Tell us what you do and we might be keener to pay for it, by Nick Mann

IF THERE is any subject that will make a politician squirm it is pay.

Last week a storm raged in the UK about MPs' salaries after the independent group formed in the wake of the expenses scandal to set their pay recommended a 9% rise to £74,000 in 2015.

The headlines were predictable and some big-hitting political names came out to argue how absurd it was given the restraint that has to be shown elsewhere.

Rewind a few months and a very similar debate was sparked in Guernsey.

Here, deputies' pay is now linked to average earnings – predictably enough, this went up and members were left to decide whether to accept the rise at a time when the economy is stuttering and big savings are needed in the public sector.

Deputies in the last Assembly voted through this package that ended a comfortable pension but balanced that with a pay rise – something that became a difficult message to sell to the public.

Their decision was reinforced by this States when it rejected a chance of a pay freeze.

Then, as now, there were strong voices to say that the States should not be voting on their pay – a package which cost the taxpayer £1.7m. last year.

While an independent panel makes the recommendation, when it comes to the debate and the vote, deputies have inconsistent reactions to that set-up.

Some believe it absolves them of any responsibility and they should just accept it – others see what a tricky situation that can put them in with the public if the deal turns out to outstrip what workers on the street can expect.

But for those who would, as the UK now does, delegate the decision completely, there may be a few more alarm bells ringing.

The UK's Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has not taken the entire sting out of the process.

It is consulting on its recommendations, so that may well lead to some changes, but its initial effort dominated the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

However sound the reasoning may be – 'a package based on the principle that MPs do a professional job and this should be matched by a proper professional salary', according to the consultation – it is completely out of kilter with the public mood.

Independent bodies are fine if they are populated by what may be described as the reasonable person, but this group seem to underestimate the public mood – and that is the danger of handing over responsibility.

That all said, an initial angry response in the UK should not kill off the concept of handing over the responsibility in Guernsey.

The pay debate in the Chamber is cringe-worthy and out of kilter with where society is.

With an independent authority setting pay, the ire is mostly directed at that body. And at the end of it all, the ultimate power still lies with the individual politician.

In Guernsey, as in the UK, a politician does not have to accept the rise or even take a salary at all.

Thanks to a welcome new level of transparency in the States, we know exactly how much each deputy is earning.

But we are still missing the full picture because what we do not know with much clarity is how much work they are doing.

This is something that needs to be addressed when the States next decides on how to set pay, or even sooner.

It could take more sting out of much of the argument – although there are some who will never be persuaded that any politician is doing a job worth being paid for.

The IPSA has made a recommendation that may not have made the headlines but would make sage reading for our representatives.

The body argues that 'it seems only right to ask MPs to give an account to the public of what they have been doing'.

It does not have the power to compel members, but it is calling for them to produce an annual report – it has asked members to produce ideas on the

content and format of that.

The States Assembly and Constitution Committee is responsible for producing an attendance list which is published quarterly, but each time it does those members exposed will always argue it does not give the full picture.

Well, instead of just sounding off about any deficiencies, now seems like a perfect opportunity to come up with a better, more-transparent package.

The IPSA consultation will help formulate some ideas – and after all, this is the month when the States is meant to be committing to a transparency agenda.