States Meeting Transcript - 13th September 2017

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 13th SEPTEMBER 2017

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................3

1. States Members' Remuneration Review Body: implementation of pay recommendations (P.39/2017)............................................................3

1.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .............................................................................4

1. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin:............................................5
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................6
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................9
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.....................................................................9
5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................10
6. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................11
7. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................12
8. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................13
9. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................14
10. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John : ....................................................15
11. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John:.................................................16
12. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier : ....................................................16
13. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier:......................................................18
14. Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ..............................................19
15. Deputy S.M. Brée of St. Clement:...................................................20
16. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................21
17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................23
18. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................25
19. Deputy M.J. Norton of St. Brelade : ..................................................26
20. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................27

2. Draft Education (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.56/2017)..................29

2.1 Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier (The Minister for Education):........................29

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour:.................................................30
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................31
3. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................31
4. Deputy R.G. Bryans: ...................................................................32

3. Draft Amendment (No. 33) to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey (P.59/2017) - as amended..............................................................................36

3.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....36

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................36
2. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................36

4. Draft Customs and Excise (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Law 201-. A law to further amend the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999.....................................37

4.1 Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):.............................................................................37

1. The Connétable of St. Martin:..........................................................37
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................38 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:..............................................38 Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour:...........................................40

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................41

5. The Connétable of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):....41

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................41
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................41
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................41

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................42
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................42
3. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................42

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................43

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

I wonder if the States would be minded to change Deputy Higgins into défaut excusé as he is obviously deeply involved with the Battle of Britain Air Display today; that is why he is not able to make the States. I wonder if the States would be minded, as in the past they have done, to mark him that way. Thank you.

Senator P.F. Routier:

In the past, I think Members have been appreciative of the work Deputy Higgins has done under the impression that it was all done on a charitable basis. [Approbation] I think it has become quite aware recently that it is a paid position which, if I wanted to go off and work in my own business during the day, I would not be allowed to have défaut excusé. I do not think it is appropriate to permit this.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Well the Deputy has been marked défaut so I am not minded to change that.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. States Members' Remuneration Review Body: implementation of pay recommendations (P.39/2017)

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We now move on to the first item today which is the proposition P.39/2017 States Members' Remuneration Review Body: implementation of pay recommendations lodged by the Privileges and Procedures Committee and I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion (a) that the provision in Article 44 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which prohibits States Members from being paid at different levels, should be removed; (b) that pay differentiation should apply only to the Chief Minister, from the election of the Chief Minister in 2018; (c) that the Chief Minister should receive a supplement of 15 per cent of salary from May 2018; and (d) to refer to their Act dated 12th June 2012, in which they agreed the terms of reference of the States Members' Remuneration Review Body, and to agree that, in the event that Article 44 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 is removed, a new paragraph 10A be inserted into those terms of reference, worded as follows: "Any recommendation by the Review Body for a new scheme for differentiating the level of remuneration and expenses payable to elected Members shall only be implemented if a proposition giving effect to such a recommendation has been adopted by the States."

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Could I ask a point of order? This of course is for the next Chief Minister, not the current one; however, when I have decided whether I am going to be seeking re-election or not, if I decide positively and I am re-elected it will not surprise Members to hear that I would seek to return to this post. Therefore, I feel that there is a potential conflict. I perhaps will reserve the right to speak but I will be abstaining unless you believe the conflict is so strong that I ought to leave the Assembly. I wonder if other Members might consider likewise because I suspect they are also considering their position post May.

I do not think there is a conflict at all because there are 2 significant steps to take before this proposition kicks in. One is you, Chief Minister, have to stand for election and win, which you may not. [Laughter] Secondly

Senator I.J. Gorst :

I thought you might use the word "probably" not. The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

So you might not. Secondly, you have to stand in this Assembly and win the support of the Assembly, which you might not. So I think there is no conflict in relation to any sitting Member because this proposition only applies to a Chief Minister elected after the next election. But obviously if you wish to not vote, that is entirely a matter for you. The Constable of St. Clement .

1.1 Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

The States Members' Remuneration Review Body is an independent body, an honorary body which since 2004 has set the level of Members' remuneration and has made recommendations about other aspects of our pay. They have done an excellent job, I think, of setting Members' pay fairly without the matter having to be debated in the Assembly. I think it is right that we pay tribute to its members: the current members, Ian Black, Louise Read and Gerald White, and the 2 retiring members, John Mills and Maurice Dubras. These 2 have now stood down after 9 years' service and we are currently recruiting for their replacement. The body's recommendation earlier this year was that Members' pay should be unchanged during the next Assembly. Any Member could have brought a proposition to challenge that but this did not happen. I cannot help but reflect that if that position is maintained, States Members will not have had a pay increase for some 9 years, so austerity bites here hard. But the board also recommended that Article 44 of the States of Jersey Law which prohibits States Members from being paid different amounts should be removed and accordingly the Chief Minister should be paid a different amount to other Members from next year, May 2018, and that the Chief Minister, whoever it might be, elected at that time should receive a 15 per cent supplement to salary which amounts to approximately £7,000. Allowing States Members to be paid different amounts is a longstanding recommendation of the review body. P.P.C. (Privileges and Procedures Committee) have not taken a view for and against the principle, nor has it taken a view on this precise recommendation but it is important that the review body's recommendations are debated and that the Assembly has the chance to reach its own view and this debate provides that opportunity. P.P.C. have put forward paragraph (d) of this proposition which makes it clear that if the principle of deferential pay is agreed today, a new type differentiation other than for the Chief Minister, in other words, paying Ministers, chairmen of committees, chairmen of panels a differential amount would have to be debated separately by the States. If this proposition is agreed, we will bring forward a draft law to amend the law to remove Article 44 and if and when this is done, paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposition have been adopted, the Chief Minister's pay will be increased from next year. I have to say that, in my own personal opinion, I support the differential in pay for the responsibility and extra work that the Chief Minister has to do. I do not think it is going to make one iota of difference to any individual standing for office but what it does do, what it will do, is recognise by this Assembly and by the Island the additional

responsibility and indeed workload that the Chief Minister, whoever it might be, has to undertake. I think it is a token but I think a valuable expression of this Island's recognition of the work that the Chief Minister does. I make the proposition.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Connétable M.P.S. Le Troquer of St. Martin :

