This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel Quarterly Hearing
Witness: The Minister for Social Security
Wednesday, 30th January 2020
Panel:
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier (Chair) Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour (Vice-Chair) Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier
Deputy T. Pointon of St. John
Witnesses:
Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier , The Minister for Social Security
Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour . Assistant Minister for Social Security (1) Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier , Assistant Minister for Social Security (2) Mr. I. Burns, Director General, Customer and Local Services
Ms. S. Duhamel, Head of Policy, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population
[14:47]
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier (Chair):
Good afternoon, this is the public meeting of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel and this afternoon we have the Minister for Social Security with us. I am Deputy Mary Le Hegarat of St. Helier and I am the chair of this panel.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour (Vice-Chair): Deputy Kevin Pamplin, I am vice-chairman of this panel.
Deputy T. Pointon of St. John :
I am Deputy of St. John , Trevor Pointon, a member of the panel.
Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier :
I am Deputy Carina Alves of St. Helier District 2 and I am a member of this panel.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
I will ask the officers and Members of the States to introduce themselves please.
The Minister for Social Security:
Good afternoon, I am Deputy Judy Martin of St. Helier 1, and I am the Minister for Social Security.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Good afternoon, I am Deputy Jeremy Maçon of St. Saviour District Petite Longueville, Assistant Minister.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2):
Good afternoon, everyone. I am Deputy Scott Wickenden from St. Helier District 1, and I am the Assistant Minister for Social Security.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: I am Sue Duhamel, head of policy at S.P.3.
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
I am Ian Burns, director general for Customer and Local Services.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Thank you, everybody. Obviously normal rules apply in relation to this meeting as would in the States Assembly. I would just like to start off this afternoon and ask the Minister questions in relation to support for home care and carers. During our review of the Government Plan, we were advised that 150,000 had been identified by your department to support a pilot project, which would provide additional financial support to a small number of lower income families in 2020. How is this work progressing?
The Minister for Social Security:
As you say, we had a small amount of money allocated for 2020 and it is to look at we have about 1,000 people transferred from different care situations to long-term care. We still have a few people that are under the healthcare services and they get a lot of different payments. Ideally we want them to come on to long-term care but these are people who are cared for in their own home and we are looking at officers it is such a small amount of people in the scheme of things it is near enough going to be one to one working with the families, making sure that everything is met. So it will be extra care needs at home. This is because your carer is somebody, they are there 24/7, you will have much more on your utility bills. They are different needs. It could be pads, it could be dietary, pegs, all different things that are not covered literally under the long-term care monies because they are they would be covered if you were in an institution but you are not, you are at home. So it is progression that, as I say, it literally will be hopefully working forward with the individual families to see what their needs are.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Have any of the pilot schemes started yet?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
The first phase is to interview all the families individually. As the Minister said, there are a small number of families involved.
The Minister for Social Security:
Because they need to tell us what they need if we can get these last few people who are on the old system over to the long-term care system but be cared for at home and then there is something else about the work, the older child being cared for at home because, again, they are not in residential care, it is literally as I say, in the scheme of things it is a very small number of people but want to bring them in, out of that service with the healthcare model changing. But we do not want them to be financially worse off really.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
When do we anticipate these schemes starting?
The Minister for Social Security:
There are the working groups is it called a working group?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: Yes.
The Minister for Social Security:
Yes, it is a working group that is already together. We know who the families are. They are quite comfortable talking to the officers who have dealt with them over a number of years and it is like sort of starting now. I mean it is gathering the information but literally what is right for that family might not be right for that family. But we have got to get there and say: "They are getting the adult component from income support you need this care and you need this subsidised. You need more money for this, this and this." The working group is up and ready, they know who the people are. I would say that should be done in the first quarter to first half of
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
Interviews would be the next 2 months, that is February and March, and then the first set of decisions will be the Minister in April. So that will be the first work and then the bigger phase is to develop a scheme for the wider group of people after that.
The Deputy of St. John :
It sounds relatively simple, let us look after people in their own home. But you are beginning to identify complications.
The Minister for Social Security:
Absolutely. It is more about choice as well. At the end of the day a lot of these, as I say, they are younger people, they do not want to be in an elderly home or what we have. So we just need to make sure that because they are being still cared for at home, probably by a parent that are not elderly necessarily, that they are not financially worse off. It is just that crossover. The 2 systems meeting that used to be looked after by Health, now long-term care, we have just found this batch and we do not want anybody to be worse off. So you are right, we just need to make sure they are not.
The Deputy of St. John : Can I turn that on its head?
The Minister for Social Security: Yes, absolutely.
The Deputy of St. John :
Is it going to cost the system, the taxpayer, any more than it currently costs to look after these people by Health?
The Minister for Social Security:
Under income support they get their adult component, which I think is about £92 a week. Now, will it cost more? It might do. It should not cost too much more because they might not get that. From my understanding, it should not cost any more because we have not put in much of a budget, have we?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
There will be an increase in the amount of benefit that is paid out to those particular families but the idea is to save money in the long term and to improve people's quality of life long term by keeping and maintaining the family at home, maintaining the person at home, and not having to move into residential placement. So residential placement would be much more expensive than being cared for at home. So if we can provide the right level of support around the homecare package through a variety of what is already available through the long-term care scheme, which covers the actual care costs fully. It is these extra costs that sometimes people - not everybody - but sometimes people have in terms of special food, extra heating, extra laundry, so it is try and get that, maintain sustainable financial package at home and that will be cheaper than a full-term residential placement.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
You may have said this and forgive me if I have missed it. How many families are you supporting in relation how many families is this?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
There are about 20 people in this first cohort, which is a specific group of people who remain being supported by the Health Department since long-term care started but then the full implementation of the project next year will range to a large group of people and part of the work this year is to work out how many other people would need this kind of help. We do not know about that yet.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Can I just ask on this same topic because you mentioned there that some of these individuals are not necessarily elderly, they can be children? So has there been any crossover or any talks with the Children's Department, because purely I ask this because I have spoken to some families who are carers of severely autistic children, for example, who are at home, like you quite rightly said that residential care would be significantly higher. There was some negativity towards what was published in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) regarding certain social workers being paid quite a significant amount to care for children with needs. So has there been any conversation between your department?
