UPDATE: Regrettably, the States voted 27:17 (with 2 abstentions) against the Proposition. Although, interestingly, since the vote the public reaction has been such that some members who did not support the Proposition are now saying they might support it, if it were to return. I confidently predict that it is only a matter of time before we get differential pay in Jersey.
How many people know that there is a law in Jersey against paying ministers more than backbenchers? Currently, differential pay for States members – whether that is for the Chief Minister, Ministers, Assistant Ministers, Scrutiny Chairs or any other role – is forbidden by the States of Jersey Law 2005 Article 44 (1), which says:
“No scheme, agreement or other arrangement… shall provide for different elected members to be entitled to receive different amounts of remuneration or allowance.”
My proposition would effectively delete this Article in the Law. It would further put in place a mechanism to determine exactly which roles should attract differential pay, and at what level.
My starting point is a recommendation from the current independent Remuneration Reviewer (who effectively sets the level of pay for States members). She said in her most recent report:
“…it is within the power of the States Assembly itself to change the legislation. I strongly recommend that the Assembly makes such a change before the appointment of the next remuneration reviewer after the next election (emphasis added).”
Some facts and figures. All States members are currently paid £57,296.40 per annum, whatever their role. For comparison, in Guernsey, backbenchers get £43,036, but Committee chairs (roughly equivalent to Ministers) get £58,141, and the President of Policy and Resources (effectively their Chief Minister) gets £75,670. If you look around the world, the principle that roles with greater responsibility should be better rewarded is pretty well universal. Jersey’s Remuneration Reviewer had this to say:
“Jersey is highly unusual internationally in not paying its Ministers a salary linked to that role in addition to their ‘base’ States Member salary. The SMRRB considered an impressively broad range of international comparator jurisdictions. All of them but Jersey paid extra remuneration to ministers.”
Just because everywhere else pays ministers more, it doesn’t automatically follow that Jersey should do the same. But I think we should. In simple terms it comes down to one thing more than anything else. Responsibility. Ministers take on decision-making responsibility that backbenches do not. Every day, ministers take decisions about the safety and welfare of vulnerable people, they respond to emergency situations, they take decisions that affect the economy and therefore the quality of life of everyone in the island. In every walk of life, it is recognised that greater responsibility should attract greater reward.
There are those who will say that the job of minister is a privilege, and we already attract high calibre candidates to the States and there is no shortage of members who are willing to step forward to take up ministerial roles. This may be true, but it isn’t the full picture. It misses the counterfactual arguments. What opportunities are being missed? Is it possible that there are members of our community who don’t bother standing because they think it is so fundamentally important to reward responsibility that the failure to do so demonstrates that the Assembly is not a serious institution? To what extent might we be deterring younger members from standing, or from staying in the Assembly, when they have no chance of increasing their income in the way they might expect outside the States? There are many micro decisions taken out of the public eye that may be affected by the lack of proper reward for ministerial responsibility.
How much extra should ministers be paid? My Proposition leaves the detail to the Remuneration Reviewer, who has handled the issue of States Members’ pay with commendable rigour and independence. We have some clues as to where the ultimate figures might land from a previous report, which suggested that the Chief Minister should get £15K more than a backbencher, and a minister/scrutiny chair £7500 more. A new Remuneration Reviewer (who will be appointed after the next election) might take a slightly different view, but I would expect the end result to be in the same ballpark. In total therefore, the total cost of paying ministers more could be around £150K to £250K a year.
Some might say that States members are already paid too much. Others argue that we should have a much smaller States Assembly, with much higher pay. My Proposition is neutral on these issues. It simply says that members taking on greater responsibility should be rewarded accordingly.
Jonathan Renouf 