States Members’ remuneration- reconsiderationof2011increase&repealofArt44oftheStatesofJerseyLaw2005

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES MEMBERS' REMUNERATION: RECONSIDERATION OF 2011 INCREASE AND REPEAL OF

ARTICLE 44 OF THE STATES OF JERSEY LAW 2005

Lodged au Greffe on 27th September 2010 by Senator B.E. Shenton

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: B  P.127

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to request the States  Members'  Remuneration  Review  Body  to review  its recommendation  for  an  £800  increase  in remuneration  for  elected members from 1st January 2011 as set out in R.93/2010 in light of current and projected economic circumstances;
2. to agree  that  Article 44  of  the  States  of Jersey  Law  2005,  which currently prevents the payment of different amounts of remuneration or allowances to different elected members, should be repealed and to agree that, following its repeal, the States Members' Remuneration Review  Body  should  be  requested  to bring  forward  a  scheme  of differential remuneration for elected members for 2012 and beyond, taking  account  of  factors  such  as  the  positions  of  official responsibility  held  by  elected  members  ensuring  that  there  is nevertheless  no  overall  increase  (other  than  any  normal  annual inflationary  increase)  in the  total  budget  for  States  members' remuneration;
3. to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for approval the necessary amendment to the States of Jersey Law 2005 to give effect to the decision to repeal Article 44.

SENATOR B.E. SHENTON

REPORT

Note:  It  has  been  confirmed  to  me  by  the  Greffier  of  the  States,  following

discussions with the Bailiff , that there is no requirement to suspend Standing Orders to debate this proposition.

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  BBC  Comedy  The  Office'  starring  Ricky Gervais. Its main character was David Brent and the extract is from the last episode of the first series. It is redundancies judgement day and David is told by Head Office that he will be promoted if he sacrifices the branch. True to his innate sense of self- preservation and greed, David leaps at the chance for betterment.

Brent-ism of the episode

"There's good news and bad news. The bad news is Neil will be taking over both branches and some of you will lose your jobs

On a more positive note the good news is I've been promoted – so every cloud you're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?"

For some reason this episode came to mind when States Members refused to lift Standing Orders during the Business Plan debate in order that States Members' pay could  be  debated.  Now  I  realise  in  the  minds  of  many  that  there  was  a  valid explanation  for  this –  a  Remuneration  Body  had  been  established  to  keep  these decisions at arm's length.

My original amendment to the Annual Business Plan was in order that the States Assembly could send out a clear political message that we are all this together – and that every member of the public will have to understand that unless action is taken to reduce costs, higher taxation will be inevitable. The gesture was 100% a political decision and based on the decision to cut expenditure over the coming period. The States Members' Remuneration Review Body (SMRRB) cannot recommend political gestures as it is outside their remit.

A manager of a large organisation in difficult times will gain the respect of the staff if he shows empathy with their predicament. If he believes that this respect and co- operation can be achieved whilst feathering his own nest, his days will surely be numbered.

The real recession in terms of tax receipts will hit us in 2011 and 2012. I predict that 2010 will not produce the anticipated income due to the global crisis. The spending cuts and taxation rises will be deep, and the population expects their representatives to share their pain.

By refusing to suspend Standing Orders, Members isolated themselves from a political gesture that would have not only fostered greater unity with the public, but also shown that  they  understand  their  leadership  responsibilities.  Regardless  of  the  overall outcome, I'm sure that a number of Members will either forgo the increase or donate the sum to charities of their choice on a monthly basis.

In relation to differential pay, there is actually a statutory restriction on this found in Article 44 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, inserted following an amendment from former Senator Stuart Syvret. That prevents any payment of differential pay other than in relation to pensions (the pensions part was inserted quite recently) –

44  Remuneration of elected members1

1. 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.
2. In paragraph (1), "remuneration" does not include payments out of the consolidated fund –

1. into a superannuation fund or pension scheme, for the benefit of an elected member;
2. to an elected member, as an allowance in respect of his or her contributions to a superannuation fund or pension scheme for his or her benefit.

The States will have to agree to repeal Article 44 before any differential remuneration scheme can be introduced, and I have referred to that in paragraph (b). The SMRRB has made it clear in the past that it is not willing to spend time looking at differential pay  until  Article 44  is  repealed –  understandably  they  do  not  think  it  would  be worthwhile to spend their time developing proposals for differential pay while there is a statutory restriction on implementing them – if the States agree to repeal Article 44 and thereby give a clear signal that they accept the principle of differential pay, then the SMRRB would, I am sure, be willing to develop a scheme.

Under the present system, there are distinct levels of responsibilities and workload in respect of the positions of, for example –

• The Chief Minister
• Ministers
• Connétable s
• Chairmen and Presidents
• Assistant Ministers.

I make no comment on the structure and leave this to the SMRRB for consultation, formulation and recommendation. Obviously, I am heartened by the faith that many Members have voiced in the abilities of the SMRRB over recent days. It is wrong to limit the powers of the SMRRB in such a draconian way. The abilities and work ethics of individuals are not equal, nor is their level of responsibility after they are elected. Many Parliaments have pay differentials to reflect the work undertaken.

The decision to introduce a flat structure was not originally made by Privileges and Procedures – it was an amendment by an independent member that was discussed fully by the States Assembly. Any decision to remove the flat structure should therefore be debated in a similar manner. I mentioned to Senator Ozouf last week that I was

1 The new Article 44 was introduced by L.13/2009 (States of Jersey (Amendment No. 5) Law

2009) with effect from 3rd April 2009.

planning to lodge this proposition, and I note from his subsequent comments in the media that he is in agreement with the proposal. A change of this magnitude should not be left to the views of a few PPC or SMRRB members. The restriction was put in place by the States Assembly following a proposition from an individual member – not on the recommendation of the PPC – and it should be removed in a similar manner.

In terms of cost, the budget cake would remain the same. However, how it is sliced may be altered by the SMRRB. There are no financial implications in respect of this part of the amendment.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications as a direct result of this proposition.