Will Policy Council follow Jersey's lead?

I am aware that the review in Jersey is to be conducted by their Public Accounts Committee but I draw this to your attention because of the Policy Council's mandated responsibilities in regard to developing corporate human resources policy including remuneration and terms and conditions of employment in relation to all staff employed by the States of Guernsey. Attention has been brought to bear recently on the fact that States pay costs have consistently increased year on year, rising from just over £162m in 2008, to nearly £204m in 2013. It has also been reported that there has been a 26% rise, 347 to 437, in the number of senior staff between 2012 and 2013. One in ten staff now receive a salary of at least £70,000.

This of course is an enormously complex area and it has to be acknowledged that if the States want to employ and retain suitably qualified staff to carry out the many and various essential tasks across the organisation, then salaries have to be of a commensurate nature. In addition, many States employees, particularly those that carry out the numerous manual duties that keep our community in good order and allow it to function, receive what could only be described as modest salaries.

Ideally the situation would exist, or be brought into being, whereby competitive salaries are paid to ensure that suitably qualified and skilled staff are in place across the organisation to make sure that the many functions of government are carried out appropriately while also exerting better control on pay costs. It would be imperative to achieve this without visiting hardship upon employees on low and modest incomes and in the best of circumstances actually close the gap, to some extent, between lower and higher paid staff.

It is worth noting that governments in some jurisdictions are considering freezing staff salaries above £60,000. It is my understanding that this would not be for an indefinite period and may be reviewed at some time in the future depending upon economic conditions.

Reform in this area may result in positive and desirable outcomes, for example, the ability of the States to direct more funds towards frontline services such as health and education.

If such a review were to be carried out in relation to, amongst other things, staff numbers, salaries and functions, it would clearly be a complex and multi-faceted piece of work with many aspects and issues of a political, strategic, social, economic and potentially sensitive nature to consider.

However, in light of the economic times that we live in, the continuing need for the States to exercise financial constraint (which it has, to some measure, already succeeded in doing in that the underlying trend in relation to spending on non-pay items has declined in real terms), the fact that pay costs constitute over 50% of States expenditure and in the interests of the taxpayer, this may be an appropriate juncture for such a review to be seriously considered.

I am sending this letter also on behalf of my Vale colleague, Deputy Fallaize, who raised similar concerns during debate on the States' accounts, especially in connection with how the States' considerable constraint in non-pay costs has been somewhat offset by increases in pay costs.

I would kindly request a response to this letter in advance of the April States meeting as it could well help to inform debate on the public sector pension arrangements.

DEPUTY LAURIE QUERIPEL