Some Members will recall that I have spoken in previous debates on States Members' remuneration. I have made a written statement to the States Members' Remuneration Review Body in the past and there have been occasions when I and others have been prevented from speaking in this Assembly on the subject. On one occasion I tried to make a comment while we were still deciding whether to lift Standing Orders or not before we could discuss remuneration. The President of the day was too clever for that, although it was not an intentional move on my part. I prefer to think I had not been here long enough at that time to realise that we were prevented from speaking about it. Indeed, a decision was made that day at the Assembly that we would not lift Standing Orders and therefore could not debate the issue because it affected us personally but of course we were reminded that we had an independent board to put forward recommendations. We are here today, and I accept that it is something different, we are allowed to speak today obviously because we are changing things, but we are seeking to change the terms of reference that we agreed on a standing vote just 5 years ago, P.44/2012. Paragraph 3(i) of the terms of reference: "The principles that the level of remuneration available to elected Members should be sufficient to ensure that no person is precluded from serving as a Member of the States by reason of insufficient income and that all elected Members should be able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, so that the broadest spectrum of persons are able to serve as Members of the Assembly."

[9:45]

There is nothing about different responsibilities in this Assembly. I accept that the terms went on to allow Members to debate the review board's recommendation if a proposition was lodged in this Assembly and was subsequently approved by the Assembly to debate. I further accept that the review board at the time made other recommendations that they would not be implemented until agreed by the States, as the Connétable has said, something that we are being asked to approve in the final paragraph (d) today. I am fortunate, I have never seen my role as a Member of this Assembly as a job or career. I have never seen my role as a Connétable as a job or career. It is an honour to sit in this Assembly and it is an honour to be a Connétable . [Approbation] It is an honour to be a Member of the States of Jersey to try to serve the public of this Island. Some may not think that they are being served to the best all the time by all of us, but we all have our different styles and we all try to serve the public as best we can. I hope I speak for everyone in this Assembly. We want to serve the public, to serve the community and to serve the Island to the best of our ability. That is the achievement that we will take with us when we go; each of us when we go. Or looking at it the other way: do we want to be employees? Is this just a job? Do we wish to serve or do we wish to be employed? Sadly, I believe many Islanders now see us as employees rather than their representatives trying their best to make this Island even better. I fear that change is happening. I am sure we all have to agree that there is that perception now and I can understand that many would be unable to serve if there was no form of remuneration at all. We would be back to the old system of the retired old men, as it was, who were farmers and lawyers who were able then to sit in this Assembly and not have the workload that we have today, so we have a far broader area of society with us in this Assembly. Several years ago I would have believed, and I said it, supported that the Chief Minister and the Ministers and those with all the additional responsibilities as chairs of panels and committees should be remunerated at a high level. Indeed, I believe they were the comments that I sent to the Remuneration Board when I put the written submission: a

newly-elected Member able to receive the same amount - same amount - of remuneration as the Chief Minister, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources and so on. The other option, of course, was for new Members not to take the full amount if they did not need to and they still do not have to. None of us have to at any time. The terms of reference clearly state: "The level of

remuneration available to elected members should be sufficient to ensure that no person is precluded from serving." It does not read that those in higher positions, Ministers and chairs of panels and the like, should be entitled to higher. It does not say that those who are used to a higher weekly outgoing should receive more than those that do not. Every candidate seeking election knows what is available before they get their nomination paper. If approved today, I have no doubts that recommendations will soon be coming before this Assembly for debate to seek increased remuneration for the Ministers and some will see the Ministers having that deserved extra remuneration. Another argument of course that will follow this debate is the actual remuneration available will never attract suitable candidates. Well, I am sorry, we have some really good candidates, we have some really good Members, hard-working, experienced, more than capable, dedicated Members of this Assembly working to the best interests of the community and who of course could earn far more outside of this Assembly. That is their commitment to this Island that is so often forgotten. Please do not tell me they are there for the remuneration alone. If this proposition is approved today, then it will appear that we have approved a 15 per cent rise, an increase of payment of £7,500 for the Chief Minister annually until May 2022. The salary is about a fifth of the new Chief Executive Officer of this Island. The Chief Minister of this Island getting about a fifth of the Chief Executive Officer, maybe a grade 11 on a civil servant. But of course a reminder, it is just an allowance, it is not a wage, and of course you have got no security and no pension. As I have suggested, I think it will be only a matter of time before other positions will be before this Assembly for a pay increase. It is a pay, is it not, it is not an allowance. Then of course Members start to interfere. So far Members have not interfered because the Remuneration Board do their although there has been that provision in the law for it, it has not happened. So I suppose the fundamental question, in conclusion, goes back to the very day when remuneration was first agreed for States Members. We have Article 44(1) of the States of Jersey Law 2005 and it is quite clear: "No scheme, agreement or other arrangement whatsoever for the remuneration of, or the payment of any allowance to, elected Members out of the Consolidated Fund shall provide for different elected Members to be entitled to receive different amounts of remuneration or allowance." Why that was there, I do not know, but it is there. I really feel I am unable to support

the proposition. Thank you.

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I hope it is the case for all of us that we can say honestly that we did not go into this job for the money. We all know that there are much easier ways to make money than by being a States Member. I remember a question that was put to me and all the candidates I think in the 2008 Senatorial hustings at the St. Ouen Parish Hall when there was obviously the ongoing debate. We hear sometimes individuals saying: "Was it not better in the good old days when States Members were not paid and they made much better decisions?" Nowadays of course we have got career politicians and that is not a universal thought but it is still one that persists; it is perhaps with rose- tinted glasses. Maybe good and better decisions were made in the past but there were perhaps a whole raft of reasons for that. There was lots of money swirling around and there are lots of bad things that happened that we did not know about at the time which we do now know about. I said to the person: "Yes, I would go into politics if I was not paid" because that was the question. At the time I was living at home with my parents, I could have probably afforded to do that. I would have had perhaps a part-time job on the side. I would not necessarily have had any rent to pay, I would have simply contributed to my board and lodgings. I suspect I could have done something of a job

of a States Member but with a part-time job on the side. It was decided that, not so much to reward States Members or pay them handsomely, but in order to live you need to give people money so that they can at least do their basic job. I am no different to anybody else. I have just made a very short list of some of the casework that I have been doing in the last couple of weeks and it is not exhaustive because I had not managed to finish the list before I got called to speak. There are

