considered. That is not to say that these are not proper but the matter should be considered. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] The proposition is now open to debate. Minister.

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I am delighted that Deputy Southern is feeling better this morning and I am delighted that I am feeling good this morning as well to defend the department's position. I am sure Members will not be surprised that given my involvement in researching and revising survivor's benefits that I strongly oppose this proposition to rescind the changes we made in 2012. I am also at this very early stage very concerned that the 3 Members who signed the rescindments voted in favour of not only the principles but also in the Third Reading for the amendments. I find that very strange. Although one of them is not here today, I do hope I hear from those 2 gentlemen - a Deputy and a Senator - because I would really like to know what is changed because this is what this proposition

is all about. What has changed that we need to have a rescindment? As Deputy Southern has said, I first drew the Assembly's attention to the weakness of survivor's pension when I was a Back- Bencher back in 2011. Deputy Southern has chosen, in not only his proposition but also in his speech this morning, to refer to a quote that was in my original proposition from a former President of the Employment and Social Security Committee, former Senator Le Sueur. Of course, as always, it is always easy to use quotes when you edit them. Again, we have a situation here where the Deputy has decided to edit my quote but I will give Members the full quote which I found in my original proposition also in P.101 of 2012. The full quote was, and these are the words of the former President back in 1995: "Social Security schemes must change with the times if they are to continue to serve society as a whole. Within the workplace the proportions of women are increasing. Within the family there has been a move away from the traditional male head of household role and divorce rates have increased, as has the number of single-parent families. In short, this could mean that more people may not be fully covered by the scheme in future as it is based on traditional concepts of continuous full-time employment and the male as the head of the household." Now we did not hear that this morning and it is also not in Deputy Southern 's proposition. So for me the issue is quite simple: this benefit was too generous. It would pay the standard rate of benefit to a widow or widower from possibly a young age right up to their pension age irrespective of their income and country of residence. The generosity of the scheme is rooted in the Insular Insurance (Jersey) Law 1950 and the benefits of widows. It operated alongside Parish welfare long before we had income support benefit. The benefit, as I said from that quote, reflects a time when women were expected to be dependent on a male breadwinner. But now, and this is confirmed from the 2011 census, 77 per cent of working-age women are economically active, which is only just behind the men figure of 86 per cent. So in 2012 this Assembly introduced a new eligibility condition for survivor pension. In future, survivors only move at the end of the first year of bereavement from survivor's allowance to survivor's pension if they had a dependent child. That is defined as a child of compulsory school age or aged up to 25 if still in full-time education. When we debated the change in December 2012 we acknowledged that older people might find it harder to adapt under the new rules. It was argued, as it has been this morning, that younger people are much more likely to be in work, would be able to find work, and would have more time to adjust their finances and plan for the future. So what we put in place were transition arrangements and I must stress the word "transition". It was not as perhaps alluded to by Deputy Southern in his opening speech this morning that we exempted anybody once they reach the age of 55. That was not what we agreed. What we agreed was transition so that older people, men and women, born on or before 31st December 1957, would receive a survivor's pension under the old rules. This transition has therefore delayed the savings which would be made to the fund but we agreed on that day that it was appropriate. But, most importantly, survivor's allowance was not affected so all survivors continued to receive this benefit for the first 12 months irrespective of dependence. So the allowance is paid at 120 per cent of the standard rate of benefit and during that time the survivor receives full credits on their contribution record for that year. That is very important because while I do not wish this morning to go into the particular case highlighted in the Deputy 's report, I must

stress that a woman who was married before 1st April 2001 who took the married woman's exemption, which this particular lady did take, did not pay any contributions, was not required to pay any contributions. Therefore, when the survivor's allowance kicks-in they receive full credits for a whole year which in most cases, almost without exception, would entitle them to other benefits going forward after that year is completed such as short-term incapacity, long-term incapacity, et cetera. That was a very generous arrangement for married women, I should point out, who married before 2001. You could ask yourself in this day and age is it fair? Is it fair that that group of women - and there is quite a large group of them - do not pay contributions? They work alongside their colleagues in offices and their colleagues get 6 per cent deducted and they pay nothing. Is that fair? Is it fair that survivor's allowance is not available to couples who co-habit?

