Most benefits, including carers' allowance, severe disability benefits and income support, will rise in line with inflation at 4.3%.
Winter fuel allowance is set to increase by 19% and rent allowance by 5%. However, the household income limit of £125,000 is set to remain for family allowance.
The rejected amendment, lodged by Deputy Andy Sloan, sought to lift that allowance to £136,800, bringing in an increase aligned with the ceiling proposed for severe disability benefits and carers’ allowance.
But ESS president Deputy Tina Bury questioned the comparison, saying ‘it’s definitely not apples for apples’.
‘The qualifying criteria to receive severe disability benefit and carers’ allowance is an incredibly high bar,’ she said.
‘The criteria for family allowance is having a child, essentially, so it’s practically universal.
‘In addition to that, the household cost indices for households with a child is considerably lower than for those with households with a person with a disability.’
She also noted that the committee’s modelling had shown that introducing the higher limit proposed by the amendment would bring in an additional 400 households at a cost closer to £600,000 rather than the £500,000 suggested by Deputy Sloan. ‘I don’t know where the money is coming from,’ she said.
The amendment was rejected by 25 to 11.
General debate on the 11 propositions comprising ESS’s package of proposals included observations around the differences apparent between the rise in personal allowances for care home residents and the fees paid to the homes themselves, the importance of supporting and housing care workers, as well as the discrepancies between forecasts presented by ESS and the Policy & Resources Committee.
P&R president Lindsay de Sausmarez referenced ESS’s surprise move to withdraw an amendment mid-debate during the Budget debate where the committee had looked to secure extra funding to support family allowance.
‘We were keen to avoid the immediate real-world impacts that may have resulted in response, and we still consider that the originally proposed budget in Option B, which is now in resolution, is likely to be sufficient to meet the cost of the non-contributory benefits in 2027,’ she said.
She also assured that the budget reserve would function as the ‘appropriate mechanism’ for managing any variations in expenditure, and that P&R would ‘work closely with ESS through each of the forecasts to ensure that funding is available should it be required’.
All 11 proposals were supported unanimously.
You need to be logged in to comment.