The Minister for Social Security:
Yes, so there are 2. That first part, the care at home, is going out one model at 18 into another model. What you are talking about is people caring at home and it is home carer's allowance and the working, how can people so you have to be caring to get the benefit, which is about £800 a month, but you also can only earn a certain amount. We are, again, a very small amount of people. It is not identified but they can only earn about £163 a week. Now some people are saying: "I have got a pretty good job and I can earn that in one long shift." So this was something I inherited. Me and Deputy Southern met with the actual people around the table this is affecting, it is still ongoing, and we are it is a different because these are not outsiders and they are not social workers, they are not foster carers. They are the family looking after the children. But we do not want to disadvantage them. A lot of the mums or dads who have come to us and said: "It is not just about the earning power; it is about their respite." They are out there keeping their qualifications up and it might only be a day a week, it might be an evening, it might be a 12-hour shift, so we just need to make sure we are not disadvantaged in it. To make sure you input it in the system, I am not inventing like implementing the system that works for everybody on the same but, no, we do know about that, yes.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Moving on to efficiencies. In 2020 you are committed to making £2.22 million worth of efficiencies, £994,000 through reduced benefit payments. Please can you expand on this?
The Minister for Social Security:
Obviously it was implemented in October, our benefits went up again last year and hopefully the budget will come forward because the economy is booming. It happens that the department has to set a budget a year in advance, sometimes 2, and they based it on how many people were getting the benefits and the good news was the people who were getting the benefits either were earning more, they went out the system because they were earning more the benefits went down to that amount of money. So that was the saving. To say economic downturn could change that around. Is that right? It is about where it has come from; it is numbers who are not needing any financial help from income support basically.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
So it is not an actual reduction in benefits? It just the number of
The Minister for Social Security:
We have put nothing down. Everything in
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1): To reduce demand.
The Minister for Social Security:
I have been the most lucky I have been where the Minister for Social Security has to cut benefits or not we have had 2 years' increases, different ways. It was just all uprates in component and last year we cut the cake slightly different. We did 26 per cent of disregard. It was 25. So people who are working a bit they keep it is only a penny when we introduced it I think it was 6p in the pound so it is now 26p but it just gives you that little bit more incentive. And it just gives them more money in their weekly pay pack.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
We understand that £1 million of efficiencies will be made from the department operating model savings. How are you progressing with rolling out phase 1?
The Minister for Social Security:
Again, is that the target operating model? I think we reported that we were lucky again being the department that we brought together, Customer and Local Services, across what Ian does, the director general, we were able to get our target operating models done in one go.
[15:00]
I think that £1 million was saved last year. It will be ongoing because it was saved last year. The work is sorted it and we will not spend that million this year because we sorted it last year. I think that is about right.
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
Absolutely, so all of the C.L.S. (Customer and Local Services) target operating model changes were completed in 2019. So all the restructures, all the consultations and appointments, and therefore the savings were being able to be realised from 1st January. We are still obviously training colleagues in terms of being able to move towards our new hub structures based around those families and people of working age, pensions in care and business, and that will be work in progress for the rest of the year. But they are changes that are on the way and the structures and team structures are all in place. So at the moment, in 2020, we have no restructuring work being planned in the department, so it is about getting on with development of services and improving our service to the public. That is not only around the Minister for Social Security's areas around benefits and Back to Work but it is also in the library as well, and the office of the superintendent registrar.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Thank you. Last time we met in November you advised us that you were having technical issues with the phone system you wished to put in place. Have these issues now been resolved?
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
Those issues at the time have been resolved. Last couple of weeks have been a live pilot of the telephone system so when customers call they just say what they want and they get through to the area, straight through to somebody who can help them. Rather than going to perhaps an interim step of a call centre they go straight through to an expert. That has been working really well. We have had some feedback around ironically feedback on the line in the last week or so, and it is echoing. We are looking at that to see if that can be eradicated. But when you are talking to somebody and you get a bit of echo it can be quite distracting so it is less than ideal. I have a meeting later on today about that subject. The main principle is working; it is just then we are getting this strange technical feedback on the line.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Moving on to the Jersey Care model. This panel is doing a Scrutiny review of the proposed Jersey Care model. We understand one of your priorities for the year is to support Health in developing the Jersey Care model and specifically the payment funding mechanisms that have been looked into and discussed. Can you just give us a little insight in the work that has gone ahead so far and will go ahead continuing to support the Minister for Health and Social Services and his team?
The Minister for Social Security:
We have been meeting as Ministers and Assistant Ministers across the board and been really kept informed by the proposed new healthcare model, as everybody is. We are now waiting for the finances and the accounts have come in and literally look at it, really look and say: "Can you do this?" Is it better to do it like have bigger hubs and not everybody go to the hospital or for this and that? The mechanism, which is a big thing politically, and it will be a decision, there is the Health Insurance Fund, which has roughly £90 million in it. It does a job. But the minute you start taking money out of that, that is a lot I have been advised that we average £10 million of that was investment or interest on investments last year. It was great because the more money you got you make more money. But that is all going to be wrapped up into what is the healthcare the Health Insurance Fund at the moment pays for the co-payment for G.P.s (general practitioners). Is that going to be the way forward or is it going to be contracts, is it going to be different ways of doing it. But we need to make that decision while we are doing that because we cannot have a depleted fund that is not going to have as much investment and obviously not much money. So there is lots going on. But that was obviously there is money there, it says "health" on the tin. Let us see what we can do. I listen to my officers, no one is taking your money, that people have put into this. It goes in without making sure that it may not look like that in the future, not next year, not the year after, but we need to make sure. So, yes, support as well but we are so you are scrutinising me and I am scrutinising we are. We need to make sure it works for the Island.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Have you identified yet, and I would imagine you are probably already doing this work, the risks involved with any potential outcome that would come forward from the finances that you, as the
department, as a Minister, would be very protective over certain funds and funding mechanisms for the future? That you would be defending or looking strongly at saying: "No, no."
