Leave States pay bands to review panel

Deputy Matt Fallaize admitted it was awkward. His point was not that the Sacc role deserved the same pay as the presidents of Health or Education. He agreed that some jobs were bigger and tougher than others.

But, he argued, it was not right to pick out one job and go against the Independent Review Panel’s pay recommendation.

If the Sacc role was to be downgraded, why not take a look at all the senior positions and assess which deserved the most money?

He won the day and the States left the review largely unscathed.

His argument is as valid this week as it was two years ago. The pay system for deputies either makes sense in totality or it makes no sense.

Which is why Neil Inder’s requete must fail and the Shane Langlois amendment is only partially right.

Deputy Langlois correctly calls for a full pay review but then seeks to tie its hands with an instruction to create a single new pay band for the four ‘lesser’ presidencies.

Why be so restrictive? This will be the first pay review under the new system of government to have the benefit of knowing how it all works.

The first review panel admitted it didn’t have a clue. Until the system had been seen in operation it was best left alone. We have now had two years to form an opinion.

A new review should be left to do its work without States interference. It might want to create two or three new bands.

In one of those bands might sit the ordinary members of Policy & Resources, who we can now see do not carry the same weight as the six principal presidents.

A new pay panel might also feel that States Trading is a far bigger job than the Development & Planning Authority or Sacc.

Deputies wanted a hands-off approach to pay.

Let them honour that.