A Critical Scrutiny of the Social Security Minister's Statement

Damage Limitation after public outcry

The Minister’s statement of 19 January can be read as a defensive attempt to reassure the public that she has not cut JET’s base funding, but it is open to significant criticism when placed against the wider context of her tenure and the trust’s own response. She has been in office since early 2024, and during that time she has had ample opportunity to reform the outdated funding arrangement that governs JET’s support. 

Yet despite acknowledging that the arrangement is “old and out-of-date,” she has only now introduced a limited RPI-linked uplift, despite being nearly two years into her role. This delay makes her position appear reactive rather than strategic, as though she is responding to immediate criticism rather than having pursued a long-term plan to secure the trust’s sustainability. For an organisation that provides vital services to disabled Islanders, the absence of foresight is a serious failing.

The Minister’s statement confirms that JET’s baseline funding has been given an RPI uplift for the current year only, not a guaranteed uplift across all ten years. It is described as part of stabilisation funding for 2026. There is no commitment in the statement to apply RPI uplift automatically for each of the next ten years. Instead, the Minister stresses that future funding will depend on a new contract and Treasury approval, with “future‑proofing safeguards” considered once a sustainable model is agreed.

The previous reliance on one-off grants further undermines the credibility of her statement. She points to the £785,000 top-up in 2025 and the £200,000 in 2026 as evidence of government support, but these are ad hoc measures dependent on underspends elsewhere in the department. Such funding is inherently unstable, leaving JET unable to plan confidently for the future. A charity that depends on unpredictable top-ups cannot secure staff, develop programmes, or reassure clients that services will continue uninterrupted. By failing to embed inflation-proofed funding permanently into the baseline, or backtracking it over ten years, the Minister has left JET exposed to uncertainty, and her statement does little to disguise that weakness with her statement that she would never remove baseline funding. Critics can argue that this approach amounts to patching holes rather than building a sustainable foundation.

The Minister also places significant emphasis on data-sharing, suggesting that delays in agreeing to share information with government have held back reform. Yet JET’s board has made clear that it has, for years, shared all information it is legally permitted to provide. The barrier is not reluctance on JET’s part but the constraints of data protection legislation, a position of which the department was fully aware. This clarification exposes a gap between the Minister’s narrative and the legal reality. By framing JET as obstructive, she risks misrepresenting the situation and unfairly shifting blame onto the trust. In effect, she has used “data-sharing” as a scapegoat for her own delay in reforming funding, despite knowing that the law prevented the sharing of personal client data. This undermines trust between government and the charity, and it raises questions about whether the Minister is more concerned with deflecting criticism than with solving the problem.

The tone of the statement itself is reactive rather than strategic. By stressing that she “has not cut base funding,” the Minister appears to be engaging in damage control rather than setting out a vision for sustainable disability support. Her rhetoric about a strong disability inclusion agenda rings hollow when the funding insecurity of JET directly undermines services for disabled Islanders. The contradiction between policy rhetoric and practical delivery is stark: she claims commitment to inclusion, yet her actions have left a key provider uncertain of its future. This inconsistency weakens her credibility and suggests that her agenda is more about appearances than substance.

The implications of these criticisms are significant. Service instability means that disabled Islanders cannot be confident in the continuity of support. Public trust in government is eroded when ministers appear to misrepresent facts or deflect responsibility. And politically, the Minister is vulnerable to the charge that she had nearly two years to embed RPI safeguards and negotiate sustainable contracts but failed to act until forced by external pressure. The board’s clarification about data-sharing only sharpens this critique, showing that the obstacles she cites were known and manageable, and that her failure lies in not finding lawful, constructive alternatives.

Taken together, the criticisms highlight a pattern: the Minister has been slow to act, reliant on temporary fixes, and willing to deflect responsibility onto JET rather than confront the systemic flaws in funding. Her statement may reassure some that base funding has not been cut, but it does not address the deeper issue of sustainability. For Islanders who depend on JET’s services, this is not a matter of political rhetoric but of daily life and dignity. The Minister’s failure to embed inflation-proofed funding earlier, coupled with her misrepresentation of the data-sharing issue, leaves her open to the charge that she has undermined both the trust and her own disability inclusion agenda. In the end, the statement reads less like a plan for the future and more like an attempt to cover for past inaction.

Debate in the States?

Now that there is a petition on the matter which has reached 5,000 signatures, should there be a debate?
Technically, the States Assembly could decide not to hold a debate even when that number is reached. But the damage of ignoring it would be considerable, because the threshold is meant to signal significant public concern and provide Islanders with a formal route into parliamentary discussion. If the Assembly were to disregard it, the message would be that even when citizens follow the rules and mobilise in large numbers, their voices can still be set aside.

A petition with 5,000 signatures represents a substantial proportion of Jersey’s population. To ignore it would risk alienating not just those who signed, but also the wider community sympathetic to the cause. In this case, the issue touches on disability inclusion and the funding of JET, which carries moral weight. Politicians who appeared complicit in brushing aside the petition could face reputational damage and electoral consequences, as opponents would seize on the decision as evidence of indifference or arrogance.

Jersey’s government often speaks of fairness, inclusion, and transparency. To ignore a petition that has reached the advisory threshold would undermine those principles in practice. It would look like a government unwilling to engage with uncomfortable issues, preferring procedural escape routes over open debate. That contradiction would be especially stark given the petition concerns services for disabled Islanders, a group whose voices are already vulnerable to being overlooked.

Finally, it should be noted that petitions are one of the few mechanisms by which Islanders can directly influence the Assembly’s agenda. If the Assembly ignored this one, it would send a signal that collective action is futile. That could discourage future participation, leaving Islanders disengaged and resentful. In a small jurisdiction like Jersey, where civic involvement is vital to community life, such disengagement would be damaging.

So while the threshold is advisory, ignoring it would carry real costs: undermining trust, damaging political credibility, contradicting values, and discouraging civic engagement. In practice, the Assembly would gain little by refusing a debate, but it would risk a great deal in terms of legitimacy and public confidence. Even if the debate is uncomfortable, holding it is the healthier path for democracy.