The Minister for Social Security:
That is the one fund. I mean they are looking at it like, you know, to me so there is money in the bank. It is a bank account, a benefit people have paid in. So they are looking at it, that can fund. Absolutely. But we absolutely on this side of the if you were Health you need to assure me your model going forward, we can give you a one-off payment, we will not get that money back, and next time the co-payment will not be needed or it will be a smaller amount or whatever, whatever. So, yes, absolutely. I mean that is officer to officer. They will be advising the Minister for Health and Social Services and my officer advising me. It is not going to go: "Oh yes, just have that money" because it is in one pot that we have got. We have got to get this right.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
As you all know, panel, the Health Insurance Fund, because of the ageing demographics, is due to be called upon more. So you will now from the actuarial report that it is not even just the same little fund that we have at the moment. So even if we want to take out money for whatever reason, the bigger question which we are certainly putting to Health, although I am the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services, is whatever model you come up with how is it going to be financially sustainable in the long term because if you want to use the H.I.F. (Health Insurance Fund) as it is now, we know that unless you want to increase percentage rates that people pay in, the funding model is not sustainable.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2):
The Minister for Health and Social Services will have to convince us that it is delivering the right outcomes before we would accept any changes to how we deal with the Health Insurance Fund anyway.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Yes, because it has to identify if they say they said: "Right, we need this amount of money" where would you replace that money from? Then you start looking at other pots and
The Minister for Social Security:
We need to. This is what I am saying. We are questioning, we are saying to Health: "Prove that this money is needed." Bigger picture laid down the line in a few years, you have got to be designing a different system or what do you do with the Heath Insurance Fund? Is it going to be needed in the future, et cetera, et cetera? So all these big questions are up there and you are absolutely right. So nothing is being sort of: "Oh yeah, of course you can have our money." It is not our money, people have put in this pot for the way we do health now it is a co-payment, you pay, we give the doctors £20, whatever, every time they see you. You pay your £30, £40, £50 and we give them a co-payment. We do not want that going forward. I do not think that is ... it is great and it is only doctors. We know the healthcare model is practice nurses, chiropractors, pharmacists, all different people who can deliver really good healthcare and then when you need to see a doctor you see a doctor. Absolutely. But they are going to do all the tests and everything and get you if you need to go back to work, you need a blood test, you do not need to see a doctor. They can give you a longer we do not want to get to the U.K. (United Kingdom) where you can see your doctor for 15 minutes for one illness and then you are out of the room. We need to see the Care model and we are more interested in what you want to do with the money and how it is going to be paid for.
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
I think, to support what the Ministerial team have just said, if you think about the opportunity that might exist, if you can do something different now for people, it might cost more money, but it might save money long term. For example, recent improvements the Minister supported around the diabetes service that will mean potentially that less people will end up hitting the healthcare system down the road. That is what I think the health economists are doing at the moment, looking at that sort of very complex set of variables and calculations to have a see about demand management, how we can help, and that is the sort of thing, I think, that would be reassuring to know that if we at least set out whether or not G.P.s do some of these things it will improve people's lives in the long run and also probably save money in the long run as well. Then that is the sort of investment that would be much easier to make from whichever fund you might take from.
The Deputy of St. John :
Could you describe to us what you are doing for the diabetic service and primary issues?
The Minister for Social Security:
A lot more is going to be delivered again by the pharmacies
The Deputy of St. John :
I gather that you are already funding something.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
So the first thing that is already in place is provision of supplies. So until the end of last year you had to go to your pharmacist to get your insulin but you had to go to Overdale to get the syringes. It did not make a lot of sense. So we have now got a contract with all the local pharmacists, which means that they can provide the syringes and the various testing strips and things that diabetics need on a regular basis. What the pharmacist is doing is keeping we are encouraging people to
sign up with a specific pharmacist. So they all keep a record of how much they have given you. So they will just monitor that. They will make sure if you are taking more strips or less strips than they expect they can just say: "Is everything okay?" They will also give you an annual check-up from the pharmacy point of view so it is not replacing what the doctor does but it is on top of, so it is an extra health check on a regular basis that is being paid for. So there is no cost to the patient of any of those things. The small charge that was previously charged by the Overdale people has been removed. So that is as much that is embedding the support of the community and that we built on towards the end of this year with a full-fledged diabetic pathway where you have got a variety of health professionals helping out with all the aspects of diabetic care. So this is the first step towards it.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Is this both for adults and children?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: It applies to everybody.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Just to finish before I hand over on this Care model. I think we are all in agreement that the essential way that the healthcare model can only work is if everybody is in agreement on how it is going to be funded, is it not, and I guess you will be protecting the H.I.F. that if the economists come forward and say: "Sorry, Minister, we need all of that H.I.F. fund" - obviously that is not going to happen - you would put your feet on the ground and say: "No, we need to see a better economical plan that is more sustainable?" because if that does not work how can the healthcare model be funded and go forward?
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): You can only spend it once.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
So you have to have a consensus between the department and
The Minister for Social Security:
So every time we have spoken, the big picture is in what would the H.I.F. look like going forward under the healthcare model. Will it be needed in the same way? Again, as I say, at the moment it is great, we have some money. It is also about the transition and the double running because people are used to having it this way and you might have to carry on. So there is some money there but once you get to that system you have got to be clear, it has to be clear to the Assembly, it has to be clear to Health, you can only spend this money once, in a fortunate position that it has the money in there at the moment, but if you do not convince us, you, the Assembly, that this is the right way and you have thought of all these big pictures, big amounts of money, it will not happen. These are the people I am really looking forward to what these economists are going to do. I am absolutely 100 per cent signed up to what the principle of the new healthcare model is, delivery and who, when, where, why. Absolutely. This is the test. How financially does it stack up on the Island? We are supposed to be, we have been told, this could be head and shoulders against a lot of healthcare models. It is not the N.H.S. (National Health Service) and it is not this. But we can get it right for a small Island and if it works up and if it works the money is great it will be done.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
I cannot resist this moment because you are one of the longest serving Members of the Assembly
The Minister for Social Security:
No, Len Norman. I am one of the longest Deputies.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Sat in front of me today. The frustrating thing that is seeming to boil out that we all agree that there needs to be a movement on P.82 and the community care, that this seems like a great idea but would it not have been better to do the funding first and stabilise it and then look at it afterwards because this, as you have just described, is great aspiration. We all desperately want to move forward this, have a hospital, have healthcare. But if it falls down because the funding cannot be agreed, have we not just wasted your time?
The Minister for Social Security:
But have you got a system until you know what the system looks like?
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: Chicken and egg, I guess.
The Minister for Social Security: Basically, yes.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Although to be fair, the previous Government of course they did try to do that with the healthcare charge and the Assembly defeated it because they did not know exactly what they were going to get from it. So it is a chicken and egg situation.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
I think you have got to be clear about if you are going to ask people to pay more they need to know what you are asking them money for because, let us be honest, most people are happy to pay more if they are going to get a good service and they know what service they are going to get. If you do not tell them what they are going to get, then they are not going to agree to it.
The Minister for Social Security: Absolutely.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
I am sure we will come back to this.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: £90 million will not last long.