mental health issues which I have been called to deal with, there are police complaints issues that are still ongoing for one constituent, there is support for drug and alcohol issues that are ongoing, many different cases, and that is one of the reasons I lodged a written question this week on that issue. Also to do with suicides; Members will know that I have sent an email around. There were constant questions about the Les Quennevais School site. When I go to my surgery every Monday at Communicare there are ongoing bullying issue casework that I am assisting with and overseeing which other Ministers will know about. There is obviously the usual housing casework, income support casework, medical board appeals, all of these kinds of things which are not unique to myself but which I am sure all of us in this Assembly do. The reason I say that is because we do not often stand up. There is no job description. Some members of the public know what a States Member does or should do but of course there are others out there who constantly say: "Well States Members, they do not do anything, they get paid however much it is a year [it is usually exaggerated] and they get 8 weeks off in the summer. What other jobs are there where you get 8 weeks off in the summer?" Well did anybody in here get 8 weeks off? I think I may have got a couple of days off but then you take your phone and your iPad with you, do you not? I am sure that is exactly the same for the Chief Minister and Ministers who are very busy. But I am not making the case for a pay increase, I am not making the case for a differential pay either for the Chief Minister. But what I am saying is that we seem to have got our priorities wrong here because what the Remuneration Board should be doing, they should be looking after the welfare, not just of States Members, but in doing so if they did that they would be looking after the public generally. Because if States Members cannot be afforded the basic norm to operate in their job with the relevant support and some of the normal things you would expect that we give to our employees, like a pension, for example, like administrative support, then how on earth are we supposed to serve the public efficiently? We end up chasing our tails and that is the real issue. So if you look at the fine detail of what is being proposed, it is not in the proposition but it is in the recommendations of the Remuneration Board. They are saying effectively: freeze States Members' pay for another 4 years and then by doing that we can afford to give the Chief Minister a bit more pay. So incrementally by eroding everyone else's pay, that gap does not seem so bad, it would be more acceptable to the public. That is essentially what is being proposed. So in order to give the Chief Minister, whoever that is, he or she, in the future, a bit more money and to make that first political step to do that, they are penalising whoever the future States Members are. It is not populist of course to stand up and say these things but I think there comes a point in the hair shirt wearing of

politics that somebody needs to stand up. Workers outside, if they want to, have a trade union. Who speaks for States Members on these issues? It is not self-interest because none of us knows whether we will be here after the next election but it is for those who will be here. Can we genuinely say we are going to freeze people's pay? I know we all come from different backgrounds in here. Some of us might be independently wealthy, some of us might own our own homes, some of us might still be buying our own homes, others might be renting either off a private landlord or renting in social housing. That is great, that is what we should be. We are a representative Assembly and it is expected that we get different situations. But a States Member in the future, we are trying to attract we want a diverse Assembly apparently and that means not just people who can afford to stand for election but people who see it as a vocation and want to do it irrespective of what their current situation is. Some people are put off from that, we know. We know that potential candidates are difficult to get for whoever might be looking to support people. When you have got young families, for example, and you are getting good money in the private sector, why would you change your job? You might change to a job if you knew what you were letting yourself into, if you knew that you had the administrative support. But States Members get no pension, they get no personal office space, they get no personal secretarial support, we get no research workers, we do not even get an I.T. (Information Technology) allowance anymore. For some strange reason - and this is how ad hoc things were - there was a decision at some point for a

short window of time to say: "We will give States Members [I think] £400 to buy a laptop" and then those of us who are lucky enough could use it to buy an iPad which is invaluable of course. You take this wherever you go with you. You take it to meetings, you take it when you travel and you are constantly on this and you are constantly getting casework and doing what you can to the best of your ability and then that was stopped. So the new intake, they do not get that anymore. I mean, who organises this kind of thing? To stand up and praise the remuneration body and say: "Are they not doing a great job?" when they have just come up with a completely half-cocked and half-baked idea here. It is not entirely their fault. The argument is of course: well why do you not make recommendations as States Members to them? I am sure we would but I think we are all busy running around doing the casework. Incidentally, and I think again this applies most of these issues are not for Les Quennevais residents but for La Moye residents, not even for St. Brelade residents because when we get known for certain issues people say: "Have you tried this States Member?" We do not respect the boundaries of where people live. You do not say to somebody in Jersey: "I am sorry, I cannot deal with that because you are over the border." That is not the way things work. So it would be great if the Remuneration Board could sit and look at us in how we do our work, maybe shadow us for a day or a week and ask States Members: "What is it that you do and what is it that would help you discharge your duties more?" Not just this some kind of ideologically-driven idea which is being pushed through by key proponents who want to try and professionalise and get more business people or whatever into the States. Because I do not care about the money but I do care about being able to do my job right for my constituents. I would quite happily, in fact, take a pay cut if you gave me everything which is even a fraction of what is the norm in other jurisdictions, even small ones. So what I would encourage Members today is to ask themselves the question: is this really the right time, first of all, to be doing this in the current climate the way it is perceived? We talked yesterday about the Jersey way. It is not just about the reality. Of course, we could all make arguments, and no doubt some will, as to why the Chief

Minister, the future Chief Minister, should be paid more. [10:00]

But is it the right message we are sending out to the public? Does it reinforce the concept of the Jersey way, the old boys' club, or does it not? I would say it is the former. I would also suggest it is the thin end of the wedge because what it will mean is that it is not going to be long before other Ministers will get a pay increase. Of course they should. If the Chief Minister has an extra burden of responsibility, then the other Ministers should also be remunerated for that accordingly. That is a dangerous precedent, it is the thin end of the wedge. I will just finish by quoting some of the ideas that they talk about in the remuneration body. They make comparison to other jobs and it is very difficult. I do not know what kind of job you would compare the job of a States Member. Whether that is a Constable; of course, Constables have got a dual role which they are balancing, Ministers have got dual roles, the scrutineers have also got dual roles. We are all doing multiple roles in this Assembly. They say something like: "Well, States Members already get about 28 per cent more than the average wage" but it is not an average job, is it? Show me another job where you are in the public eye 24/7, where you get messages nowadays by text message, by phone, you still get the occasional letter, you get the emails, you get the Facebook messages, you get the Twitter messages. Some of us, we do not even know we have got these messages because we did not even know it is possible to send personal messages on Twitter, et cetera. We know what I am talking about, I think. Show me a job where that is the norm, where your reputation and clearly there are those of us who know about reputational damage in the Assembly where you are scrutinised 24/7; everything you say, do or write can be held up to public scrutiny. We talk about us having a voice but in fact nobody has to censor themselves more; self-censorship. It does not occur more than for parliamentarians. We know that, so in a paradoxical way you give up your freedom of speech when you become a parliamentarian in order to have freedom of speech for your