Is that fair? Is that something we should change? We have rules in Income Support which allow co-habiting couples to have benefits but when we come to this particular benefit we say: "No, you have to be married or in a civil partnership." That is something perhaps we need to look at going forward. There are lots of things that we need to consider in the round when we will be next year reviewing the whole of the benefits paid out of the Social Security Fund for the reasons that we all know: the pressure is on the fund. So what I need to know, and what Members need to know, what has changed since we made those decisions in December 2012 that would warrant a rescindment? As the Deputy has quite rightly said, this is an important debate. You do not bring a rescindment motion, which this is, without good cause, without facts, without information. This is sadly lacking in this proposition. I maintain that the amendments we made were fair. They were part of the C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) process, they were thoroughly considered and that even if we re-visit all the data, if we look at all the other jurisdictions again, if we undertake a wider consultation as the Deputy is proposing, we would still reach the same conclusion. We have been criticised as a department for lack of consultation, lack of research. Now I do have a report here which was carried out by an outside agency: Background Report on Survivor's Benefits. This was a review of survivor's benefits in other jurisdictions and nowhere was it found that anywhere had such a generous benefit as Jersey. When I brought my original proposition as a Back-Bencher I researched the Isle of Man and Guernsey and again our benefits stood out as far too generous in relation to what the other islands were doing. So these changes have been in place for over a year now and my officers have examined each new claim for survivor's allowance and looked specifically at those which did not progress to a survivor's pension because of the new rules. Now as it says in my comments, some of these people were living overseas and some were living in Jersey and therefore entitled to income support if they had been here for 5 years or more. Not one - not one - of those claimants subsequently claimed income support. So if we are talking about hardship, if we really believe there is hardship, we would surely in a full year have received at least one income support claim from somebody who is not entitled to survivor's pension and we did not have one. I do recall during the debate on the first proposition that it was said: "This will create

hardship. It will create a burden on the income support scheme and on the taxpayer." [10:15]

The evidence for the first full year is there has been not one claimant of income support. So Deputy Southern has again suggested this morning that there is a contract; there is a contract between those who are currently in the scheme and paying, those who are receiving their pensions and anybody who is 18 from today becomes a member of that scheme as they take out a card and start paying contributions. I am sorry, but I have to squash that notion. It is just not possible that we as an Assembly can manage the Social Security Fund responsibly and develop benefits in the line with the needs of contributors and pensioners if we cannot make changes. We have recently received the Government Actuary Report on the condition of the fund and also the Health Insurance Fund. We have been advised that we must start considering changes to ensure these funds remain viable for the future. The next Assembly will be called upon to make very difficult decisions regarding benefits we wish to pay, and the level of contributions required to make these benefits possible. We have a stark choice: pay higher contributions which clearly is what Deputy Southern would like, or receive lower benefits.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

You cannot put those words into my mouth. I have never said I would like to do that. I have said they have to be considered.

