Millions to get people back in employment
Monday 28th June 2010, 2:56PM BST.
Social Security Minister Ian Gorst
MILLIONS of pounds could be added to the benefits budget from October to encourage claimants back to work.
The changes would let income support claimants keep more of what they earn, which Social Security Minister Ian Gorst hopes will encourage people to get back to work and make overtime and promotions worthwhile for those who already have a job.
Other changes proposed would increase the amount of savings that claimants can have without facing reduced benefit payments – aimed at helping pensioners – and increase benefits for children, the disabled and child care allowance.
The changes would cost £600,000 between October and the end of the year, and another £2.4m would cover the costs across 2011 – subject to a budget growth bid going to the Council of Ministers for next year.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
How about means testing and reducing benefits on a sliding scale to encourage people not to rely on them.
This sounds like the sort of give away we can not afford at the moment.
Report abuse
Here we go again.
The Island needs to save money – and we now propose giving more away.
Not that long ago I recall some ministers stating that the benefits system was getting out of hand and that we needed to remove the mentality of relying on benefits.
How do we rectify that – certainly not be saying have your cake and eat it.
Will someone please pay me to work too!
Report abuse
Sorry.. We give you money so that you can go to work to stop us giving you money….
How about plan B which will cost us nothing and even save money.
We STOP giving you money so that you go to work and start paying US tax.
Report abuse
If these people are able to work and there is work out there for them then I don’t think we should be handing out more of our hard earned taxes as a way of encouragment. How about we look into ways of cutting benefits for people who are playing the system. We are currently trying to reduce the budget by £50m a year and raise a further £50m a year in new tax revenue. How can we expect to do that with schemes like this?
Report abuse
Maybe I’m being dim but just how is increasing the benefits budget going to encourage people to go back to work?
Report abuse
the states are asking how to save money, like pjg means test
Report abuse
Thousands come to Jersey to work on the land or in the hotels. Why are the so called unemployed not doing these jobs. Is it because we have accepted another stupid English idea that if the claimants do not want to take an available job they can say no, just pay me the benefit. The payment of welfare, now called the politically correct income support, should have remained the responsibility of the Parishes and not have been centralised. The reason that St Helier and St Saviour paid the lions share of welfare is rubbish. They have the most rate payers including the wealthy comercial ones.I once sat on the St Helier welfare board which was run by intelligent and life experienced volunteers not paid blinkered civil servants. Let’s go back just three years to when the Parishes administered welfare to the present day of Social Security administration. In that very short space of time the sums of money required have increased by millions. It is obvious that the centralisation of welfare payments has not worked.
Report abuse
This sounds like a winner I must say. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn would be the first step.
The people that thrive – slowly but surly remove their benefits as long as they can maintain themselves and it wont be long until the “States will pay for me so I dont have to work” mentality will be reduced.
However I cannot see how we can afford this now…
1 or 2 years from now, maybe
Report abuse
Giving local people and in particular those on income support, priority for any available jobs if they are capable of doing them should be a legal requirement.
Report abuse
If the States want to encourage people back into work then they should cut the benefits with the exception of those who are genuinely disabled.
Report abuse
I don’t see how this will work unless ‘looking for work’ is redefined.
Someone can be ‘looking for work’ and applying for all sorts of jobs, but what use is that if their CV is intentionally poor and/or no-one attends their interview with them to make sure they sell themselves? You could go to interview after interview just making yourself unpopular with the interview panel to ensure you don’t get the job, but hey, at least you’ve applied!
Report abuse
Nellie (9) I think that is an excellent idea – if only though! This is exactly what is needed.
I can understand those who say reduce the benefits and force people into work, however it is not always that simple and it would be nice if those people would bear that in mind. Not everyone is a professional sponger!
A case in point …. my sister has been unemployed and receiving income support now for 2 and a half years! but this is certainly isn’t for want of trying.
Obviously there are jobs out there, in the catering or fulfilment industry for example, but unfortunately people who were previously employed, as opposed to still living at home, already have set outgoings and cannot realistically accept basic wage level jobs.
She has applied for countless jobs during this time however many potential employers – the states included – don’t even bother acknowledging the application never mind inviting her for interview.
To give these employers the benefit of the doubt, this may well be because of certain “events” in her past (nothing illegal however) which are apparent from her job history, as well as having a “diverse” work experience on her CV but no recent experience at any readily available position. It is exactly for that reason that she so desperately needs to get to the interview stage so that she has a chance to discuss any issues that the employer has with her work history and has a chance to sell herself which may to some extent make up for any lack of current experience.
But one of her biggest hurdles is the 2 and a half year gap since her last job. Which potential employer is going to take her over someone who has constant employment up to date especially when there are so many unemployed out there to choose from?
And that is why Nellie’s idea is an excellent one and would make a considerable difference to the long term unemployed.
