WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE NEW MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY WAS ASKED ABOUT LONG-TERM CARE — AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT
During the ministerial appointment hearings on 30th June, something really positive happened. Deputy Samantha Gleave asked Senator Elaine Millar about the Long-Term Care Scheme. What followed was an exchange that I think every islander should be aware of, because it revealed just how deep the understanding gap around this scheme goes. I have been researching the Long-Term Care Scheme for several weeks, after a close family member was forced to navigate it following her husband's diagnosis with Alzheimer's and dementia. In that time I have read the legislation, the Scrutiny Panel reports, the Comptroller and Auditor General's findings, the actuarial reviews, and the 2025 Annual Report. I have met with a government representative to discuss the scheme. I have shared my findings openly on lobbi. What struck me about the exchange between Deputy Gleave and Senator Millar was not that the Minister got things wrong. It is that Deputy Gleave clearly understood the scheme and the Minister clearly did not — and the Minister is the person who has just been appointed to run it.
WHAT WAS SAID
Deputy Gleave asked whether the scheme was "currently fair and properly understood" and noted that those with assets above £419,000 can face delays of up to three years before receiving support. Senator Millar — who previously held the Social Security portfolio in 2022 and 2023, and who described improving LTC communications as one of her priorities during that period — responded that she was "astonished to hear about a three year delay." She stated her understanding was that people with assets pay "up to £60,000" towards their care. She described the Property Bond as something that has "very rarely happened." And when Deputy Gleave explained the waiting period in detail, the Senator responded: "If there was a time limit it was not something I was aware of. It must have been something done in the last couple of years." Deputy Gleave corrected her. She explained that the delay is not a financial limit but a time limit, determined by the assessed care level. She offered to sit down with the Senator and take her through the scheme. The Senator described the scheme as "a very complicated beast to explain to people."
"I'm astonished to hear about a three year delay"
WHAT THE RECORD ACTUALLY SHOWS
I want to set out, clearly and factually, where the Senator's statements did not match the published position. The waiting period has existed since the scheme was introduced in 2014. It is in the Long-Term Care (Benefits) (Jersey) Order 2014. At Level 1 care, a person with assets above £419,000 must self-fund for approximately 148 weeks — just under three years. At Level 2 it is 97 weeks, Level 3 is 67 weeks, and Level 4 is 53 weeks. This is not new. It has not changed. The care cost cap is £80,700 for a single person and £121,050 for a couple. Not £60,000. The Property Bond book stood at £7.3 million at the end of 2025, according to the States of Jersey Annual Report published in April this year. In 2022, the Comptroller and Auditor General reported it at £1.1 million. That is a 563% increase in three years. These are not obscure details. They are the basic mechanics of the scheme.
WHY THIS MATTERS
I am not sharing this to embarrass the Senator. I am sharing it because it proves, more powerfully than anything I could write, the point that has been at the heart of this entire campaign. The Long-Term Care Scheme is too complex for the people who need it to understand. We now know it is also too complex for the people running it to understand. For the past several weeks, the most common response to my posts has been some version of: "The information is available if you look for it." But if the Minister who held the portfolio, who made communications her priority, and who has just been reappointed to the role does not know the care cost cap, does not know the waiting period exists, and believes Property Bonds are rare when they have grown sixfold — then the problem is not that people are not looking hard enough. The problem is the system itself. Deputy Gleave understood it. She asked the right questions and she knew the answers. That gives me hope. And her offer to sit down with the Senator and walk her through the scheme is exactly the right starting point.
WHAT I HOPE DEPUTY GLEAVE WILL RAISE
If and when that meeting happens, I would like to suggest — based on everything I have found in my research — a number of issues that deserve serious discussion. I offer these to Deputy Gleave and to any other Member who wants to engage with the detail.
UNREGULATED CARE COSTS
Care homes must be registered but their fees are not regulated. Where a home charges above the standard rate the scheme pays, the gap falls on the individual or onto the Property Bond. The government has already standardised rates for home care — the 2025 Annual Report confirms this. But it has not done the same for residential care. The fund paid out over £93 million in benefits in 2025. It received £90.5 million in income. It is running at a deficit. The government's response is to raise the LTC levy by 67%. But nobody appears to be asking the other question: if the cost of care is driving the fund into deficit, why are we raising taxes before looking at what is driving those costs? Why are providers allowed to charge whatever they want in a market funded almost entirely by taxpayer and levy money? And why has the government regulated home care rates but chosen not to regulate residential care rates, where the financial impact on families is far greater? These are the questions any reasonable person would ask before reaching into islanders' pockets for more.
CONTINUITY AND QUALITY OF CARE
It is not just about what care costs. It is about what families are actually receiving. I spoke recently to someone whose elderly parents both receive home care. The carer changes constantly. Different people, different days, no consistency. For a person with dementia, this is not an inconvenience — it is actively harmful. Familiar faces and familiar routines are a clinical necessity for someone who does not understand where they are or what is happening to them. A stranger walking through the door for the third time that week causes real distress. Registration ensures providers are allowed to operate. It does not regulate what they charge. It does not require continuity of care. It does not set minimum standards for how many different carers a vulnerable person should be expected to deal with. The scheme is paying for care. But who is checking whether that care is consistent, dignified, and appropriate for the condition being treated? And if nobody is checking, what exactly are islanders paying £49.5 million a year for?