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I will make sure because I did write it down at the time. The Deputy suggested in his opening speech that we should introduce a higher contribution rate for employees above the standard earnings' limits; that we should consider adjusting the ceiling. I would say that making those suggestions if you like, is giving a strong indication that increasing the contribution rates is the way to pay benefits in the future. But we cannot leave the status quo. If we do not make the changes to the Social Security Fund by 2046 we will have no money. So the young people who are paying in today will not have a pension, which is clearly unacceptable. It is not easy to bring a proposition, not only as a Back-Bencher, but also as a Minister, which removes benefits from people who have experienced a tragedy by losing a partner. But sometimes this Assembly has to make tough decisions and for the right reasons. Local residents on income support or low income will always be supported by our benefit system. As I explained in my original report, income support is available to a homeowner and the amount they would receive is very similar to the average value of survivor's pension. The reality is that we can no longer afford to pay a non-means-tested pension to working age people until they reach their own pension age. Again this morning the Deputy has suggested that we should have perhaps the introduction of means-tested benefits within the Social Security Fund. This would be completely breaking away from the tradition that they are not means tested. Perhaps he would like us to introduce a means-tested pension, old age pension. That would save an enormous amount of money, but I do not think he would like to see that happen. Means- tested benefits only apply where they are tax funded. So in summary, do we want to change what we have agreed? Is this Assembly so weak that within one year of bringing in changes, much needed changes to this benefit, that we roll over and say: "No; 2 or 3 people have complained because they are not receiving the Survivor's Pension?" Therefore we change the whole scheme again, or we stop the scheme. We reverse everything we have done because of a number of complaints that have come to Deputy Southern 's attention. We knew - I am sorry, but we knew there would be people who are close to 55 who would not benefit from the Survivor's Pension when we made these changes. It is no surprise that some people have been affected, and it is sad. Of course it is sad. But this Assembly has to make decisions with our head. I am sorry, but yesterday I stood up at the end of the debate about the Women's Refuge and I said to Members: "You know, you are going to vote with your heart. Where is your head?" Your head is saying that in that particular case lengthy discussions have taken place with the trustees and it has all been signed-up, all agreed, and then within a few months this Assembly with their hearts, without thinking really about the issues, no evidence, no accounts, nothing, we - or well, I did not vote for it - but the majority of you voted to give them the money. If today I am faced with a situation where the heart again overrules the head, I am very, very disappointed. It has been a tough job being the Minister for Social Security. I have made some tough decisions. Tough, tough - people thought I would be soft. I am. I know, I was told: "You will not be any good as Minister for Social Security. You are too soft." No, I make tough decisions. I got rid of the - I think I am allowed to say this, but if you do not like the language I will withdraw it - the bunking-up benefit. The bunking-up benefit. What was that all about? Income support. So we now have a 5-year rule for all adults because it was known in the pubs and clubs of Jersey that if you bunked-up with a mate who was on income support they could pay £91 a week to you. That was the bunking-up benefit. Now I told my officers I am not tolerating that. I am sorry, but that is not on and we stopped the bunking-up benefit. You all voted for that. So if people do not like the decisions I have made, tough decisions, well, I accept that. I have had my time in office, but I feel very strongly about this benefit. It was and probably still is too generous, but we made the changes. Please, I appeal to

you, do not back down and go along with this rescindment motion.

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

When I first became elected into this House at the end of 2011 one of the earliest major measures I recall being presented with was this amendment to change the law - the change to the law that the Minister for Social Security had brought consolidating the private Member's proposition he had brought, certainly before I came into office and probably quite a number of other Members. Frankly my immediate reaction was really quite concerned about this because there is no question obviously. The Minister refers to societal change, how the patterns of life, marriage, partnership, working patterns and so on have moved over the years. But I really was worried about the timescale of that; the fact that there are bound to be people caught up in that who are very much of a much more traditional lifestyle. I certainly was looking to how we could protect those people who through no fault of their own, either through home circumstances or probably government legislation - we had all, you know, favourable tax reliefs for married couples, we encouraged young women to get red cards and not pay social security for donkeys' years. We did all those things. It is going to take time for that to phase-out. So I think I was certainly looking when that measure came along to find measures to mitigate that change and to find ways of phasing it out. Of course at the time I understood that we desperately needed to do something about public expenditure and I went along with the view that previous Assemblies had made choices through the comprehensive spending reviews, and therefore this change had to be made. I knew nothing about the status of Social Security by myself. So the best thing I could do, I brought an amendment and I successfully amended. This House backed my amendment, to provide protection for those people who were the age 55 - above 55 as Deputy Southern has said. That was pretty well the only argument we had in this Assembly..  [Interruption] So I brought that amendment. But of course at the time I did not think it went far enough. Maybe I was not very expert at drafting amendments and perhaps I should have been faster in looking at the small print. The devil is always in the detail, and after I had lodged it and looked through I realised, oh dear, that the transitional arrangement protects a temporary cohort of individuals. So from the moment that amendment was approved that group was phased out and became less and less. In hindsight I do not think that transitional arrangement went far enough. I think what we are dealing with here, let us not get away with it - we are dealing with the sad, tragic circumstances whereas in families a tragic early death that occurs of a spouse or a partner, because with life expectancy as it is you do not expect people to lose their lives in their late-50s or mid-50s even. Thankfully with health services and society has improved, it may have been in decades gone by; it is not now, thankfully. Of course, when those tragedies occur and I think it does affect both men and women, I do not accept the position that it is just a sexist thing, it affects surviving partners of both sexes and it is a reality. People of advanced years find it difficult to enter the workplace when they either lose their jobs or have not got established careers. I think ageism in the workplace is rife. Anybody with any sense, the sooner we get age discrimination legislation on the books the better. I see it is on the end of the priorities. [Approbation] Because how we can treat people of more advanced years as dispensable and not important to the community, we can waste their skills, I really do not know. But it is a fact that when you are

