Coronavirus debate - States of Jersey Assembly - 24 March 2020 at Fort Regent Social Security Minister Q and A

These videos are extracted from the official States Webcast which seems to have some gremlins in it.
Look at States Assembly site for the full version.

This extract - in 3 parts - concentrates on the Q and A session with the Social Security Minister Deputy Judy Martin.

Number 1 above but the order for viewing is not important

Number 2

Number 3

Evelyn's progress report - May 2015

From time to time we catch up with Evelyn who is ill, not fit for work and trapped into the Jersey Social Security, Health and  Social Housing systems.

We try to present her situation accurately as she experiences it and several previous interviews can be found on this blog.

Because Evelyn experiences a great deal of pain she  smokes cannabis when it is available . This is the best treatment she has discovered because it relieves her symptoms and gives her an appetite but of course it is illegal.

The official policy is that she must take prescribed  morphine and other opiates but these actually add to her physical problems and do not give her the relief she needs.

Evelyn has petitioned the States of Jersey seeking permission to have cannabis prescribed by her doctors for her own personal use but this was rejected.

Sometimes she is visited by the Police and has been arrested/charged for possession of cannabis etc. on occasions.
Even her aged parents have had their car taken apart by the Customs at St Helier when returning from France - presumably looking for cannabis.

We try not to judge the situation by Evelyn clearly has enough problems to deal with arising from her poor heath  and she does receive official help BUT it just appears to be so inadequate and uncaring at times.

We offer the following interview in 3 parts of about 6 or 7 minutes each;

SSTAG in exile blog site - Social Security Tribunal latest...

Another Social Security Tribunal hearing....

The latest Social Security Tribunal hearing on 27 February was open to the public. The applicant was asked outside the room if he objected to the public being present and he confirmed that he had no objection. So yours truly attended and can report as follows.

The dispute with the Social Security department arose because the applicant had been awarded a 10% long term incapacity award for a shoulder problem. This amounted to a lump sum payment of about £1300 for the period from October 2013 to March 2015.

He had previously been awarded a similar 10% award and received the money without any difficulty but since then has been claiming Income Support and he has another ongoing 70% award, paid as a regular payment (not a lump sum) with his Income Support, for kidney failures (for which he receives dialysis).

He is 52 year of age and unable to work (but the 10% award was made without any further Medical board examination. It was based upon previous information as the applicant explained to yours truly after the hearing).

Unfortunately, having accepted the £1300 and used it to settle some outstanding debts ( including a loan of £800 towards his parents’ funeral etc and a JEC bill) the Social Security department decided that it should be treated as “income” and duly proceeded to re-claim it ( except for 6% “disregard”) from his Income Support award.

The result is that the applicant is no better off. The 10% award has actually created problems because he has settled debts which could have been spread over time and the money used for other essential purposes.

The letters from the SS Department were discussed in some detail – were they clear enough? Did the applicant understand what they said etc?

In fact the SS law had been changed in 2011, presumably under Francis Le Gresley’s direction – so that Long Term Incapacity awards (LTIA) were no longer to be treated as “capital” for Income Support assessment purpose but were considered as “income”. The applicant’s original award at 10% was “capital” but the current one was “income” and so was clawed back...

The applicant explained how he was unaware of this and would have had the award paid on a regular basis instead of a one off lump sum if he had known.

But the SS Department explained that a 10% award must be taken as a lump sum – it cannot be paid with Income Support like the 70% award.

There is no discretion either – the SS Department must pay the money out too because the law demands it. In other words the applicant cannot refuse to receive it (unless appealing against the decision itself) although there is a bit of a grey area if the money is paid out and the applicant then appeals within the 3 months period allowed...

The SS Officers explained that there was some discretion available to them regarding redundancy payments or where a property value diminished to become a “negative equity” but in this case there were no exceptional circumstance and it was a common place occurrence. Many others have been treated in the same way they explained...

All due notifications had been made they said and there was no reason to change the decision (which had been confirmed by the Second Determining Officer in accordance with the Department’s own internal reconsideration process).

The Decision and other things.

The Tribunal members -  Chair Advocate Thacker with Mrs S Le Monnier and Mr A. Hall - agreed and rejected the appeal. There were no exceptional circumstances.

They did though raise the question of the  letters sent out by the SS Department  and whether these needed to be phrased more clearly and they did advise the applicant that the Minister does have an ultimate discretion to reconsider or change decisions and that he could approach him.

As is usual, the Tribunal’s findings will be sent to the Department – but what happens to all such decisions is a mystery to yours truly. There does not seem to be an archive for the public to look at or to enable such important decisions to be analysed and discussed.

It is the usual “Jersey way” of sloppy and incomplete administration...

The Tribunal hearing lasted about 45 minutes and the decision was delivered after a short retirement. It was well conducted and the applicant presented his simple case well.

There was one other person present in the “public” seats who appeared to be an observer for the SS Department. No “accredited media” attended.

Evelyn fighting for her life and against the Jersey bureaucracy...

Part One above about 14 minutes....

Part Two above also about 14 minutes...

Evelyn speaks frankly and graphically in this two part interview. There is no need for a text here but we plan to write something later after our States Members and others have had the chance to respond and comment...and perhaps even offer to give some support.

Its now January 2014 and Evelyn has been back to the Oxford Hospital and is now in the Jersey Hospital undergoing more tests and will go into theatre tomorrow (monday 13th)....Above Part One and below Part Two with some sub-standard edits but the message is clear enough.....