constituents. So show me a job like that where the pay differential is only 28 per cent where you are on call 24/7. The great work that our firemen do, the lifeboat, for example. I know they do that voluntarily but they have corresponding safeguards. You would not give a road sweeper a job and then say: "Go out and sweep the road but I am not going to give you a broom." So all I am saying is, if the Remuneration Board want to do this in the right order, do not put the cart before the horse. Let us get our House in order literally; let us get our Assembly in order. Let us ditch this proposition today, give it the short shrift that it deserves and let us do things properly. It does not really resolve anything and it does not restore any confidence that the public might have in us, it simply does the opposite.

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I find myself in a curious position today; I agreed with pretty well all that Deputy Tadier said. Now, as one of the sort of old lags, apart from my slight bit of gardening leave, I remember the original amendment that brought the same level of pay in for all Members. It was brought in as an amendment to the States of Jersey Law by former Senator Stuart Syvret. The rationale given was that differential pay for Members with ministerial power, et cetera, was that it would give the Chief Minister the power of patronage and it would take away independence from Members. They would be following the party line in order to get the position that gave them more pay. As Deputy Tadier has said, this proposition is the thin end of the wedge. Many Members and many of the public want to return to the committee system. Now, before we indulge in differential payments, perhaps we should work out how the revised committee system would work. If we are differential all over the place, how are we going to work with the committees? Now I agree with the Constable of St. Martin. This is not a job, it is not a career, it is an occupation. It is a repayment to the Island. We do it because we value and love our Island. Some are here by birth, some are here by choice. I am here by choice and I will fight to the death to preserve the good parts of the Island, the things that matter. I disagree with this proposition and I will not be supporting it and I ask other Members not to.

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon:

Being a former chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee, I know what an unenviable position that can be at times. With regard to this particular proposition, I agree with what the speakers have already said: thin end of the wedge, the patronage side of it but I really do want to stress the point about the reason why the universal pay is there. It is being paid so that regardless of who you are, anyone is able to stand to this Assembly regardless of where they are from. If you look at the previous reports from the Remuneration Board, they identify that there is a problem in attracting "middle-aged" people coming forward to stand in this Assembly due to the pay but of course what has the Remuneration Committee done about that? But that is their own work which they have identified. A further question of course is if this were to go through, where exactly is the money going to come from? Are States Members going to vote to make the pots larger when it comes to States Members' pay? Or, as we know in the past, which has been suggested, is there going to be a reduction of other States Members' pay? Because, as I say, I believe this to be the thin end of the wedge. I appreciate this is an in-principle decision but when it comes back it has been mooted before and I think this is just "we will go with this one because this is the easy one we can get away with and therefore when we do everything else, that will come forward". Sometimes I feel that the Remuneration Board do not necessarily appreciate all the work that has been done. I have seen 3 reports from the Remuneration Board and not once did they mention the constituency work that States Members have to do. Not once do they talk about the amount of time that States Members have to dedicate to all of that very important work which the public really appreciates. Also when you look at "how do you compare this position to others?" Sometimes I feel I am a counsellor, sometimes I feel I am a social worker, sometimes I feel I am a best friend, sometimes I

feel we are researchers, we are analysts, we are policy-makers, we analyse strategies and of course the other question is: what training do necessarily we get for all of these? These are the types of issues that the Remuneration Board should be looking at because, again, I think also flowing from the Care Inquiry Report, looking at training for States Members is going to be an issue as well but the Remuneration Body should be on top of this. I have written to them before and I have asked for them, for example, to do focus groups with States Members to talk through the issues. Because, again, we are busy and sometimes to pen a letter to start talking about how much you should get paid is not the most comfortable thing that we like to do because there are more important things which we stood for election to do and get on with. There is something of course which has not been spoken about. I appreciate that the role of the Chief Minister is incredibly busy but of course what is not mentioned is ministerial allowances, what the Ministers are able to take back from their departments, quite rightly so, in order to carry out the work that they need to carry out. But of course what that means is Back-Bench Members do not have those same type of facilities, or not to such a great extent. So therefore the ability that the Chief Minister and other Ministers have in order to have more resources to facilitate the work that they want to do is there compared to other Back-Benchers. I think other Members will talk about the flawed SurveyMonkey process which led to this particular recommendation. There is a lot there that anyone with their research methodology abilities can tear through, so I will let someone else go through that one. We need to ask ourselves: do we really want someone to stand for the position of Chief Minister just because they get an extra pay packet? Is that really what it should be about? I do not think so. Never mind, of course, we are moving to a system whereby ministerial responsibilities are chopping and changing and flowing about. How exactly are we going to keep track about who gets paid what when all this keeps shifting around? Because there is a bureaucracy side to it as well and, again, this is the thin end of the wedge. I mean, compare ourselves to Guernsey and they have a staggered system of pay. Is it necessarily better? I will leave Members to consider that one. I will not be supporting this recommendation. I think it is more divisive than where we need to be. We want States Members to come together and I really feel that this should be rejected. We should not

debate this long and get on to the important work that we need to be here for Islanders. Thank you.

5. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

It is never easy when you are going to stand up and speak against your chairman on P.P.C. but I have made my position known around the committee and I will just take a few moments to explain why. Now, people have said the States remuneration body are there to review our pay but they are also there to listen to us. I, and I know at least another Member, have written to them many times on the position which Deputy Maçon has just touched on about the ministerial support that Ministers get and to be costed. It was not long ago that I found through a written question £193,000 paid to some support for the Chief Minister and the Minister for Treasury and Resources. I got that taken away and I got it put to T.V. (television) licences for over-75s when that was being threatened to go. Now how did I find that out? Because I asked questions. When this 2005 law was passed, it was passed before then, before we went to ministerial, because it was mooted that different Ministers would be paid different remuneration. For exactly the reason that Senator Ferguson said, there was a worry. There were some very tough debates in here to say it would not happen and it has stayed the same now for over 12, 13 years and I think it is working. Now the Chief Minister, he is our Chief Minister. He is like the Prime Minister. To the rest of the world he goes out there representing the Government which are only 10 people. Not us. I am not the Government. I absolutely respect the person who takes this job on, should have the respect, but what the remuneration body have not done and I sat down and I did 2 weeks of what I did every day and I sent it off to them: what I did, what I did. But I then again asked them: "Please find out what goes on in the Planning Department, in the Education Department, in Cyril Le Marquand House. Who are these officers in Social Security? Who are the policy-makers? Who are now serving the Ministers that were not there in 2004, 2005 when we passed this law not to make differential pay?" I am not saying it is an easy job but the Minister, the Chief Minister, has never written a proposition in the Chief Minister's name because he does not have to. Why would he? He is there, he has consulted on it, he knows. He has got policy-makers and report writers behind him doing the work. Of course that is right but what I have asked - and I know another Member has at least, maybe more - has asked this body do is to cost that out for me. How has it grown in the last 13 years, the support the Ministers get? So do not come to this Assembly and say: "I recognise the Chief Minister's job is not an easy job." I recognise he represents the Island and so do the Ministers but it will be the thin end of the edge. You are going to remove Article 44, nobody will do the job for another £7,500 a year. Would you? No. But try costing the support they get and then try putting that across other Members of this Assembly. The money is not there. I accept the job that I do with no support; that is fine. But do not come to me and say the Ministers need more pay because they do more work. If you have taken the time, which I have done, to write to the Remuneration Board, email, by phone call, by every minute of a States week and a non-States week they thanked me for my work but that was all I got. Then, as I say, the other part, I think it said it is not in their terms of reference to look at. When you ask somebody to look at something and then come back with a sensible I mean, they came back and told me this, that and the other.

[10:15]

Maybe the Chief Minister should be getting double what we are doing. They have not made the case for me and I do think today it should not be passed because I want to know more. I want to know about the ministerial support, I want to know this is not the beginning of: "The next Minister will have; the Deputy Chief Minister will have " sorry, that is not the way this Assembly is worked. Since we went to ministerial we do not know how big the bill has grown to support the important work of the Ministers. Until I know that, I cannot put another penny in that direction.

6. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

It is my view that this matter has been sufficiently aired this morning and I would like to propose that we move on to the next item of business.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

OK, that was a surprise. [Laughter] We have had 7 speakers which is slightly fewer than usual for this sort of proposition. I do not know whether any other Members wish to speak or yes, I think it would be better to hear more views. We have only heard views against the proposition and maybe they are the only views that are in the Assembly.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

In that case, could I finish my speech? [Members: Oh!] The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, Constable, you may finish your speech.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

My concern is that this morning we are going to hear a succession of speeches probably mostly against this proposition and we could be here until lunchtime. It is quite clear that Members, for different reasons, are not happy to be debating their pay this morning of all days. I am certainly not and I do not think that this particular solution is the right one. Personally, picking up Deputy Maçon's point, I think Guernsey, as in many other things, have got it right and I would be much more interested in a pay review that affected all Members, and it included Scrutiny Chairs and other people who take responsibility, as well as the Chief Minister. So I will not be supporting this proposition and hope that we can get to the vote fairly quickly. Thank you.

I have 2 more Members who wish to speak at the moment and I am minded to hear those before I would take a proposal to move to the next item. I do wonder if the Member wanted to have a vote on the proposition because obviously a move to the next item means that this gets deferred, this debate. So I do not know whether what the Assembly wants to do is to vote on the substantive proposition but I will leave that with Members to think about and I call

Deputy M. Tadier :

Can I just make an observation? Obviously, the move to the next item would be a quasi-vote on the proposition without having to go through all potentially 49 votes. So it is just a pragmatic way potentially of expediting it and saying we do not want to make this decision, certainly not today.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Yes, I understand what it means. Constable of St. Mary .

7. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Maybe I am going to be a bit controversial for once but I just would like to say I am astounded at how good this Assembly is at debating what is not in the proposition. Because all I have heard so far are reasons why we should not have differential pay for Ministers, reasons why we should have a pension, reasons why we should have support, and I am not saying that I do not agree with some of that. But really this is not that debate and I am astounded that we cannot simply look at the simple fact of what we are being asked of here. First of all, Deputy Tadier made a very wide- ranging speech about there is no support, there is no I.T. I completely agree with him about the way that was done. It was a ridiculous way to deal with such an important thing. But then he said about pensions. Well of course ideally we should have a pension but that was recommended, it was discussed. It was decided by this Assembly that this was not politically the right time to be discussing increasing remuneration by having a matched pension scheme which is I think what was suggested at the time. Deputy Tadier 's words were in his speech something like: "This is not politically the time to be discussing this" and then he went on to criticise something else that had not been done because it was decided then that that was not politically the time to be discussing it. At some stage we just have to be mature and have the discussion, vote one way or another, and decide. This is not the thin end of the wedge. The proposition is specific that any further differentiation would have to be the result of a States debate. We are in control. This Assembly is in control. What this is, is simply an acknowledgement perhaps that the role of Chief Minister is something a little out of the ordinary. Now we are not talking - as was said originally by the Chief Minister when he spoke about potential conflict - about this Chief Minister. We are not talking about any kind of patronage because it is only one position, a position that ultimately, unless something else changes in the meantime, this Assembly will decide the next Chief Minister. So simply, this is not a wide-ranging and earth-shattering proposition, this is a very simple proposition. Does this Assembly consider that the role of Chief Minister is of sufficient importance that it should be treated differently in view of all the connotations that are attached to it of being the effective head of our government, of representing this Island far and wide, of being the person with whom - I do not know if this is a parliamentary expression but I will give it a go; it is not rude - the person with whom the buck stops because there is no one above him in this Assembly? Or her. Maybe the allowance will pave the way for more people to think that they could fulfil that role. I do not know. It is a very small allowance in total in the scheme of things. But the person who is Chief Minister has to show a good face for Jersey. It is a very important thing. I have been astounded personally. I am sure lots of Members here have travelled away to other jurisdictions and seen how their Chief Minister, or whatever they call the head of their government, is accorded a certain respect. I think that is matched in some way by this small change, and it is a very small