The Deputy of St. John :
It is my turn to jump in here and I was allocated this question because I am the oldest member of the panel. [Laughter] We want to talk about independence in old age. In the Government Plan you have requested £150,000 for 2020 for expert advice to help identify options for improving financial independence at old age. Where are we?
The Minister for Social Security:
I think I reported when we met at the end of last year, I have not got their name.
[15:15]
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: D3P they are called.
The Minister for Social Security:
One guy's background in New Zealand and he absolutely is so impressive. They have got a great system. The other guy who I have met as well and they brought someone else over we are nearly at the end of the first phase. We are calling it work-based pensions but there are other ways of skinning that cat. Now is our social security pension right? Are tax breaks right? Are people saving? U.K. and Guernsey have gone for work-based pensions. So the report, we have not seen yet. They are finalising it and as soon as we get it, and it is readable and obviously you as Scrutiny can have it in confidence, and then it is going to be out there in a month or 2 after that. Then going forward, I was put politically: do I want a policy development board or do I want a ministerial group? I was like this and we had the options and the time so I have gone for ministerial group with a lot of stakeholder involvement under that because ideally when it was myself, Deputy Maçon and Deputy Southern , when we put in our priorities politically this one ticked the boxes, it made number one for all 3 of us and when Deputy Wickenden came on board he was still quite got to start thinking about it now. Kids, young people, you are going to be very old very quickly. You need to start thinking about it.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1): Thank you.
The Minister for Social Security:
So we will not help you. I do not think it would help you. This is my problem. There are all different options and I am very impressed with what I have seen. I think we are meeting next week or the week after in this new group. It is going to be myself, Richard Buchanan, the Assistant Chief Minister, and then Economic Development is going to send either the Minister and a Treasury representative for the Minister. It is going to affect everybody and again it is taking employees with us. It is going to be less money in your wage package, one way or the other. So we need to do it. We need to make sure it is right for Jersey. So it is not going to be easy. Deputy Le Hegarat asked me a question very early on about the Guernsey system and that was going to be in place. It has been pulled back a bit. So we have got to take people with them as well because they have quite a lot of small employers so that is about, I think, where we are. I do not know if the officers want to say anything.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
The consultants are over in the next couple of weeks with their first report, so they will be at that stage.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Employment Forum, annual leave and rest breaks. We understand that the consultation is due to end on 6th February. How many responses have you received today?
The Minister for Social Security:
I do not get the responses. The Employment Forum reported that they were slightly lower than what they would like and they have extended the consultation to 17th February. I think as well it was over Christmas and New Year period and absolutely fair. Again, this all came about, we brought in J.A.C.S. (Jersey Advisory & Conciliation Service) to talk about, again with Deputy Southern , there was what was that contract? Zero hours' contracts. J.A.C.S. said to us: "You know our biggest complaint is on rest breaks and annual leave." I thought we had rest breaks. I have quoted the U.K.
law many a time. Annual leave has not increased since the employment law came in, in whenever, mid-2000s. So with me then saying we need the family friendly and we are having breastfeeding breaks: "I am breastfeeding, you are not. I get a break, you do not." So this is the consultation. I do not know how big the problem is. I have got no recommendations yet. Again, I would be happy to share. This will either come forward as regulations. It will be a change to the employment law again. It has stayed at 2 weeks. Two weeks does not work it is 2 weeks plus bank holidays and Christmas Day obviously, which is a bank holiday. But it does not work for people who work Tuesday and Thursday. Because the bank holidays fall on Monday or Friday. So they do not get it. This is J.A.C.S. and the breaks issue. Most of the E.U. (European Union), the employment rights across the E.U. and the U.K. kick in after 6 hours, a lot do it much earlier than that because of health and safety. They have their own bits of laws under that. But we have none. I have always said: "No, I have worked so long I am going to go and take a break" and it is not there. So I did not realise until J.A.C.S. reported that that was their biggest issue from employers and employees that we have nothing since it has changed. The world has moved on. I think it is 28 days in the U.K. plus bank holidays. It is a lot different. So we need to have a good look at it and that is what it is out for. Consultation.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Even though there has been an extension do you think the Employment Forum will still be on track to present its recommendations by the end of April then?
The Minister for Social Security:
Yes, I think so. Initially there is a lot of movement in the Employment Forum. The chair and a few of the Forum are standing down and they wanted to make sure that they can deliver it. I think that is the date that the chair is leaving. So they tried to make their consultation slightly shorter but then obviously, as I say, over the Christmas/New Year period they have not got as much response as they probably would have liked to do a proper consultation. So it will come in on time. Yes, they have told us it will come in on time.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Do we know whether they have done like another boost for call for evidence or anything?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: Yes, they do, yes.
The Minister for Social Security: Yes, but have they done another one?
The Minister for Social Security:
When they extended it they did. That was the reason. "Like you may not have noticed, it being Christmas and New Year and you have been on holiday so can we have a response?" I need to get in touch with the chair of the Chamber of Commerce because we had this criticism that there was not enough consultation through them but they have 17 standing committees for all different size employees and all different industries across the board. I want to know that they have gone out there and said: "Is there a problem?" It might come to nothing but I think, as it has not moved for all them years, it is not a lot of holidays. Most people do a lot more. We all know that.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Based on what the recommendations are then we can anticipate that they will be you are likely to be bringing changes to the employment law?
The Minister for Social Security:
Absolutely, yes. Based on what they come back with.
The Deputy of St. John :
I would like to move on to disability now and ask you how your work on progressing the rolling out the project in respect of the disability strategy is going.
The Minister for Social Security:
Finally, in the Government Plan we have got some money and I think we are literally going out to an employer disability officer and they will give expert advice across the board. They will work with the disability advisory group. It might not be the right name but there is a group of all different people who represent all different disabilities across the Island. They are really, really knowledgeable. They are really, really helpful. Then we can employ a project manager and a policy officer and then Jersey Sport are going to employ a disability sports officer. So inclusive. An aside, for the States buildings, the Government and Deputy Lewis , the ministry of G.H.E. (Growth, Housing and Environment), have gone and looked at basically many States building, all their States building access and everything and I have got the figure, it is £2 million to try and put them as right as possible. Some are going to be sold. They were going to be sold anyway. It is not going to be sold because they cannot have access. They are old buildings. They are not surplus to requirement. Literally, there will be a lot happening this year because it is the first time since it was passed in the Assembly that there has been any money at all allocated to it. So we have got dedicated officers working with the third sector and all the people in different charities. It should be moving I am not sure if the job description, one was going to be slightly delayed, was it not? Or have they gone out yet?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
These are jobs within the C.L.S. structure, so they are going to sit under Local Services, which means they have got really good community links already. I think the plan is to have it post-April.