COMPOUND INTEREST NOT DISCLOSED IN PUBLIC GUIDANCE
Article 15(2) of the Long-Term Care (Benefits) (Jersey) Order 2014 provides for interest on the Property Bond at Bank of England Base Rate plus 0.5% — currently 4.25% — compounded annually. The word "compound" does not appear in the public-facing guidance on gov.je. The official booklets refer to interest being charged but do not explain that it is calculated on the growing total including all previously accumulated interest — not on the original amount borrowed. A family reading the published guidance would not understand this. The 2025 Annual Report shows £7.3 million in bonds generating approximately £310,000 per year in interest for the fund. That is 0.3% of total fund income. The financial benefit to the scheme is marginal. The financial and emotional burden on the families paying it is not. Deputy Gleave should ask: why is compound interest not clearly disclosed in the public guidance? And given that the income it generates is negligible, has the Minister considered removing it? Scotland charges no interest on deferred care payments during the care period.
THE RISK OF NEGATIVE EQUITY
This is the finding from my research that I believe is least understood and most serious. In the United Kingdom, the Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014, Regulation 5(3)(a), caps local authority lending at 90% of property value. There is a mandatory review at 70%. When the equity limit is reached, the individual transitions to council-funded care. I have read the Jersey equivalent legislation in full. I have been unable to find any equivalent provision. There is no equity limit. There is no mandatory review. There is no cap on total debt including interest. In a long care period, where both partners need care, or where property values fall, it appears to be legally possible for the bond debt to exceed the value of the home. I raised this with a government representative. They went away to confirm the position. I have not yet received an answer. Deputy Gleave should ask: does any provision in Jersey law prevent the Property Bond debt from exceeding the value of the property? If not, why do Jersey residents have less protection from their own government than UK consumers receive from commercial lenders?
THE FROZEN THRESHOLD
The £419,000 asset disregard has not changed since 2014. The original proposition — P.99/2013 — committed to annual reviews against the average value of two-bedroom property sales. The Comptroller and Auditor General confirmed in 2022 that the recommendation each year has been to keep it unchanged. The average two-bedroom flat in Jersey is now £510,000. A three-bedroom family home is £739,000. The threshold that was designed to protect ordinary homeowners now sits below the value of the cheapest category of family home on the island. Deputy Gleave should ask: has the annual review been carried out? What advice was given and by whom? And will the threshold be updated before any increase in the contribution rate takes effect — because asking islanders to pay 67% more into a scheme whose asset protection has been eroding for a decade is a difficult position to defend.
"has very rarely happened and most people who have illiquid assets also have cash assets and have been able to pay their own contribution"
THE REAL FUND POSITION
The fund balance is reported at £41.5 million. But £7.3 million of that is Property Bonds — money locked in legal charges against homes that will not be sold until people die or move out. That money cannot be used to pay tomorrow's care bills. The fund's real usable balance is approximately £34 million. It lost £5.2 million in 2025. Benefits are growing at 12% a year. Income is growing at 5%. Deputy Gleave should ask: how many years of usable reserves remain at the current trajectory? And does the government's planning account for the fact that a growing proportion of the fund's assets are illiquid?
A FINAL OBSERVATION
Senator Millar described the scheme as something "we should be rightly very proud of." She said it "works very well" and is "a universal benefit." The scheme is better than what came before it. I have said that throughout this campaign and I will say it again. The move from £13,000 asset protection to £419,000 was a genuine improvement. But pride in a scheme's principle does not excuse ignorance of its practice. The scheme charges compound interest that is not disclosed in the public guidance. It allows debt to grow against a family home with no legal cap. It is funded by a levy the Attorney General has confirmed is a tax, while the government continues to call it a contribution. Its asset protection threshold has been frozen for over a decade while property prices have risen by 30% or more. Its fund is in deficit. Its care providers are unregulated on price. And the Minister responsible for it did not know the care cost cap or the waiting period during her own appointment hearing. Deputy Gleave knows the scheme. She asked the right questions. She offered to help. I hope that meeting happens. And I hope the issues set out above are on the table when it does. Because the families going through this system right now — including mine — cannot wait for another decade of reviews, frozen thresholds, and communications strategies. They need the people in that room to understand what is actually happening, and to act on it.
Sources
- Long-Term Care (Benefits) (Jersey) Order 2014
- States of Jersey 2025 Annual Report and Accounts — published April 2026
- Comptroller and Auditor General Report on the LTC Fund (R.72/2022)
- UK Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014
- Ministerial appointment hearing — 19 June 2026, States Assembly public record gov.je/Benefits/LongTermCareScheme
Discussion (3)
Log in to join the discussion
Great article Brett and an eye opener.
0 Bigblog1 An excellent,well researched and composed summary that I have long argued for..you are better than any local journalists and this civil servant compiled and tweaked ancient out of date mish mash needs to be politically addressed. Please Samantha Gleave continue and you will immediately make your mark thanks to Brett's very thorough assessment. I voted for your twin brother (ok this means I live in the east!) so both of you carry on on the outside exposing the incredibly bad weaknesses of this appalling system. I'm not left wing but a modest home owner who would like to leave a bit to my incredible kids.
The fundamentals of long term care should be reviewed. At present it is loaded against those who work hard to provide themselves with a home and pay tax and social security not only during their working life but after their pensionable age. Why should they be subject to paying the long term care charge and tax on their pensions and not be entitled to free care in their old age like those who have not done so? It is totally inequitable and encourages not to save for their old age.