Income Support - Review of Benefit Levels - Approved Panel Minutes - 12 June 2006

Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel Income Support Sub-Panel

Meeting 6

Date: 12th June 2006

Location: Le Capelain Room, States Building

The Sub-Panel discussed whether or not debts incurred through loans under the new proposals would be passed onto the estate of the deceased.

The Sub-Panel noted that the revised Law now defines an adult as being above compulsory school age. The Sub-Panel also noted the reference to the eligibility of those people seeking full time work and the lack of a definition of full time work in the draft law. It was CA/WM agreed to seek clarification as to the definition of full time

employment. It was agreed that this would disadvantage

individuals seeking part time employment especially for those

returning to work after bringing up children or returning to work

after illness or injury. It was further agreed that, as there is no

reference to full time education, the reference to full time

employment should be removed from the draft Law.

Having considered the draft Law and discussed when the subsequent regulations were likely to become available to the Panel, the Sub-Panel agreed to request a draft copy of the regulations at the earliest opportunity. CA/WM

The Sub-Panel noted the degree of flexibility inherent in the draft Law for reclaiming money from individuals. The Sub-Panel further noted that this differed significantly from the current system.

The Sub-Panel discussed the appeals system under the new proposals and considered how robust it would be. The Sub-Panel went on to consider the composition of the Appeals Panel and commented that members should be independent, not employed by the Department of Social Security or associated with the original decision being appealed. The Sub-Panel were particularly CA/WM concerned that the Medical Appeals Tribunal would be

independent and fair under the new system. It was agreed to ask

what training would be given and clarify the constitution of the

Tribunal.

The Sub-Panel discussed the possible introduction of a job seekers allowance dependent upon an increase to Social Security contributions. It was agreed to seek clarification from the Social

Security Department as to the necessary increase in the rate of CA/WM Social Security for such an initiative and whether this increase had

been factored into the new proposals.

The Sub-Panel agreed that the forced disposal of an individual's assets was still a concern and agreed to clarify whether an individual could be forced to dispose of their assets to pay for care under the new proposals.

CA/WM The Sub-Panel considered the addition of the word reasonable' to

3(a)(c). It was agreed to ask why this word had been added and

the consequent effect, if any, upon the actual costs.

CA/WM

The Sub-Panel discussed the calculation of entitlement to Income Support under the new proposals. Concern was expressed about the risk of adult children supporting their household. The Sub- Panel went on to discuss the required academic qualifications for Determining Officers. It was agreed to ask the Social Security Department to confirm the grade, academic qualifications and training for these posts. CA/WM

The Sub-Panel noted the sentence under 16(c) and agreed to ask the Social Security Department if it should read up to 7 years'

It was agreed that the Sub-Panel would request a written CA/WM explanation from the Social Security Department as to the

definition of capital' and income' under Calculated Income' 7(2)

(a), (b) & (e).

CA/WM

The Sub-Panel discussed the definition of a Social Security Tribunal as set out in the draft Law and agreed to ask the Department of Social Security if a Statutory Board was still planned and, if so, why it was not included in the draft Law.

CA/WM The Sub-Panel considered the issue of eligibility for Family

Allowance. It was agreed to ask the Social Security Department

how many people who currently receive family allowance will no

longer be eligible under the new proposals.

The Sub-Panel further expressed concern as to whether released CA/WM prisoners would be eligible for Income Support. It was agreed to

ask the Social Security Department for confirmation.

Following their consideration of the draft Law the Sub-Panel; CA/WM agreed to forward the following comments to the Minister for Social

Security:

1. The Sub-Panel has concerns regarding the reference to full- time' work and has considered whether the removal of references to full-time' would allow greater flexibility. It has noted the provision of Article 3(b) but would be grateful for clarification of the current interpretation of full-time'.
2. What will be the constitution of the "Medical Appeal Tribunal" referred to in Part 4 of the draft law (Article 9(2)(a)).

When the Social Affairs Scrutiny Panel attended a presentation on Income Support on 25th January 2006, it was informed that an Appeals Tribunal' would be established and that this statutory body would be independent of the Department of Social Security. Where does this Appeals Tribunal' sit in the draft law?

3. Why has the word reasonable' been inserted into Articles 5
   3. and 5(3)(c) in comparison to earlier drafts of the law?
4. Are the regulations to accompany the Law already in draft form?
5. What Civil Service Grade will the Determining Officers be and what academic qualifications will the job description

require. What training will be given to Determining Officers and other front-line staff involved in administering the Income Support system to ensure they are fully qualified and prepared?

6. With regard to Article 16, the Sub-Panel has questioned whether the wording should be up to seven years' when referring to the penalties for committing an offence.
7. The Sub-Panel would be grateful for clarification of Articles 7 (2)(a), (b) & (e)
8. Has the possible introduction of Job Seekers Allowance', requiring an extra 0.5% increase in the rate of Social Security, been factored into these proposals?
9. The Sub-Panel understands that eligibility for family allowance is gained after one year's residency. Given that 5 years' residency will be required to claim Income Support, the Sub-Panel would be grateful for an indication of how many people currently receiving family allowance will be affected by the requirement for 5 years' residency.
10. How will people coming out of HMP La Moye be affected by the introduction of the Income Support system?

4. Adviser

The Sub-Panel were advised that all previously recommended Advisers had been contacted and sent the specification for required qualifications and experience, the Terms of Reference for the review and the original Income Support proposition. All had been asked to confirm their interest, their qualifications and experience in the areas defined, availability for 10-15 days work between July and November and their daily rate.

The Sub-Panel considered the provisional dates agreed for Public

Hearings and discussed possible witnesses. It was agreed to

invite the Minister for Social Security, the Chairman of the Comité

des Connétable s and the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to attend a CA/WM

Public Hearing on either the 14th or 25th July to discuss the involvement of the Connétable s in the proposed Citizens Fund and

the involvement of the Parishes in the administration of the new proposals. The Sub-Panel agreed that the Minister should be scheduled first, the Chairman of the Comité des Connétable s second and the CAB third.

The Sub-Panel agreed to issue a call for evidence in the Jersey

Evening Post in respect of the topic of the Public Hearing. It was CA/WM also agreed to contact Channel 103 to ask if they would run a vox

pop' for listeners on the involvement of the Connétable s. The JM/GS Chairman and Deputy Southern agreed to write and issue a press

release

It was further agreed to ask the Comité des Connétable s if their

response to the earlier questions could be passed to the Minister CA/WM

for Social Security in advance of the proposed meeting on 7th July.

5. Future Meetings

1. The Sub-Panel agreed the dates for future meetings with one exception. The next scheduled meeting on Monday

26th June would now take place on Monday 3rd July at 9:30pm in the Le Capelain room, States Building.

2. The Sub-Panel noted that they were due to meet with the Minister for Social Security on Friday 7th July at 9:30am,

Social Security Department.

The Sub-Panel also noted that the next scheduled meeting would take place at 2:00pm on Tuesday 30th May in the Le Capelain

Room, States Building.

Deputy Martin offered her apologies for the next meeting.

Signed Date ..

Chairman,

Income Support Sub-Panel,