Shame on deputy for perpetrating such an outdated stereotype

Why, he asks, did ESS gain an interim increase in benefits for those on income support (IS), but not for those pensioners not on IS? The answer is a matter of record. ESS did indeed ask for the interim rise to apply to all pensioners. We felt that in a time of such unusually high inflation, freezing pensions and benefits for a whole year could cause hardship.

Sadly that request was rejected by the States. They said they preferred to see this move targeted on those with the greatest need – which of course included hundreds of pensioners.

Having looked up the voting records, I find Deputy le Tissier voted against giving an increase to all pensioners. As the vote was tied 18-18 his vote was responsible for blocking this much needed increase for Guernsey’s senior citizens. So it is pretty rich, almost astonishing, for him to now lecture us on not providing a pension rise when we tried to do just that but he blocked us. May I suggest he spends a few minutes looking for the mote in his own eye?

However, the good news is that from January the first, if the States agrees shortly, both groups will once again be treated identically. Pensions will go up by far more than IS to ensure both groups get a full cost of living rise year on year.

Deputy Le Tissier claims GST will hit pensioners hard but he knows, or should do, that the package includes a pre-emptive increase in the States pension to fully compensate for any increase in costs brought about by the proposed new tax.

He claims no pensioners would benefit from the proposed new personal allowance on social security payments because pensioners no longer pay social security. Simply untrue. They no longer pay towards the ‘work replacement benefits’, such as the pension, but all but the very lowest income pensioners still pay contributions towards both long-term care, and medical contributions. So very many pensioners on modest incomes would indeed benefit from the new allowance.

Deputy Le Tissier refers with suspicion to the new ‘double lock’ introduced for pensioners, including a ‘look-back’ provision. But this is to allow pensioners to continue to benefit from the uprating policy (of RPIX + one third of the difference between RPIX and the increase in median earnings), without suffering any real terms decreases during those times when average earnings go up by less than inflation.

It is a positive protection for pensioners.

Finally, Deputy Le Tissier shamefully refers to pensioners needing to ‘prostrate themselves at the door of Social Security’ if they wish to apply for IS. Not only is this a dreadful calumny on the professional staff at the department but it is the sort of outdated, almost Victorian, highly judgemental, view which risks perpetuating poverty in the island.

It is exactly the sort of condescending attitude towards those (pensioners or otherwise) in receipt of IS that my department has been battling for decades and we hoped had largely gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Let me assure anybody, pensioners or otherwise, who are struggling financially, that if they approach ESS they will be treated professionally and completely without judgement and condescension. I can’t guarantee they will qualify for assistance but I can guarantee no one will have to ‘prostrate themselves’.

Access to assistance is a right, not a privilege, and certainly not any sort of charity.

Shame on Deputy Le Tissier for perpetrating such an outdated stereotype.

DEPUTY PETER ROFFEY