Director General, Customer and Local Services: That is the plan, yes.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: That is well on the way then.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
Can we confirm that those will be permanent full-time posts?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: Yes.
The Minister for Social Security: Yes.
The Deputy of St. John :
When are you expecting them to be in post?
The Minister for Social Security:
April. Yes, the job description is being worked up and they will be going out.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Those are the ones for C.L.S. but for, example, project manager, et cetera, that is not going to be a full-time post for ever, is it?
The Minister for Social Security:
Well, it is at the moment. We have got the money for it.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: We got permanent funding.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1): Okay, it is?
The Minister for Social Security:
Yes.
The Deputy of St. John :
I wanted to ask what projects you have begun but as you have not appointed the officers you have not begun the project yet.
The Minister for Social Security:
There is still work going on with I have a colour coded but the officer that has been working with the groups, they prioritise things that we need. Like we have developed a customer service plan, we have developed a communications plan, all these have been completed but there is lots ongoing. Like identify sports clubs that can be accessed by disabled Islanders. Then there will be officers and things like that. So once we get these people in place they will work with the people who are representing or even got the disability. All disabilities are so some are physical, some are sensory, some are hearing, whatever. So you go to the people who have got the disability and they have really been helpful on the building ones. As I say, you might think that is okay but it might just be a colour. It might just be this. Smaller print, bigger print or whatever, on a different background. It really makes a difference to the person.
The Deputy of St. John :
Okay, I have a final question in this section which is from a member of the public. And it is: are the public toilets clearly signed at Customer and Local Services Department in La Motte Street and are they suitable for disabled persons and children?
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
Probably for me to answer. We have 2 toilet facilities in La Motte Street, both are labelled. One is a general toilet and the other is a disabled toilet. So there are facilities there and staff are aware of it if people are asking. But they are also signposted and are used.
The Deputy of St. John :
So clear directional signs to disabled facilities?
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
There are not directional signs as such, no. But they are labelled as toilet facilities, yes.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Do you mean like something hanging down saying: "Toilets this way"?
The Deputy of St. John :
Yes, as you would find in an airport. It saves the individual the embarrassment of having to ask.
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
There is not a specific sign for that. We can have a look at that. It is not something I have had feedback on before but we can have a look. Obviously we hope to have most people preferably not coming in at all because they can do it online or coming in and coming out quite quickly. But, yes, we can have a look at that. As a general principle, and also for accessibility, we have tried to keep the environment in the front door in La Motte Street to be quite clean in terms of having minimal signage so that people are very clear on the way to go when it is their time to see somebody. We used to have lots more information, we have that on the screens now. It may well be that will be the place where we can potentially signpost and make people aware that there are toilet facilities; just thinking out loud.
The Deputy of St. John :
It is so easy in an airport to find public conveniences because they are signed well. I would have thought the same would be the case in a public venue run by the States of Jersey.
The Minister for Social Security:
Point taken, yes. We will have a look into that. Absolutely, yes.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
So I have got financial support for access to primary care. I know a lot has been discussed earlier on about the H.I.F. and a couple of ideas were floated around about do we need the co-payment any more, is it going to be a different structure. Do you have any details of what a proposed scheme may look like or is that still at the discussion phase?
The Minister for Social Security:
It is not necessarily at discussion phase because in the Government Plan we had said we would be looking at helping the financially vulnerable with access to their G.P.s. A lot of work was done building up. Obviously the Government Plan did not get passed in November but the work was being done and I said that in the Assembly, that is why I did not necessarily want a bigger scheme because we need to start there. Everyone seems to forget, and they are working very hard at the moment, all the officers across Health and Social Security policy are working with a private company and they are all called G.P.s. We have to take them with them. So about the co-payments, what they do if we can give them more work that is guaranteed payment we need an outcome sorry, that is the Health Department. What outcome do you want? Who do we need preventative? So there has been a lot of work. I am confident we can do the financially vulnerable within the timeframe. Then look at, as Deputy Southern has agreed to the amendment, to look then, prioritise, again ongoing with the healthcare model.
[15:30]
How it is funded, who needs it, prevention, try and do prevention. So yes, I am confident and hopefully the amendment will be accepted - Deputy Southern has accepted the amendment - and we will just carry on and get on with it, with Health. As I say, it is the third person in the room, public, States, money, G.P.s. The rest is not just and I am glad that Deputy Southern expanded on not just G.P.s so it can be that is great because, as I said earlier, we do not need G.P.s to do everything. At the end of the day there are lots of people who need lots of tests to keep them healthy that can be done by a practice nurse. So it can be done.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
The challenge will be identifying the vulnerable of the vulnerable. Because again in the proposition you can identify a vulnerable group but which one you choose, that is going to be the political decision, is it not?
The Minister for Social Security:
We know who is financially vulnerable. We have to start somewhere. So when you take the whole Island, and this is the whole of the population, we have got to take the doctors with us, I think to just get that bit done early with the G.P.s; it is still a massive ask though. Officers are saying this is big. We have got to keep G.P.s on board, it has got to be a scheme G.P.s want to buy into. At the end of the day, hopefully they all will. Where do we go if some do not want to? We have to then think again. They are a private business and they are brilliant but they have grouped together a lot of them, they have got bigger practices. Some have not. So it is making that system, making it good for the patient but a system that works that they still want to be involved with and they are happy to do more. But they might not be doing it. They might be employing someone else, as I say, the nurses.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Will the H.M.A. (Household Medical Account) system that currently is under income support, we are about to change then, is that what you are looking to change as well?
The Minister for Social Security:
It is all in the mix, yes. That is there. It supports a few people. Not the best system in the world. People do not realise it is their money. They think it is free. Me and you might be getting the same amount but you will have a fiver a week taken off your benefit and put in your pot. We need to make
sure children who are being charged, adults being charged, it is their money at the end of the day. It is just someone else saving it for them. But we will get there. We will. We are all pushing at that open door I think, as well the G.P.s with G.P.s.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Moving on to discrimination of family tenants. We understand that one of your priorities in 2020 is to undertake work on discrimination of family tenants. Please can you explain what this work will involve?