particularly in a recession when you are competing for jobs with very, very strong competition - and you know people want to employ young people, and of course they do because it is about the lifeblood of society. So we got ourselves into this situation where we have got a very great problem. I do not have an answer to that, but it is no question. It is a fact that people of advanced years trying to re-enter the workplace to recover their situation after a loss or a tragic loss of a spouse or partner, face that difficulty. Of course the Minister's figures show that themselves. If you look at the Minister's comments, what he tells us is that there were 80 people - I am not sure of the timescale of that, but they are just the ratio of that that matters - I think that is 2013, probably 80 people fell into this situation. Thankfully because of the amendment 47 people, by virtue of the transitional arrangement that we made, unsatisfactory as it is and phasing-out as it is, so over half. But of course it is obvious that that percent, that proportion is going to fade away. It will not be long before it is none. The situations still arise. The Minister in his comments says it is outdated, based on early society when women were provided for by their husbands. Of course we had the red card situation. We encouraged that approach to things where women were encouraged: "Well, do

not worry. Your husband is going to pay for your social security and you will be all right." The husband believes that is the case. I cannot remember when that was taken out. I think it is around in the late 70s somewhere, 1975, 1976, somewhere like that. Thankfully that was absolutely the right thing to do. But it is no question; we encourage people to do that. Now this came home to me because when I brought my amendment I did not have in mind any individual. I generally think as a policy point. It really came home to me after the States approved that amendment. I had a phone call from a person - and I am not going to give you enough information because they are very well known and you would be able to identify them if I did too much - but they said to me they were suffering from terminal cancer, their family circumstances were exactly as I had spelt out. The other partner to the marriage had never worked, to care for the children and this was something they were having to face.

[10:30]