Report abuse
Re :9) Nellie Macon
One of the most stupid comments I’ve heard for a long time.
They may be capable of doing the jobs to a certain degree but they may not be the best buy for the employer.
I suppose you would like the states to control who the employer employs.
Report abuse
The nearly bankrupt is reducing welfare payments including Housing allowance (rent rebate), this benefit is running at 30/40million per year in Jersey, or may be more now.
Jersey like the UK has got to cut it’s benefit spendging or Jersey will be bankrupt as well.
Report abuse
The bigger Government becomes the worse people become – the more dependant people become on Government, the worse off they become. All we are doing here is expanding the size of government bureaucracy and making people ever more comfortable in their poverty; something that should never be allowed.
People and communities should take responsibility for themselves and their families, helping only those who are truly in need and not rely on government programs and hand outs to do it for us.
We have failed as a people to pass the values of hard work and responsibility on our children so that they now grow up expecting an unrestrained free ride.
Britain as a whole, that includes us, has become a nation of scrounging whiners who can no longer get out of bed in the morning without some sort of Government grant or the promise of a free lunch.
We need smaller, not bigger Government, so that people can keep more of what they earn and look after their families properly.
When the foundations of responsible values are destroyed, the people (nation) will perish!
Report abuse
The J.E.P were recently extolling what they thought were the virtues of Ian Gorst…remember this is the guy who sanctioned Four pounds £ per visit to Doctors in private practice as a gift towards upkeeping their skills.there is no guarantee that they won’t just buy another new Jaguar,with the money as that won’t be monitored, what this is ,is the privileged looking after the privileged using your money.Jobs for the boys, money for the boys…this corruption needs stopping and now.
Report abuse
Jersey has quite a small state in terms of welfare and social provision, etc.
What it has is a pretty bloated bureacracy with loads of duplication to administer it.
Freidmanite sloganising won’t tackle that root problem, only decisive government can do that and the chance of the CoM delivering that is nil!
Report abuse
I can’t understand why it is not an obligation on persons claiming income support purely for the reason that they are not working (as opposed to carer’s allowance etc) to provide a local charity or other non-profit organisation, with a minimum number of hours support a week/month.
This would ensure that ‘job seekers’ were contributing to society by assisting organisations in need of volunteers and also serve the purpose of enabling ‘job seekers’ to stay in the job market which would look much better on their CV than not working at all.
It might also enlighten people on how much better their lives are than other peoples. Making a contribution does actually make you feel better about yourself too.
Report abuse
#18 Emma, unfortunately it would be unfair to the charities to inflict some of these people on them! Those I know who are genuine claimants are already giving their services to charities, those that aren’t I suspect the charities would not want.
#15 Jersey Bull, your statement can be expanded to “The bigger the population becomes the worse people become”. This relates to crime and health. As a population grows the percentage that experience illness grows even faster, and so the percentage that are ill enough to be genuine claimants will also grow faster.
Report abuse
piston broke (7) is it because we have accepted another stupid English idea
Yes Mr Broke, another stupid idea. Jersey has the Regulation of Undertakings legislation, but much of the work within agriculture and the so called ‘fulfilment industry’ is controlled by unregulated ‘gang masters’. Even unskilled work goes to ‘essentially employed’ non-islanders.
A complex web of gang masters, boarding house owners and local businesses, all supported by the Jersey tax payer. But fear not Deputy Gorst has two civil servants on the case!
I fear Pip has hit the nail on the head.
Pip Clement (17) only decisive government can do that and the chance of the CoM delivering that is nil!
Report abuse
Joe Public:
“Re :9) Nellie Macon
One of the most stupid comments I’ve heard for a long time.”
Obviously not a frequent reader of Nellie’s comments, then.
Report abuse
16 Truthseeker: What corruption are you talkign about? Please provide evidence of the criminality. Simply because you say something doesn’t mean it is true.
Please confirm if you are accusing Ian Gorst of corruption?
I bet you back down very quickly… come on, confirm this please. If it is not Ian Gorst, then please advise WHO is corrupt.
If you dont’ have evidence, don’t make up stories. Disgusting behaviour by you yet again!
Report abuse
13.Joe Public – You want to try applying for a job if you’re in your late 40′s onwards and see what it’s like out there. You may be an excellent worker and have loads of experience but you’ll be lucky to even get an interview. The only reason you won’t rate an interview is because they can employ someone straight off the boat more cheaply.
Or you have the other end of the spectrum – try getting an apprenticeship over here and see how difficult it is.
Report abuse
Joe Public & Donald Pond – This concept is already law in Jersey – it’s called the Regulations and Undertakings Law – I would simply like to see it being enforced.
Surely it’s far better for the taxpayer to have less people on income support and actually paying tax or to keep local people off income support in the first place?
Report abuse