Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

  • Choose the service you want to log in to:

  • gov.je

    Update your notification preferences

  • one.gov.je

    Access government services

  • CAESAR

    Clear goods through customs or claim relief

  • Talentlink

    View or update your States of Jersey job application

Comments to the States on amendments of Deputy Ferguson to P.158/2008 and P.163/2008.

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

  • demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision

  • providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (27/11/2008) regarding: Comments to the States on amendments of Deputy Ferguson to P.158/2008 and P.163/2008.

Decision Reference: MD-S-2008-0082

Decision Summary Title :

P.158 and P.163 - comments to the States on amendments of Deputy Sarah Ferguson

Date of Decision Summary:

27 November 2008

Decision Summary Author:

Chief Officer, Social Security Department

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title :

P158/2008 Second Amendment and P163/2008 Amendment Comments

Date of Written Report:

27 November 2008

Written Report Author:

Policy and Strategy Director

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject: Comments to the States on amendments of Deputy Sarah Ferguson to P.158 and P.163

Decision(s): The Minister approved comments to amendments proposed by Deputy Ferguson in respect of P.158 and P.163 and determined that they be presented to the States Assembly as soon as possible.

Reason(s) for Decision: The amendments of Deputy Ferguson propose reducing the additional support to Income Support households that arise from a package of measures proposed by the Treasury and Resources Minister in response to P.138 and thereby cut additional benefits to the lowest income families in the Island.

Resource Implications: nil

Action required: Policy and Strategy Director to submit comments to the Greffe for presentation to the States as soon as practicable.

Signature: 

Position: 

Date Signed: 

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Comments to the States on amendments of Deputy Ferguson to P.158/2008 and P.163/2008.

P163/2008 AMENDMENT: COMMENTS 

Introduction  

Deputy Ferguson has lodged amendments to P.158 - Draft Budget Statement 2009 and to P.163 - Income Support and GST Food Cost Bonus: Additional Funding.   

These two amendments form part of a single proposal - to reduce the amount available to the Income Support scheme by £486,000 and increase the amount available to marginal taxpayers by the same amount,   from the total allocation of £5.8 million agreed in P.138.   

For the sake of clarity, the same comment is lodged against both amendments, to provide Members with full information on the consequences of the proposals. 

Existing measures to compensate for introduction of GST  

It is important to differentiate between the steps that have already been taken to protect a wide range of local residents from the impact of GST and the aim of Deputy le Fondré's proposition P.138. 

As explained by Deputy Ferguson in her report, £1.75 million was allocated to increase Income Support components to fully protect Income Support recipients from the introduction of GST and was paid from May 2008.  In addition, the GST rebate scheme provides a fixed annual benefit to households who do not benefit from the increased income support payments and do not pay income tax.  The value of the rebate in 2009 was due to be just over £75, representing the annual average cost of GST on food items to an average family.  The proposal in P.163 is to use part of the allocation of the £5.8 million to increase this sum in 2009 to £150.     

Whilst Income Support recipients benefited from the increases and those neither paying tax or in receipt of Income Support benefited from the introduction of the GST Bonus in 2008, equally marginal rate taxpayers benefited from an increase to tax thresholds of 6.5% in 2008. 

Those marginal rate taxpayers will benefit by a further increase of 5% in the tax thresholds for 2009.  The 5% increase in 2009 is made up of 3% in the original Treasury proposals, and an additional 2% funded from part of the allocation of the £5.8 million. 

The only group of households who have not been compensated in some way for the introduction of GST are those households paying full rate income-tax. 

Increased Food and Fuel prices  

The main thrust of Deputy Le Fondré's proposition, accepted by the Assembly, was that

 
 
 

“…steps should be taken to assist the public in dealing with the significant worldwide rise in food and fuel prices during recent months, and the consequential effect upon the basic cost of residing in Jersey.”   

He also argued that 

“… it is also recognised that food and fuel do form a proportionately greater share of the expenditure of the poorer members of our Society.”  

The allocation of the £5.8 million as proposed by P.163 acknowledges these arguments and proposes that £3.4 million should be allocated to assist those below the income tax threshold, with £2.4 million allocated to assist those paying marginal rate income tax.  These sums are not a compensation for GST, which has already been covered; they are an acknowledgement of the pressures put upon families with less disposable income to cope with the increasing prices of basic goods and services. 

Impact upon families

The P.163 proposals will improve benefits for approximately 4,200 Income Support households.  These are households with the lowest disposable incomes. Over one third of these households are pensioner households and a further 30% are families with children.   By contrast, there are currently over 30,000 individuals and households liable for marginal rate tax.  These households have higher incomes.  The average additional benefit received by a taxpayer under Deputy Ferguson's amendment is less than £20 per annum whereas the impact of Deputy Ferguson's amendment is to reduce the level of benefits across all income support households.   

Using the examples provided in the report to P.163, typical households in receipt of Income Support would be affected as follows: 

Household type

P.163

Weekly additional benefit

Deputy Ferguson's proposals

ANNUAL loss as a result of Deputy Ferguson's amendment

Single pensioner, receiving a pension 

 
£6.44

£5.32

£58.24

Pensioner couple, both receiving pensions 

 
£10.36

£8.47

£98.28

Pensioner couple, both receiving pensions, one with high personal care needs 

 
 
 
£17.36

£15.47

£98.28

Lone parent family, no earnings, one child, £50/week maintenance 

 
 
£7.10

£5.49

£83.72

Working family earning £400 per week - 2 adults, 2 children 

 
 
£19.71

£16.84

£149.24

Working family earning £300 per week, 2 children, one with a disability 

 
 
£22.71

£19.84

£149.24

Single person, no earnings, 60% LTIA 

 
£6.63

£5.51

£58.24

Single person, with disability, living with parents 

 
 
£7.98

£7.21

£40.04

Single person

£1.47

£0.35

£58.24

 

From the table, it is clear that those most adversely affected by Deputy Ferguson's proposed changes are families with children and pensioner couples.  Although pensioners and families make up 64% of the households that will receive extra Income Support, these households will bear 77% of the reduction in benefit suggested by Deputy Ferguson. 

Conclusion 

The transfer of £500,000 from Income Support beneficiaries to marginal rate taxpayers will reduce the benefits available to the poorest families in Jersey hitting pensioners and families with children and will only provide a very small improvement to the tax position of middle income families. 
 
 

 

Back to top
rating button