That person phoned me to say a sincere thank you. I was really moved at that because I had not expected that. That person now is no longer sadly with us. So I think these things have a real human cost and I think when we are dealing with this there should not be an argument between Deputy Southern and the Minister, a personalised argument. Put that aside. So looking at the costs, I absolutely agree with the Minister, there is a financial issue here. Of course I looked at his report and I congratulate him on it. First class report reading for 2013. I encourage all Members to read this because there are big issues about funding in Social Security. It brings together for the first time, the Minister says, the cost of tax-funded benefits and Social Security contributions. When I look I see total up, £360 million a year paid for by the States supporting our community. I think: "Wow, that is good. What a supportive society we have created." Full marks, you know. Shows the commitment that everybody knows runs - a strong social commitment through this Island. It is about looking after our people. But when I started to really get questions, when I looked at the charts in there - there is a nice chart in there; I recommend it to all Members - it shows the amounts, if you like the pockets of money on the various benefits and where they come from, and frankly it is all over the place. You look at that and you think: "Well, why should this not be Social Security funded? How is it that this is tax benefit funded?" and so on. There is absolutely a case for a review of these whole funding benefits. So I think this adds to the proposition. The Minister is saying: "The proposition we have will need a review of contributions." I think there is a case anyway. Looking at his report, in the box "Survivor's Benefits £4.7 million" he says. So that is 1 per cent of the total benefits that are being paid. That is the proportion. I ask myself when we have 50 per cent, £180 million from tax revenue and just to explain that, it is not income support only. There is obviously supplementation; there are all sorts of things in there. There is obviously a case I think for looking at that review. Of course there are a few safeguards. I think I noticed in the annual report it also says that with these Survivor's Pensions, hopefully - I cannot read the words here - it says: "Survivor's Benefits are not paid if the survivor remarries, cohabits or enters another civil partnership and ceases when the survivor reaches pension age." So that seems to be eminently sensible. When I listened to the Minister I was really upset, really disappointed, because I think he has been a brilliant Minister for Social Security. I wish he was staying; I really do. [Approbation] I think on this particular matter - because I admire his passion, I really do, and his commitment - but I worry, is this a case of him being a dog with a bone? You know, will not let go. Original proposition to save money in response to a situation and then gets it through and then Members come up and say: "Hang on a minute. There is an issue here." Could he not please be prepared to consider that on this occasion he might not be right and be open to review to have this looked at? I think, though yes, it is about heads - we must head, and of course when you look at this chart your head tells you we have to look at this contribution structure. I say now, I would find it difficult not to review the contributions, particularly with regard to the earning ceiling, because I think that is something that

frankly is the only way. When we have a Zero/Ten situation where we have no corporate tax, the employers' element is one of the only ones we have of ensuring that corporate businesses make contributions to the running of our society. That is what I say, corporate businesses that do not have locally-owned shareholders. Locally owned shareholders of businesses, of course, pay their full whack. Where we have businesses with off-Island shareholders there is none. So that Social Security mechanism is important and I certainly am behind having that review. But that is not a reason for saying no to Deputy Southern . In my view you are saying yes, we need to look at it. It is part of the picture of things that we have to make sure we have got right. So I ask Members on this occasion and I am not one of those who just support Deputy Southern and say: "Right. He is pulling me" and just wants to challenge the Minister. No. I think there is logic here that we should not dismiss. So I support it.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

I totally agree that this is not an argument between Deputy Southern and the Minister, and I think they both have it wrong, and I should tell you why. When the Minister brought the original proposition I tried to do an amendment; and I sat down as I always do with the Minister first with his Assistant Minister, and the amendment was to look at cohabitating couples who for years cannot have the red cards; they are both contributing and they are not covered by this. They said it would be tough, but when I spoke to the Law Officers they could not write the law because under Jersey Law, it is quite acceptable if you are married that any child of that marriage would be the child of that marriage, and they always are; of course they are. But if you are cohabitating, and even if the father had said he was on the birth certificate, because you only cohabitate there would always be a question mark over the child's father; and it would go down the road of D.N.A. (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid)s and it got very complicated. But why I say Deputy Southern and the Minister are wrong, I was assured by the Minister at the time there would be a lot more research into these cohabitating couples and who is contributing and who is falling out. At the time I pointed out 2 cases: a cohabitating couple where the partner had died with a child, got nothing; a married couple who were separated had a child - they had never divorced - they got the Survivor's Benefit. Absolutely. I agree the Minister is telling me he is tough but fair. This is not fair. So the research that he promised me and I think he promised everybody, has not been done. I think Deputy Southern , you do not keep changing laws because you find suddenly somebody is caught out on their age or caught out because the child, or as I say they are cohabiting for years. So I want - and it will not be this Minister - but I think that Deputy Southern will be hopefully here after the October election and I hope to be here after the election. This is an area that has now come to surface again which could be tough, but it definitely is not fair. So it needs a good study and I think the second part of Deputy Southern 's proposition with the way that it is worded it probably has to be voted on together, an in-depth review because we do cut. We cut quickly and we do not realise where we are cutting, and we are leaving a lot of people out. As I say, it cannot be right that if you have been living together for years as a unit. I had this discussion with someone the other day and they said: "Oh, well, they changed their name by deed poll and they have been down to Social Security and they will be recognised as their spouse if they go." I said: "Well, I do not know who is advising you, because there is no such thing as a common law wife. You can live together as many years as you want and there will not be as many rights." I am not saying they should all be right, but this is one where we need to really look. So I think as the Minister would say, I am speaking with my head and I am listening with my heart, and I will hope there will be a lot more investigation into this. But I cannot support Deputy Southern because he is just revoking it back to

