‘Perfect sense’ to ask again for increase in income support
THE man who led the redesign of income support has said deputies would be ‘cruel and vindictive’ to vote against a mid-year increase in benefits for a second time.
Andrew Le Lievre slammed the States’ rejection last week of a proposal to put up benefits by 2.9% between July and December. He applauded Employment & Social Security for refusing to admit defeat and instead immediately asking the States to reconsider and increase income support rates.
‘It makes perfect sense to do so – and without further delay,’ said Mr Le Lievre.
‘Quite clearly the States made a very wrong decision, punishing 5,000 of the island’s elderly, young children and babies, the disabled, sick and low-income families in general, simply to demonstrate its commitment to rectify the debacle of the tax debate which was of its own making.
‘It was as cruel and vindictive an approach to social welfare provision as I have ever witnessed.’
ESS’s request to increase pensions and other benefits in response to ongoing high inflation would have cost about £3.5m. by December. Its revised proposals – targeted at income support only – would cost about £500,000 this year.
Policy & Resources committee president Peter Ferbrache was not surprised that ESS was asking the States to reconsider, having lost on a tied vote with several deputies absent or abstaining. But he warned that the States’ financial position had not improved since last week.
‘Our problems have not been resolved since the debate. In fact they are just the same,’ said Deputy Ferbrache.
‘We have real financial concerns. We do not have sufficient revenue.
‘There are so many competing demands on the public purse. Most, like the one proposed, are seriously worthy of concern and individually are of merit, but where will the funds to meet them come from?
‘The mantra we hear in my committee all the time is “please just approve mine because it is special”, but when difficult decisions need to be made, many shirk from making them.’
ESS’s revised proposals could be amended to re-introduce the idea of increasing pensions when they are debated by the States in June. But Lester Queripel, a former chairman of Age Concern, said ESS was right to focus on income support for now.
‘I think it would be fairly futile to come back to the States with the very same proposals as last time,’ said Deputy Queripel.
‘I have no intention of pursuing an amendment to include all of the other benefit recipients who were included originally.
‘I’ll be speaking and voting in favour of the new proposal and, once again, I’ll be commending ESS for adopting such a compassionate approach.’
ESS president Deputy Peter Roffey has said his committee decided to resubmit its request to put up income support rates following indications from P&R and other deputies, before and during the original debate, that they would have been more sympathetic to targeted increases to means-tested benefits than to an across-the-board increase which included pensions.
Deputy Ferbrache said yesterday that the narrower issue of income support was the debate ESS should have taken to the States from the start.
Mr Le Lievre said deputies should not be troubled by a mid-year interim increase in benefit rates.
‘It’s happened before, during the 1970s and early 80s, when inflation was running at more than 10% plus for years. Bob Chilcott was the proposer of such a policy and it would do the States well to take a leaf out of his book and balance economic prudence with a modicum of social welfare care,’ he said.
‘Those without means also have to balance the books, usually by going without the basics of life.
‘Supporting the proposals would mean a few extra litres of milk and a couple of loaves of bread every week, for an average family, to offset all the food that would otherwise be lost by the effects of inflation on annual increases applied in arrears.
‘It isn’t a particularly high price to pay for keeping the wolf at the door and not at the kitchen table.’
