States, cut costs first

If this is taken together with the very frank letter of resignation written by Denis Mulkerrin, on leaving his post as a non-elected member of the Education board, and your own recent report concerning the £5m. increase in States pay costs in 2013, over 2014, a picture emerges.

It is evident that the steps taken by the States to control its costs have been timid. As Mr Mulkerrin makes clear, any move by the Education board to implement a policy of change risks being derailed by the officers of a department if it is perceived by them as being contrary to their interests.

In the case in point, his letter suggests that a policy to devolve recruitment of teachers and budgetary control from the centralised administration at Grange House to the obviously competent head teachers in our schools has been thwarted, or delayed, because it would lead to redundancies at Grange House.

I suppose States members are very well aware that there exists a strong public resistance to increased taxation unless and until the States can show that they really have addressed the sort of cost-cutting measures almost all businesses and many public bodies have had to embrace but which, so far, we seem to have skated around.

Ending the final-salary pension scheme for States employees is something which obviously has to happen.

Does the failure to do so thus far have something in common with Mr Mulkerrin's assertion?

In terms of reducing increased cost, what would the effect be of the prompt implementation of an average-salary pension scheme?

Your report gave the number of public servants in 2013 as being 4,319 with total pay of £203.9m. In terms of numbers, and without adversely affecting front-line services, have those numbers been trimmed to the bone? If the answer to that is 'no' then, for example, a modest 4% reduction in staff numbers would amount to 172 people.

This may not be an outrageously high target to achieve through natural wastage, some voluntary and, dare I say it, even some compulsory redundancy?

Putting numbers to that level of employees, there was an average cost to the States of about £47,210 for every person employed in public service in 2013. An average saving on 172 employees would be something over £8m. per year.

Many employees in Guernsey and elsewhere have had their remuneration frozen for several years. Some have had to take pay cuts in order to retain their employment.

Although a pay freeze would be almost as unpopular with public servants as an increase in tax, particularly in the form of GST, would be with taxpayers, the fact is that an 18-month pay freeze would reduce increasing costs by about £8m. Ending increments for time served, rather than for merit, may also be an appropriate measure.

Pressing on with savings under FTP, but fully effectively, would need to continue hand-in-hand with such measures.

Therefore, my question for States members would be: 'Is Mr Mulkerrin right in what he has said? Is his view likely to be true of other departments and do you, collectively, have the political will to insist upon policies such as those I have illustrated, and other similar ones such as the outsourcing of non-core activities, being implemented now, or do you think it acceptable to agree to increase the amount of tax and the range of taxes which you take from those who elected you to represent their best interests?'

ROGER DADD.