where we were 2 years ago and it has only really just come in. But I will take the Minister to task. He is not going to be here but he can instruct, and I hope he has instructed his officers to look into this big part and where it should be. Another thing is this 2001 law; I thought it was 1999. We still have a big cohort who do not know that this could affect them because they are encouraged; they

have always been encouraged, and it never finished in the 1970s, sorry to tell Deputy Young. I think there is some sort of sting in it; I do not know. Deputy Young, yes. There is a lot of research in different benefits and I think the Minister is trying to be, in his words, tough but fair. But when you are doing something quickly and you have a short term, and I know he has done what I think he said in the time he was in here, and there is a lot of others. He has made a decision not to be here and we will get another Minister for Social Security whoever that will be. But they have a legacy to carry on and look at all these cuts and where everything needs to be directed, as you say, either means testing or some benefits the Minister seems to have found; I do not really know what he is talking about - he has found them and he has stopped them. So that seems very sensible. But this one is one of those. Deputy Southern goes too far and the Minister at the moment has not gone far enough, and I know he has spoken. His Assistant Minister has not spoken; so hopefully she can assure me that this will be up top priority there and reviewed in the next session.

4. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

Like many I was an individual who supported the changes to Survivor's Benefit and I think the amendment that was brought at the same time. The Minister is right that we had an idea, or knew that some people would not be eligible. But there is a but. But we also know that when you construct a benefit that it cannot be and should not be that inflexible that it cannot provide for those with a genuine need. I think that we were all expecting the Social Security Department to have and provide sufficient flexibility within the new arrangements. But those, and I stress, who are facing and will face genuine need are supported. We cannot and we must not, or we must, should I say, be careful not to allow money to become a bigger priority than supporting those in need. I am not simply focusing on those with low income, although it is absolutely important that we have a benefit scheme to support both. But we must equally recognise that there are many who are not and will not be eligible for income support, but will face and do face some significant challenges in their life. I think the Deputy has quite rightly highlighted one significant challenge, and that is the loss of a partner before their time. It is a tragic event and it can have a significant impact on that couple's lives which cannot be underestimated. Many people not only strive to bring up families, but strive to provide a home for their family. A couple generally plans together how they will fund and provide for their family. The loss of a partner before they reach retirement is significant. It can have a massive impact. The financial impact does not just end when their children leave home, because that is one relief potentially because of increased cost. However mortgages continue. The Minister says what has changed? I would like to remind him a lot has changed. In fact, even he has highlighted a number of issues that have changed and we are told that next year we must consider increases in contributions and, wait for it, and/or a reduction and restriction in the pensions and benefits paid if we are to maintain the sustainability of the fund for future generations. So that is one major change. I would like to remind the Minister for Social Security, we have also agreed to introduce the long-term care charge that kicks off next year that we are all going to be required to

contribute to. When I say "all", okay, he is shaking his head. [10:45]

All of those in income support and have properties above £420,000 will certainly contribute to the fund. Maybe there is a system ..

