WE are often reminded that Jersey is one of the world’s wealthiest communities.

We do not, however, have to rely on official confirmation of this to be certain that it is an accurate statement. Conspicuous consumption on the part of the wealthy, on everything from houses to meals at our Michelin-starred restaurants, makes it abundantly clear that this is a very prosperous Island.

But the prosperity does not extend from top to bottom. For example, as Senator Francis Le Gresley has pointed out, 20 per cent of the Island’s older people live so far from the lap of luxury that they cannot afford to heat their homes properly.
This figure can, apparently, be found in officially compiled statistics. It is, nevertheless, shocking and a disgrace.

It is also information most unlikely to come to the fore when those who sing the Island’s praises to the outside world speak of the overwhelming blessings bestowed by the finance industry. Sadly, as far as a significant proportion of elderly residents are concerned, the trickle-down theory of wealth distribution does not appear to be working very well.

Senator Le Gresley’s answer to fuel poverty is straightforward. He says that the winter fuel allowance should be paid to an additional 1,400 pensioners.

If the need that the Senator has highlighted exists – and it seems that it does if data collected by the States are accurate – it is hard to avoid the conclusion that something must be done and that delay is not an option. The winter is by no means over and more harsh weather could be on the way.

That said, the proposal to expand the fuel payment safety net will inevitably be controversial in this era of public sector cuts and savings. Some will argue that the money simply is not available. Senator Le Gresley has suggested that the extra money could be found by limiting certain incentives designed to encourage business activity and withdrawing cash support for the annual Enterprise Awards.

These, however, must be viewed as no more than suggestions, and possibly inappropriate suggestions at that. It would be a terrible shame if the Senator’s plea for more money were rejected simply because his plans for funding were seen to be suspect.

In reality, when a total sum of £315,000 is being sought to correct an acute and unacceptable shortcoming in welfare provision, it should not be beyond the wit of ministers and their advisers to find the money without undue collateral damage.