change. It does not erode other Members' pay by increasing the future Chief Minister's; it is a percentage. Therefore, it would be counter-productive to do that even if somebody was particularly mercenary. It does not reduce the envelope because it specifically says in the proposition - and I say this to Deputy Maçon - how it will be funded. It will be funded from the States Assembly budget. From the Greffe budget. So, debate, please, Members, what is in the proposition. We would get through a lot more business if you just read the proposition, understand what it is and say: "Yes, I like that" or: "No, I do not." There is absolutely no need to bring in such far-ranging things. This is not about ministerial support because ministerial support is something that will need to be considered if we ever discuss ministerial pay differentiation. I do not know. At the moment, in my heart of hearts, I am completely against differential pay because the system that we have here does not allow the people who do the most work to necessarily achieve the positions that would receive that remuneration. But I am telling Members now, that system is changing. That system has to change. It has to change as part of everything we have all agreed with the way we must present ourselves to the public and the way this Island must change going forward. The system that we operate in this Chamber, the machinery of government is broken. I have said that for a long time. [Approbation] It is definitely broken and the Chief Minister knows that he is running out of time to come up with a solution because there are others of us in this Assembly who want to see that change made. That is the time we might discuss that but I will not support anything that reduces the envelope because the remuneration body were charged right at the outset to simply provide Members with a remuneration package that would allow the average man on the street to be in this Chamber if they felt that was their vocation. So you cannot suddenly then say: "Yes, X is the level but because we want to pay the Ministers more, it is going to have to be X minus Y." That is not how it works. We must maintain our baseline as far as I am concerned. If that ever happens and we have changed machinery of government and if I was still in the Assembly, maybe I would support some differentiation. At this time, categorically I do not, but that is not what we are debating today. So Members really need to think exactly: do they believe the role of Chief Minister is sufficiently important and sufficiently different to warrant a 15 per cent increment? If they do not believe that, then I think the system of government that Members are looking at today must be even more broken than I imagine. Because I see our Chief Minister, whoever he or she may be, as having a fundamentally different role from the moment they are elected. I think I have said all I need to say. I controversially may be not every speaker has been against this proposition now.

Thank you.

8. Senator P.F. Routier:

The proposer of this proposition, the chairman of P.P.C., and myself were elected at a time when there was no pay and we had an allowance for some expenses. I was able to do that at a time when I was in business and able to manage on the expense allowance. Obviously, I was able to mix my work: be able to do business work and also to be able to do States work because the workload was nothing like it is at the present time and that was as a committee member. As time has gone by, I became a president of a committee and the workload increased. The remark that Deputy Martin made about the support that is given to  Ministers, well the support  was given to  committee presidents as well. The committees were supported by policy-makers so there has not been this great jump in policy officers since we have had ministerial governments. We certainly know that because of the way we do things now with Ministerial Decisions and that sort of thing. There is more process involved and it does create a lot more work and there has been an increase in support; there is no doubt about it. But that is the system that has evolved through, I think, ministerial government. I then became a Minister and certainly the workload increased at that stage and gradually things have increased. To be able to do something outside of the Chamber, to have another interest, has become impossible because of the workload and I think that applies to every Member not in a ministerial position doing their constituency work. There is no doubt about it, it

has become a very time-consuming position. But more recently, as Members would be aware, I have been Assistant Chief Minister now for 9 years with the previous Chief Minister and with this Chief Minister. I have to say the role of the Chief Minister is extraordinary. The amount of responsibility and people come knocking on the door, it is continual. It is absolutely mind-blowing the amount of work that a Chief Minister has to do. I am not talking about this particular we are talking about the future but I am saying currently the experience I have had of being an Assistant Chief Minister, it is continual. It is just non-stop. I am pleased to follow the Connétable of St. Mary about the aspect of being outside the Island and the way Chief Ministers are dealt with in other jurisdictions. They have a lot of support. They do have a lot of support. Well we know in Guernsey, for instance, they pay their Chief Minister more and so do other people as well. Even with what is being proposed here, it will not match what Guernsey's Chief Minister gets. The way I look at this is this amount of 15 per cent is a recognition of the importance of the role of Chief Minister. I hope Members will recognise that and accept that we need to have the position of Chief Minister put in a place that it is special. The Chief Minister represents us all outside the Island and that is the role. It is more than what we all do here. It is more than what Ministers do, it is more than what Back-Benchers do, it is more than what Scrutiny chairmen do. It is wider than that; it is an all-encompassing workload and has to be done exceptionally well.

[10:30]

We need people to be able to do that and it needs to be recognised that that role is rather special. I believe we should support this proposition.

Deputy M. Tadier :

A point of clarification? Would the previous speaker just clarify and perhaps correct that the Chief Minister does not represent us all outside the Island; he represents the Government of Jersey outside the Island as Deputy Martin I think already alluded to?

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I think that is a debating point, rather than a point of clarification. I think the Senator's speech was pretty clear. Deputy Southern .

9. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Yes, the Senator's speech was very clear and very childish. Nobody is denying that the Chief Minister does a lot of work, absolutely, and probably does even more work than me, except he does not write his own propositions or amendments because he has got somebody to do that for him. I rise to speak because I am sure that the right thing to do is to reject this proposition today. I want to speak so that we do not pass it on to the next session or we have got to come back to this vote and kick it out then, because I am sure that is what you want to do. The chair of P.P.C. presented this as a very pragmatic almost routine matter, when it fact it is a fundamental principle that is at issue here. Nobody denies that the Chief Minister does an enormous amount of work, except possibly the Assistant Chief Minister, who spends his time buzzing around all over the place and he has got his finger in every pie, it seems to me, who probably deserves an extra payment more than the Chief Minister because he is so busy, or was. But the principle is there in paragraph (a). This is the core of what we are voting for here, that the provision in Article 44, the bit that says you should not pay some people more than others of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which prohibits the Members from being paid at different levels, should be removed. That is the key. That is the key we are voting on. This is a back door; it is slightly ajar. We will change that rule, fundamentally changing our structure and our pay and conditions in order not to pay all Ministers .. because that is directly what we are looking to happen eventually, what is being advised, but not now: "Let us open that door by doing it for the Chief Minister." Does that mean that the Chief Minister has less of a workload? No, it does not. Does that mean the Chief Minister is likely to attract better candidates