Senator F. du H. Le Gresley: All taxpayers.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

Right. All taxpayers, which are generally those that are not on low incomes. I will not .. I hate to use the word "middle-Jersey" because I think it is too broad a description but there are a lot of people that sit outside the income support scheme who contribute and pay tax that will and do face,

and have faced significant changes to not only the tax system but the contributions in recent times. Those costs are rising and it is extremely difficult, and they are finding it more and more difficult. They must be considered. You cannot ignore their circumstances. I absolutely agree with the Deputy that the whole system needs to be reviewed. The whole system, not just focusing on, what is it? The pensions and benefits but all of the other contributions.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you. Would you please sit down, Deputy ? I am afraid the States have now gone inquorate. Could I please invite Members in the antechamber to return to the Chamber so that we are quorate? Greffier, would you please take the roll? Sorry, yes, using the electronic voting system. The Greffier will open the voting to record who is present. [Laughter] That seems to have had quite an effect. I think in fairness to all those Members who have not returned I am not sure that I wish to ask the Greffier to close it but I suppose we have to close it some time. Greffier, close the voting.

Senator P.F. Routier

Senator A. Breckon

Senator A.J.H. Maclean Senator B.I. Le Marquand Senator F.du H. Le Gresley Senator I.J. Gorst

Senator P.M. Bailhache Connétable of St. Peter Connétable of St. Lawrence Connétable of St. Mary Connétable of St. Martin Connétable of St. Saviour Connétable of Grouville Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) Deputy G.P. Southern (H) Deputy of St. Ouen

Deputy of Grouville

Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) Deputy of Trinity

Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B) Deputy T.A. Vallois (S) Deputy A.K.F. Green (H) Deputy J.M. Maçon (S) Deputy of St. John

Deputy J.H. Young (B) Deputy S.J. Pinel (C) Deputy of St. Mary

Deputy of St. Peter

Deputy R.J. Rondel (H) Deputy S.Y. Mézec (H)

The Deputy Bailiff :

We are now quorate. Thank you. Yes, Deputy . The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I am pleased to see that most of the Ministers have now returned [Members: Oh!] because it is ultimately they that will be able to respond, because the Minister has already spoken, to the question that I am going to put. That is that I would like a commitment made that all contributions and all benefits, including survivor's benefits, will be reviewed taking into account not only the contributions that we currently pay but the future contributions that we are going to be expected to pay because the whole issue needs to be looked at. We also need to make sure that when we do undertake that review, that if there are gaps in the benefits that we provide, if there are individuals that have genuine need and cannot access appropriate support, after they have contributed to a scheme then I think changes need to be made. I would like to have a commitment that a complete review, not limited one, a complete review of all of the benefits will be undertaken so we can have a proper debate on how we will provide, not only for the current generation, but for future generations. Thank you.

Deputy J.H. Young:

May I raise a point of order, please, Sir? I wonder if I might have a ruling? Is it in order clearly when we nearly were inquorate; we witnessed a situation where a number of Ministers came in the House to join the appel, fortunately, and they now have left. Is this in order in times, while we are having a debate on important matters affecting their community, clearly, from meetings that take place? Is that in order, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff :

It is in order for Members to come and go from the Chamber at any time, Deputy , as you well know. Does any other Member wish to speak? Deputy Pinel.

