Reply missed crux of my argument about benefits

In his lengthy reply, he has simply set out, once again, to justify the Financial Transformation Programme and whether the costs incurred by one department, if charged to another, could be shown as an FTP saving for the former.

That was not really what my letter was about.

The crux of my argument was that under the various laws administered by the Social Security Department, i.e. The Social Insurance Law, The Social Security Health Benefit Law and The Supplementary Benefit Law, the only benefits that can be paid out are those provided for under those laws.

Each of those laws lists the benefits payable and conditions that have to be satisfied. Those conditions lay out that the benefits can only be claimed by an individual (claimant) and if the various conditions are satisfied, the department must pay the claim.

The department and its officers have no discretion.

'The fees for visiting consultants' are not a benefit prescribed under The Social Security Health Benefit Law which an individual can claim. It follows, therefore, that the transfer of expenditure incurred by the Health and Social Services Department to be paid by the Social Security Department was improper.

The chief minister, who, it was reported, had said it was his decision that the transfer should be made, was accordingly acting ultra vires.

The Social Security Committee and its officers, who accepted the instructions from the chief minister and agreed to the transfer, were, likewise, acting ultra vires.

Should the Social Security committee, supported by the Policy Council and the Health and Social Services committee, be of the view that 'visiting consultants' fees' and other associated costs that are incurred be treated as a 'benefit', it would be necessary to submit a report to the States to amend the law, ordinances and regulations. This could, of course, only apply to the future; it could not be brought in retrospectively.

In the chief minister's response, he made reference to the general revenue grant to the Health Service Fund.

Perhaps he needs to be reminded that this, too, is subject to legislation and any changes to it would have to go before the States. Before tampering with the grant or seeking to divert it for other purposes, he should acquaint himself with the reasons for it.

Diverging for a moment, he might care to reflect on the fact that the several reductions in the grant payable under the Social Insurance Law are, in part, responsible for the fact that that fund is in long-term shortfall.

With the secrecy that has until now surrounded the subject of the FTP transfer, I have to ask myself what overspend is being covered up.

The cost of 'visiting consultants' fees' should have appeared in the Health and Social Services Department's budget under a separate heading, with a very accurate estimate of what the expenditure would be. It would not be the first time that this profligate-spending committee and its predecessors have attempted to reduce its overspends by seeking another body to pick up the tab for its profligacy. After all, it was the chief minister who said it was that committee that came forward with the proposal to charge 'visiting consultants' fees' to the Social Security Health Benefit Fund. Maybe it was the thin end of a wedge by the Health and Social Services committee to test the water before submitting proposals for local consultants' costs to be brought within the ambit of the Health Service Fund.

Finally, I am left wondering whether the paragraphs at the end of the response, relating to Beau Sejour's debts, were just a throwaway distraction. I understand that HM Sheriff is an officer of the court who pursues debts only following a court order. To change that relationship might well lead to unintended consequences. Many other States departments, e.g. Income Tax and Social Security, have debts that have to be collected but they have to follow the usual procedures of chasing up the debtor and then seeking court orders.

It might be more appropriate with the centralising of the States computer system for the debts of Beau Sejour and others to be chased up by a section within Treasury.

Name and address withheld.