to be Chief Minister? No, it does not, because if you are standing out there for Senator or Deputy or whatever, you cannot guarantee that you are going to be Chief Minister, so the calibre of candidates is not going to go up, because if you wanted to do that, you would do another move altogether. That is the reality and that is not just a matter of pragmatics, it is a fundamental principle that we voted on and we are being asked to change it. I do not think that is right. The fact is that the remuneration body is charged with making recommendations on our pay and conditions. It is always pay and conditions. Now, they keep coming back with pay, as my colleague, Deputy Tadier , has said when what we could do with is some help with conditions. That might be useful and enable us better to do our job than otherwise. It has also been mentioned by a couple of speakers that this is the wrong time to do this, so we are paying the Chief Minister more - not that that will improve his workload - at a time when we still have wage restraint on all our public sector workers. How will that sit with them? If for no other reason, and the pragmatics, if we had scrapped our pay restraint and pay freeze and we were somewhere further on into recovery, which is an awful long time coming, then perhaps we might start to consider this and open this Pandora's Box, but at the moment, absolutely not. This is the wrong thing to do, whether it is now or otherwise in principle. We should not be voting on this today, we should be voting against it.

10. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. John :

I am just going to briefly talk to an area that I do not believe has been mentioned yet, but the roles that we take up within this Assembly are extremely important, whether that be Minister, a Scrutiny role or even just as a Back-Bencher doing that constituency work. These are all important roles. I will speak to the slippery road that we may go down by removing this particular Article. The reason why I say that is because the ultimate issue for me is the accountability side of things. This is not a business we run, this is a public sector. This is a public sector that we are elected to be in charge of to ensure that things run smoothly and properly for the public. In a business, when you have different titles, you have different job descriptions. There is no job description for the Chief Minister. Everyone in this room here expects something different of the role of the Chief Minister, and depending on that person that sits in that role of Chief Minister, they may or may not be capable of doing that role, and ultimately the accountability side of things means that we only are able to bring in that vote of no confidence. How many times has a vote of no confidence ever gone through during ministerial government, because it is always seen as a personal attack? We do not have party politics. There is no disciplinary within parties. It was stated that there is nobody more powerful than a Chief Minister. Yes, there is. It is this States Assembly is the one that gives the Chief Minister the power, it is this States Assembly that elects the Chief Minister to carry out the role on behalf of this Assembly. I have to say a thank you to the current Chief Minister, because I think he does an extremely tough job, [Approbation] he does a lot of work and sometimes I think he takes on more than what he should. I do not think he has the right support, and when I say "right", I do not mean lots of people underneath him, I mean quality of support. That does not mean that I should turn around and therefore just give the title £7,500 more, because that is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to give a title more money, not the person, not the performance, not the way that they have enacted on their manifesto, which they put to the public when they stood out there and got elected in the first place. There are huge bigger issues that need to be resolved before we start separating different people's pays in this Assembly. If we are going to go down that road and we are going to keep the machinery of government, then political parties need to be the way forward. I am sorry, but that is the ultimate solution that I have come to, because I have done 2 machinery of government reviews and no matter how many times we have tried to change this Assembly or even tried to improve it, in my own opinion, it seems to just get worse. I feel extremely uncomfortable at this point to turn around and say: "I would be more than willing to give another Minister or a Chief Minister in the future more money" because there are Ministers that do a lot more work than other Ministers. Let us look at Assistant Ministers, for example. There are some Assistant Ministers that are taking on the roles of Ministers and doing a lot of work. Now, I may not agree politically with some of the decisions that are made, but I respect the hard work that goes into those roles, because it is not an easy job. Anything you do is criticised. No matter what we do, whether we are in the States Assembly or whether you are a Minister, you cannot do it right. I would suggest that we reject this proposition and I would ask that every single Member who has experienced being a Minister, being an Assistant Minister, being a Scrutiny chair or just doing the role of a States Member that we all write to the remuneration review body about our experiences, what we have done, how we have done it, why we have done it in the way that we have, what is expected of us and what we expect of other roles and then give them an idea of exactly what it is like to be a States Member, because there is this assumption that we do not do a lot of work. There are plenty of us that will go along and offer assistance to the Chief Minister, offer assistance to other Ministers to try to get a policy moving, to try to get legislation moving. We will do all that we can, whether we have got the resources or not, to try to make it a better place for the public. I am reluctant to turn around and say: "Let us just give more money to a title" because I want the performance to be the best, not the title to be the best.

11. Connétable C.H. Taylor of St. John :

It is always a pleasure to follow the Constable of St. Mary. If I can just start by saying that I have the best job in the world, I am the Constable of St. John . I have said this before and I no doubt will say it again. But moving on from that, I had an interesting experience the other day. I changed my car insurance and I filled in: "Profession, Connétable " and my broker phoned me up and said: "Oh, Chris, you cannot put down Connétable because it does not recognise it from the dropdown list of what you can choose." So I said: "What should I be then?" and he said: "Well, it is a choice between a civil servant and a charity worker." [Laughter] I took the cheaper option. We all have varying amounts of work in this Assembly, we all have varying responsibilities within this Assembly. Not being controversial, but the Constable of St. Mary sits on the same number of committees as 4 other Members in this Assembly. You could argue she does 4 times as much work. She also is a Constable on top of all that, so there is an example of somebody who is, on paper, an exceedingly hardworking individual. I am sure there are others in this Assembly who are equally, if not more, hardworking. If I was to work on that principle and look at the Chief Minister and how many committees he chairs and how many committees he sits on, other than the simple title of Chief Minister, I think you would need more than one sheet of A4 to list them all. I am a very firm believer that if we employ or take on the services of somebody or a committee to advise this Assembly, then we are, as it were, wise to accept their advice. Their advice has come back that there should be some recognition for the one post of Chief Minister. Now, I accept the arguments that many have put forward, that this is the slippery slope, this is the thin end of the wedge, but we as an Assembly have control of how slippery that slope is and how thick that wedge is, because when it comes back to this Assembly in future years saying: "Ministers, committee chairs, et cetera" we have the option then to say no. It is because we have that control. It is the recommendation of the Remuneration Committee and it is just the one post. It recognises, quite rightly, the responsibility of that one post and I shall support this motion.

12. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier :

A quick question to the chairman of P.P.C. I would like to know where the independent committee here is at with a whole review, as the Constable of St. Helier suggested, on pay. I understand there was a lot more work being done on differential pay and other ideas, so perhaps he could advise as to where they are with that. I have spoken to members of that committee in the past and I understand much debate has occurred about this and there is something which may well be published sometime in the future. I think the Constable of St. Helier is quite right, it seems strange we are just doing this one at the moment. That said, I can see this Chamber likes to do things in little steps, so maybe that is why it is here before us as it is today.

[10:45]

But the role of Chief Minister is extraordinary. It is very different. We have been fortunate in the previous 2 Chief Ministers were retired. They had come to the end of their careers. They did not require any extra remuneration, I suspect. They did it in a very vocational way and I am sure the current Chief Minister does the same, but perhaps we have been lucky so far. It is a huge amount of work and it is very different to any other role in this Chamber. I do not quite understand why, in this Chamber, in this Parliament, we have to be so different to everywhere else. I respect and admire some of our difference, like having a Bailiff , for example. I know some will disagree with me, but things like differential pay are commonplace across the whole world and there are pros and cons to that. But I will give one example: in Gibraltar, Ministers are paid significantly more than other Members, but they are not allowed to take any other interests at all while they are serving at Parliament. I know that the majority of Ministers today and in the past have had other interests that are a distraction. As the role of Minister gets greater and greater, and the Chief Minister in particular, I cannot see how those people can do those other things and do the job of Chief Minister to the fullest capacity that they should. There will always be that possibility. Currently they are allowed to do other things. That is why I think differential pay in this particular post is justified, it is a good idea and I have absolutely no issue with it being explored further in the future. All Members can choose to be very, very busy or not so busy. The Chief Minister cannot. He has so many other obligations and committees that he sits on, oversight groups, visits he has to do, travel he has to do. Most of us do not do that. That is not to say we are not busy. We are a little bit more controlled as to how busy that busy is and we all know that some Members are a lot less busy than others, but I will not get into personality politics, as perhaps we did yesterday. Payment of politicians is globally a sensitive issue. People do not like to discuss it, they do not like to do it, and parliaments in particular do not like to discuss, which is why they have independent remuneration bodies. The reason why in the U.K. perhaps they got in such a mess with their expenses scandal is because they refused to have a grown-up debate about pay and instead introduced a complicated expenses system that was eventually abused, sometimes unwittingly and sometimes knowingly. I would hate that to happen here, but that is what happened, because there was not a grown-up debate about pay for politicians. In other countries such as Italy, where they have the highest-paid politicians in Europe, unfortunately that promotes levels of, dare I say it, corruption, a desire to stay in post because of the money. We are nowhere near that, but that does not say we should not recognise the need to differentiate for those that have not more work to do, although they do, but more responsibility as well. Like I say, we can all be busy and some of us are busier than others, but some of us clearly have far more responsibility than others, so we cannot walk away from that busy part of our roles in this Assembly. The principle of being paid more for responsibility is commonplace across all other sectors, across all other groups, whether it be

commerce, the public sector or indeed assemblies of this kind. Why should this be any different? Some will say this is not a business, because it is not, but the business of politics is definitely a business and we have to adopt similar principles for many, many other things that we do. I do not see that differential pay should be one of those principles that should be ignored by this Assembly, but it should be done independently and presented to this Assembly as a proposition in the way it has been done today by P.P.C. Those members of that independent panel have given up their time, worked diligently on this, come up with proposals and here is one of them before us and now some are suggesting we should reject it. I am sorry, we have asked them to do the work, they have come up with a proposal, they have thought about this very, very carefully and hard. I know a number of members on this committee. They are professional, they are diligent and they have come up with a proposal that is sensible. I am sure in the fullness of time they will come up with proposals that

will cover all other Members as well, so I think we should listen to them and accept what they are saying. I think this is a step forward to enhance the position of Chief Minister, which is a very important one, a small extra bit of remuneration to respect those extra responsibilities, not just the extra work. Many of us do lots of extra work; some choose not to. The Chief Minister cannot choose not to. I think as a result of that, it is a very sensible proposition. Yes, it should engender a bigger debate about differential pay and I have no issue with that, but that is for tomorrow, that is for another day. This is a good first step. This Assembly likes to do things in little steps. This is a little step. I think it should be supported.

13. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier :

I wonder if we could halt the recruitment process for 2 new members of the remuneration review body, because I do not think this system is working. There has to be a better way. Once again we have got the Groundhog Day debate over their proposals and it does not look like it is going to go through. I mean no disrespect to the people who give of their time to sit on this committee. It must be a thankless task and it must be depressing for them to hear this debate, but the debate is also sincere. I think we have to look again at this. It seems ridiculous to me. Where suddenly has this idea come from? I think they say, the body, that it was suggested to them. Who made this suggestion at this time that the most pressing thing to do as regards Members' pay is to pay the Chief Minister an extra £7,500 a year? Where did that come from? Did it come from P.P.C.? Did it come from the Council of Ministers? I am pretty sure no Back-Bencher - and I stand to be corrected - wrote to the remuneration review body and said: "I think you really need to look at differentials and we will start paying the Chief Minister more", et cetera. Do I begrudge the Chief Minister an extra payment for the work he does? Of course I do not, but neither would I begrudge it to Deputy Southern or anyone else in this House. After 3 years of deliberation, this is now the important thing to do, this overrides everything? What happened to the pension idea for States Members? I do not necessary speak as .. the States voted against it. If I was on the remuneration review body, if I was on the pay body, I would say: "Right, that is more important. That is clearly more fair, that Members of the States be offered a pension plan, if they want it. That overrides going forward on any other thing." If I was on the pay body, I would say: "Right, until you sort out where you are with pensions and accept that recommendation, we are going to wait until you catch up with us, do that, then we will move forward and you can fire us, if you like, but that is our stance." Because I do think the pension thing happened at absolutely the wrong time and so I think it was unanimously thrown out, but I do think it should have come back. At the end of a term is the wrong time to be doing that, but I think people like young professionals or middle-aged