Thursday, 20 October 2016
There is a consultation out on pay, technically actually remuneration, for Ministers. Ministers are past holders - usually such people are not paid for work, they are remunerated. (The same is often true for directors of companies, but the Manpower returns seem unable to grasp the essence of post holders are not employees). It isn't a States consultation, but the States Member's Remuneration Body. The details are at States Members Remuneration beyond 2018.pdf
The consultation quite explicitly asks about the Chief Minister's remuneration because they have more responsibilities. "In the first instance we suggest that pay differentiation should apply only to the Chief Minister, who undoubtedly has significant additional responsibilities when compared with other members. In our view, a supplement of 15% of salary (in other words £7,000 (after rounding) at the present level of salary) would be appropriate. This would apply from the election of the Chief Minister in 2018".
A lot in that proposal rests on what is meant or understood by responsibility. For the longest time in politics generally to be responsible meant to be answerable for , to be held accountable for. Especially in British parliamentary system , the Ministers were the temporary public face while the unseen unheard civil service was the semi permanent advisory and implementation mechanism. If things went wrong in their department, the Minister was held responsible, could lose their post, though more likely would be expected to resign. It may not even be mal administration, just error of judgement.
In theory the tough sanction on the Minister puts proper focus on them properly and fully scrutinising what happens in their department. Ignorance is no defence. There is a feeling these days that far from taking responsibility, Ministers are inclined to try to defend the failings.
It is arguable under such a system when working as intended more responsibility, ie more things to take the flak, and possible lose your position for, deserves a higher remuneration to compensate for the higher risks.
The question now is are Jersey's Ministers, including the Chief Minister, really responsible, accountable for anything? Just last night we saw civil service officers being put up in front of camera to defend policy, not the minister. When was the last time a Jersey Minister resigned over failings in their department? Are they accountable, really? I'd say not, and if not, the argument for increased remuneration is faulty.
There are other arguments for not increasing, or actually decreasing, Minister's pay relating to research on performance and incentives. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
But that's a different debate and not one the SMRRB is ever likely to want to consider - being composed largely of the very people who would under such logic be paid less.....