5. Deputy S. Pinel of St. Clement :

Deputy Southern said: "Tinker with Social Security legislation at your peril." It begs the question why is the Deputy tinkering? Following on from the Minister for Social Security in exercising a head-over-heart attitude to governmental decision making, I just wish to briefly summarise a few bullet points and factual clarifications. The proposer suggests that consultation around the restrictions to survivor's benefits approved by this Assembly in 2012 were insufficient. Survivor's Benefits was examined thoroughly in 9 other countries. The provision in Jersey was found to be very generous. The Social Security Advisory Council, an independent body, undertook an independent review of the benefit and also found it to be too generous. On both occasions that these issues of restricting the benefits have been presented to the Assembly they have received a high level of support. It would be impossible to manage the fund if we did not make changes to reflect the changes in society. More women are entering the workplace. Women are now responsible for their own contribution records. If we conclude of Social Security that a benefit is outdated or too generous, as in the case of survivor's benefit, we have to make changes. In answer to Deputy Martin, Social Security constantly reviews every aspect of support and benefit. A balance has to be achieved between the constant demand for savings and ensuring that the necessary financial support is provided. Survivor's benefit is an in-work benefit. People may claim while working. It is not means tested. Support is always available. People with residency qualifications are eligible for income support if their household income is low. This can be claimed by a homeowner and tenant alike. While it is, of course, not acceptable to discuss a particular case, the proposition states that the person in question cannot continue as a sole trader because the Social Security contributions are unaffordable is a misconception. A widow receiving survivor's allowance has her record fully credited so no contributions are required. With reference to Deputy Reed, nobody can commit at this stage to a full review of Social Security benefits but I am sure it can be looked at. Thank you.

6. Connétable S.A. Rennard of St. Saviour :

I am all for Deputy Southern 's proposition and I also picked up on a few points that Deputy Martin made. Some of the wording just worries me a little bit because if you have a civil partnership you are entitled to this. If you are a heterosexual couple, you are entitled to this but, as Deputy Martin has pointed out, if you just live together, you are not entitled to the benefit and I really think you should be entitled to the benefit. This was one of the reasons why, when the gay marriage proposal came through, it was not a level playing field where I was concerned because a civil partnership was not allowed for everyone. Not everybody wants to get married and a civil partnership was very important because it gave security and the same is happening here now. So when we discuss this and it is put as a discussion paper, I would like a civil partnership to be allowed for everyone if they want to be together but they do not want to have a marriage. It should be in the discussion. Sorry, I just need to look at my notes again. Heterosexual couples live together and they have all the benefits. I have a couple that had to get married because the gentleman the lady was living with was so much older than her and he retired and she started to panic because if anything was to happen to him, she would lose just about everything that she had and yet they had been together for nearly 20 years. It just seemed to be very, very unfair. So I am going to accept what Deputy Southern is doing but I would also like these things get taken into consideration because I do think it is so important. This is why I would like to see civil partnerships allowed for everybody, whether you wanted to or not. Please, you have got my support and we will just keep our fingers crossed. Thank you.

7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

I think, in retrospect - and that is always useful, looking backwards - we probably should look backwards rather than forwards a little bit more, in particular if it means that the quality of our decision-making can be improved. I think the most salient part of the arguments that have been put forward by Deputy Southern is that some consideration was given to a phasing-in of the loss of these monies and we did not do it. That said, I think that that probably should have been done and in the event we have a number of people who are in this kind of grey area where they have been affected by the immediate cut-off brought about by the enactment of the Regulations, I think in some respects there perhaps should have been a more generous consideration arrived at by the Minister for Social Security in accepting that there would be some persons who, notwithstanding we did not have the transition period, would be affected and their positions could be somewhat protected by treating them as exceptions or exemptions. This happened in part with the lady in question but not necessarily to the extent that perhaps would have satisfied Deputy Southern that it was now required to come back and reset the clock as at December 2012 and to reconsider how we bring in perhaps the same thing again but under a phased period. The one thing that I find difficult is that if we were to reset the clock, as is being suggested, there has been no information that has been provided by Social Security or indeed by Deputy Southern to give us a clear indication of the actual cost of that resetting. I think it is an important point because if, indeed, there are only one or 2 or a small number of persons who might well have been caught and treated differently under a transition process, if the cost of that is fairly .. much less than perhaps that would apply in different cases with more persons, then I think that would assist a number of us to arrive at a more balanced consideration to see whether or not the turning back of the clock is justifiable or reasonable. As I say, that information is not available. We do have a bit of a stab at it under the financial and manpower implications on page 7 of the Deputy 's report but I think the specific information obviously is available, to a greater extent, through the department and it would have been helpful, I think, at least to me and to others perhaps, if that information were to be made available, up to a