The Minister for Social Security:
This comes under the Discrimination Law. So we need to look at it, and Deputy Tadier brought a proposition, I think it was highly supported in the Assembly. We all get annoyed when we can see a really good house that says no children. I have been in other places where I have seen: "How did you ever get the buggy up these 5 flights?" there is no lift. There might be better ways, we are looking at it. We are going to look at how we can enforce it. We do not want to make the situation any worse. So it is a States agreement that we will do the work over this year. We already have some carve-outs for the over-55s. So we discriminate positively. Andium do it. You can only live in this if you are over 55 so then at the other end we have got to say: "But you can live in it because you have a child." When I listen to the law officers as well it is which one.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
I was going to ask as well, would this just apply to rental or to bought properties as well because I have recently seen properties that are up for sale that say that the actual building is nobody under 18. It is part of the contract. So if there are flats, like a share transfer property, for example.
The Minister for Social Security:
I did not know that. That is interesting.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Yes, I have seen a couple. So this is even on the market to be bought, not just rental.
The Minister for Social Security:
There must be surely, I would offline I would like to know more about that. But literally it must be the physical context of the building because at the end of the day a seller wants to sell. Why would they discriminate against under 18? Did you say under-18s?
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Under-18s, yes. They say that the contract for the building, so for all of the flats within that whole building
The Minister for Social Security:
Or they just do not like children. It would be interesting to find out.
Director General, Customer and Local Services:
I think I am aware of maybe obviously a similar property and I think it is to do with the balcony railings, for example. The balcony railings were not really suitable for children under a certain age because they would slip through them or fall out. So therefore I think there was a condition on that property. That could be an example.
Deputy C.S. Alves : There have been a few.
Director General, Customer and Local Services: I am aware of it; I have seen it myself.
The Minister for Social Security: That is interesting.
The Deputy of St. John :
Couples of child-bearing age are not going to be interested buying a property of that sort, if they have no children or any
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): I think we will definitely put that in the mix.
The Deputy of St. John :
That is a very unreasonable condition.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Especially when it is a bought property.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
I am not sure how that would stack up if you did a human rights challenge to it because people want the enjoyment of their home.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
The more interesting part of it would be, of course, and it might be worth talking off stage about it, is that you buy the house, you have no children, what happens then when you have a child? Do you then have to
The Minister for Social Security:
Absolutely, you own the property. I would like to find out more about that. But I had not heard of it.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Totally understand if there were adverts saying this is not suitable for children but as an outright ban
The Minister for Social Security:
If it was a danger, as you say, but or is it a discrimination? That makes a block of 6, everyone is over 50, they do not want so 5 tenants already have bought and they do not want the one who is selling the sixth: "Can you put that on the thing, it is not suitable for under 18?" I mean that is not great. Absolutely not. So I need to understand is it that or is it what Ian has said? Is it literally physically not suitable for a child? Because nobody would want to put a child in danger. That should be covered by other things. We have just had hotels looked at, and their balconies and the sizes. So residential property should not be able to fall through and it should be high enough you are not going to go over. It is standard basically.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
That sounds more like buildings bylaws, which is a different Minister.
The Minister for Social Security:
Yes, but you should not be able to out of something: "Oh I will build my balcony this high so it is only going to be rentable "
Deputy C.S. Alves :
I just thought it was worth mentioning.
The Minister for Social Security:
No, it is very interesting. I did not know.
Deputy C.S. Alves :
Just to make sure it is not just rental accommodation.
Minimum wage. After an interesting debate in the Assembly, I will put it that way, some interesting things were observed during many speeches, including your own, including everybody who spoke that day, a lot of emphasis was obviously put on the Employment Forum's recommendation, which I have in front of me. A key bit really that came out during the debate was in the conclusions where they say this year the economic climate has weakened with an economic slowdown forecast in 2019, 2020. Plans for Government support productivity improvements are still in development, which became out of the 2 definite reasons because the economic climate is changing all the time. Brexit is happening. Goodness knows where we will be in a year's time. The more definite reasoning was the fact that this policy, this plan to support this, was first talked about in 2018. It is still not delivered. So what will you be doing to undertake that the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture finally produces this form so it does not become another excuse that we do not see the aspirational target that the Assembly voted on recently because it became a big issue in the debate? Just curious, as the Minister obviously, what we can do.
The Minister for Social Security:
To be perfectly honest, when I saw Deputy Ward 's proposition I did not know politically where people stood. Over the years I voted with the it has always been a few pence more or someone has already got a proposition. Sometimes I have gone with it, sometimes I have gone with the Forum. Politically because of the 45, we need to be at least by 2020. I went to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture and then to C.O.M. (Council of Ministers) and said: "We have not delivered on the productivity. Now I want to know what that means." To me it is a subsidised scheme. They are calling it economic framework now. At the end of the day, most people are paid more than minimum wage. I have got all the figures here that are not and it is agriculture, fisheries and some hospitality. The economics there with hospitality are fighting over the same workers and a lot of them are paying the living wage, which is great news. Hence why we have less people on the we found £1 million. Some people are still on it but they are just earning a bit more an hour, which is absolutely great.
The Deputy of St. John :
You refer to no growth in the economy but earlier on in the meeting you referred to the economy booming.
The Minister for Social Security:
No, Deputy Pamplin said no growth. That was a line or 2, a paragraph in the Forum's recommendation. It is a bit like this but it is still so we have got more people employed. We are not productivity is not producing much more money. How do you measure the economy? I am not an economist.
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
I think the point is exactly what you just said, it is very hard to predict the economy so when the Forum wrote its report nearly a year ago it was anticipating that things might not be quite so good. They have turned out quite well. At a different stage of the year, the benefit calculations are done for next year so they will now be quite optimistic about it. So it is absolutely a moving target. So I think there is no right answer to this. It just changes all the time.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
The one consistent thing goes back to the original States objective, again which I have got in front of me: "To further request the Council of Ministers investigate and propose a programme to deliver productivity improvements in low paid sectors with outline proposals to be delivered in April 2018 and a detailed plan by December 2018." That did not happen. Then the excuse came back: "Well, we are going to the election, purdah period, it is going to be delayed but it is definitely going to come in 2019." It did not come. Here we are in the Assembly and you go obviously the Employment Forum did their work and they have to say it is still not there but we were basing our decision that it was coming, it was coming, still not coming. But are we going to be in the same position next time when we are pushing for the aspiration of the Assembly? But again, the Minister has not produced the productivity plan so therefore you are in a position, we cannot increase it because we still do not have the plan. Do you see the point I am getting at? It keeps getting pushed down the road.
The Minister for Social Security:
I absolutely do. No, I absolutely do and, as I say, when I spoke to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture when he spoke in the Assembly, he says economic framework now, and we have money. To me I do not know to me productivity is to be piecework, you would work 8 hours, I work 8 hours, I would do a lot more than you, I get a lot more pay than you, to me that is not productivity. We have sectors that agriculture, fisheries and some smaller catering facilitates, hospitality are only making a small profit. They are paying the minimum wage. Does the rest of society have to suffer for that? Do we have a subsidy scheme? Do we have to look at this? We do. We said we would get to where we wanted to be. The minimum wage being 45 of the mean which was it was 8.66 I think Deputy Ward said. Which would have been October. There was a caveat when it was agreed. Deputy - he was Deputy then - Mézec brought the amendment and Senator Gorst , who was Chief Minister, amended it to have a look with regards to economy and there was a couple of caveats. Everyone signed up to it. Then you see the physical evidence from the Employment Forum but when it went up very much in 2017 X amount of businesses went out of business. They were mainly agriculture. And they stopped growing locally. So we have to decide that we want all these industries, we want them to thrive. Imagine Jersey
without an agriculture or dairy industry? What would the countryside look like? But it is going to cost somebody. I know there is a lot more work and I feel your frustration.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
The thing is, obviously I do not know the answer to this, I am not sure you will but when it hiked up in 2017 and all these businesses went out of business did we are we sure that that was the reason why those places went out of business? That may not have been the reason why they went out of business.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): It could be a group of different things.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
That is what I mean. To say we do not want to do something because we think something else might happen, I think we cannot make those assumptions without doing the work to realise what those assumptions are. So in 2017, all those places that went out of business when there was a hike in minimum wage, was that relevant to the minimum wage? We should be able to say yes or no. Because if we cannot we should not then make those assumptions in the years that follow.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2):
Only if the people will tell us why they went out of business.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : That is the point.
The Minister for Social Security:
I think the fact there is another factor of input the labour.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : That is the point, is it not?
The Minister for Social Security: Everything you say is
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1): Rising in rent, pick one.
[15:45]
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
That is the point. What I am saying is we cannot keep saying that if we do this, this is going to happen. We do not know that that is a fact.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
I was going to say, because the point I was getting to was one of the biggest changes locally was the V.A.T. (value added tax) consignment relief. Because Jersey Flowers, we needed that to get through because one of the big industries was the flowers business and they would despatch those through quite quickly and that is why generally it was there, to support the agriculture business, tomatoes, flowers, Jersey Royals and stuff, was that V.A.T. loophole that just got the produce out quickly without being burdened in tax. Then, obviously, as we know, other companies DVD sales and stuff exploited that loophole but that fundamentally changed a lot of businesses and it coincided the start of the trend to make life tough for agriculture businesses, because of that business went down and then of course the wages were going up. The economy changed. So this is what we are getting to is that until we get the fundamentals in place the pressure will be in place and we will find ourselves in the same position next year. We cannot have the increased minimum wage; it could have been but we do not have this whatever it is called now. So I guess we are asking you, as the Minister, to say when are you, Minister, going to put this in place or whoever is responsible to avoid this next year?
The Minister for Social Security:
I am not passing the buck down the road. Literally there is a lot more to be done on the economy. I think as an Assembly as a whole, Deputy Le Hegarat has just raised a great point. Why are some of these businesses not growing this now? Not doing this. Is the Island suffering for it. But then where do you draw the line? I just said about we know agriculture is needed. It does much more than just farm the fields. It looks after the countryside. What would that cost be? So is it an easy supplementation? Do you say, right, you have got to pay your workers this, you get this back for each worker." Then everyone else can come up. I do not know if it is as simple as that.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
No. But going back to the point is, as we said, we agreed the funding for the Government Plan. The Government Plan seeks to secure additional funding for both new productivity measures and also the development of the economic framework. We passed the Government Plan in November, so it is now coming to February. When is it going to happen? Because that is what it all hinges on. If it is not there when do the Employment Forum make their next review processes for the next
The Minister for Social Security:
They will start going out on 1st April?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: Springtime, yes.
The Minister for Social Security: Springtime.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
When does that have to finish by?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: The Forum's results will be out late September.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
So this is the timeframe, February to September that the department now has the Government Plan budget to put it if we get September, even though we passed the budget in November for this funding to produce a productivity framework, and it is not there, the Forum quite rightly will say: "Well we cannot predict the minimise rise to go up again."
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2):
I can say when we were discussing Deputy Ward 's proposal in the Council of Ministers, the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture got told quite robustly from all the way around the table how disappointed that we were not in this productivity plan and we were in the situation we were in. He has been informed that nobody was very impressed on the fact at how we had to be in the place we are.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: Now he has got the money.
The Minister for Social Security:
He said that in the Assembly. It is just called the economic framework now not the productivity but, yes. We absolutely agree that something needs to be delivered. The money is there, let us do it. What it will look like is down to them but
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): The pressure is on.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Just so it is clear for everybody in the public's mind that we do not want a proposition to come cart before the horse. The timeframe is the Employment Forum will start the work in April and by September
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2):
What you want to know is are we putting pressure on to the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture to make sure that he goes through it. Of course. Of course we are.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: I mean we will as well.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): Yes, I think everyone will be at that point.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Okay, moving on to something completely different. The BBC. Obviously for those who do not know, watching, listening or care, the BBC agreed in 2016 to start taking over the funding of the licence fee for those means tested over-75 year olds. In 2020, the year we are in now, they say we cannot afford 100 per cent of that funding. At that point they then were obliged as part of the deal to review its concession payments. As we know in the U.K., from June 2020 it kicks in at only 75s who qualify for existing pension credits will get the free 75 licences. So with all these datelines looming, is there anything you can update us where we are at with the BBC? Have you heard anything? Any changes coming down the line?
The Minister for Social Security:
As you say, we have had the election and there was a lot of promises to say look again at the BBC because basically the BBC have stolen our means testing over-75s. I mean it is a very similar thing. Once you reach X amount of income you get under that you get the free TV licence. Over that you do not. It is causing a lot of discussion politically and practically in the U.K. but, as you say, it is June. What we can say, anyone who is getting it now will still get it. We have no plans under our
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1): The Jersey scheme is the Jersey scheme.
The Minister for Social Security:
We have no plans to change it. It has been changed. It has been fought for. I was the wonderful amendment to keep it. It was going to go. I brought the means testing amendment back. Sorry, as a Back-Bencher but I did. It won by one vote. I have not been asked by my officers did I want to review that for some reason? I am keeping it. I think it is one of those. It was one that I could win, I could not win all for free. We are where we are. Even in the U.K. now there is the argument coming up and it is great on the social media, that there is lots over 75 who are quite happy. It is not a lot of money so even they are happy to pay it. It is where they are aiming it, as you say, pension credits. Who is that? What is that income level and what other payments have they got and what other needs? But our scheme is okay while I am the Minister.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
It is good to know. So it will not change because, yes, in June 2020 that is when the big change happens in the U.K.
The Minister for Social Security: Well I will not change.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (2): Consultation at the beginning of June.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
But in the original deal struck between the States of Jersey and the BBC in 2016 there was this little bit that said in 2020 the BBC will review its concession when it fully starts paying, which is this year, 100 per cent.
The Minister for Social Security:
Absolutely and I do not want to say too much in the public forum but there is like who pays and what and there might be some good news coming. But I do not know the detail yet and it is still because it is all up in the air at the moment they are going down this route, there was a lot of political promises, elect me, you know, for Brexit but also we can do the TV licence. That was 2 of the things. Nobody has mentioned it since. They have done the Brexit, they are leaving tomorrow somehow. I do not think the earth will move for anybody too much. That will be that. So then we go on and we know, we have discussed with our officers, our scheme will be the same. If we can get some money back off the BBC absolutely great.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
So just to be clear, in 2020 as per the original agreement with the States of Jersey, they pay 100 per cent from 2020? Does that mean from January the BBC will foot the bill or is it June?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population:
That was a letter of intent in 2016 so it was not fully materialised into formal contracts. So that is what they wanted to do but, as the Minister says, things have moved on since then. So we are not in a deferred position within it.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Just to be clear, because the original was 33 per cent in 2018 the BBC would pay, 66 per cent in 2019, then 100 per cent in 2020. So what is the breakdown between what the States of Jersey are paying and what the BBC is paying as of today?
Director, Strategic Policy, Performance and Population: That is still being negotiated so it will be
The Minister for Social Security:
I am not even sure that has been updated. But we can find out and we will let you know confidentially. Because, as I say, this is like a there is lots of money
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: Yes, assisted negotiations.
The Minister for Social Security:
As I say, that was I am sure it was Senator Ozouf said: "I am talking to the BBC, I am going to get this deal and I got it." Whether it has been in the not so much. So we will definitely update you A.S.A.P. (as soon as possible) but confidentially on that.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : I think the critical part is ...
The Minister for Social Security:
I do not want to upset the BBC and if we are getting a good deal, great.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
I think the critical part is that anybody that needs payment of their TV licence over the age of 75 gets it.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
No, it is under the criteria which is on the website, 16,000
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : What I mean is locally.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
That is in the U.K. In Jersey the criteria will change.
The Minister for Social Security:
Oh no, our criteria is the criteria and whatever agreement if the BBC say: "Oh we are going to now you do not need to send us any money", absolutely great.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: So just to be clear
The Minister for Social Security: Our criteria is not going to change.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
I think just to be clear for everybody listening, I am on the gov.je website now, you only get a free TV licence if you are over 75 and the qualifying income is below £16,070 for a single person or £26,170 for a couple and does not live in a nursing or residential home. But a person who is living with an elderly person can claim it on their behalf, I believe still. That is the information on the gov.je website.
The Minister for Social Security: It goes on the eldest.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Where I am looking at is who is funding the free for all the people who are eligible. Is it the States of Jersey still now, is it not what I understood it to believe these co-payments and then obviously now the negotiations are still going on because 2020 has to be a decision? Is the BBC paying, is it the States of Jersey tax-based money; who is paying for it?
The Minister for Social Security:
I do not know if any of that is commercially sensitive or in the
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: No, that is all good.
The Minister for Social Security:
I will absolutely let you know on the 16.33 and where we are in 2020 definitely.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Then the other bit is going forward in 2020 when the changeover happens that it will still be you are obviously going to make sure that it is still there for means testing.
The Minister for Social Security: Absolutely.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin: Look forward to that.
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
I think that is us. Thank you very much for attending and thank you to the members of the public as well.
Assistant Minister for Social Security (1):
Can we just ask again for work programme purposes? We obviously know you are working on the care model. Do you have any other project, plans that we should be made aware of?
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Not at this stage. Our main body of work at this stage is the healthcare model but if anything comes down
Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :
We will let you know if we decide to do anything else. At this stage we have got the Care model, which is obviously quite a substantial piece of work.
Deputy C.S. Alves : Maternity was mentioned.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Oh yes, maternity. We could be looking at that.
The Minister for Social Security:
Absolutely. When we get the regulations you will get first sight and an officer briefing of how they are working. Then obviously you are going to look at them. Ideally the debate will be when you whatever you want to look at. But ideally we have said July but it is down to the Assembly and it is down to if you think they work.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
I believe also a lot of members, including myself are putting a lot of questions about the J.A.C.S. law that has just come in place about bereavement. So I think there is going to be a lot of debate about that on Tuesday to see where we are all at. So that might happen quickly or not. Do not know where we are at with that.
The Minister for Social Security:
It may and it may not because again this came under Scrutiny and family friendly. In the U.K. the employer, whatever size, pays the first 28 days off sick. You either have a sick scheme here or you are sick and you get your money from Social Security, whatever. I have been interviewed. I have said I have never known a problem. I would not know a doctor who would not sign somebody off when they were sick. We need to assess it. It took this couple 10 years to lobby the U.K. Government and they have got 2 weeks. I do not know. We are not comparing like to like. I have looked at the different with things we do under the new family friendly, the things we do. I didn't know this but every funeral cost in Jersey is met by the funeral directors under 18. They do not have that in the U.K. It is all worries and it is all money. What is 2 weeks' pay when you have got a £5,000 funeral? I am sorry. So got to get there. I look forward to I do not know if I have got the questions, are they to me?
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
You will find out in a couple of hours and on that note
The Minister for Social Security: Thanks for the heads up.
Deputy K.G. Pamplin:
Feel like it is the end of Eastenders then. Thank you.
The Minister for Social Security: Thank you.
[15:58]