Half of States Members turn down their pay rise

ALMOST half of States Members will not take their pay rise this year, figures released by the Treasury show.


ALMOST half of States Members will not take their pay rise this year, figures released by the Treasury show.

In total 25 Members have informed the department that they do not wish to receive the £818 a year extra in their pay packets that they are entitled to, representing a saving to the taxpayer of £20,450.

The remaining 26 Members, who were all given until Monday to inform the Treasury if they wanted to decline the rise, will take the money, which will bring them up to a total salary and automatic expenses of £46,000 a year, providing they have taken previous pay rises.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "Half of States Members turn down their pay rise"


I hope you are going to name the ones that take the money !!


If they do, I will probably vote for those that do take it! For not being bullied into not taking a modest % increase recommended by an independent commission.


Yes They should name Them and Shame Them for Being so Greedy ! All States Members are Paid to Much any way as Well as The Police .


Agree with AndyF. All Members should have simply respected the recommendations of the Independent Panel and not made a political issue out of this. I fear that the next Review will have to be slightly less indpendent because of this political interference, and that cannot be a good thing.


Hopefully the names of the 26 Members who decided to take their ill gotten payrise will be published, so that electorate have an idea of who not to vote for in the next elections.


It is not ill-gotten, because it follows a legitimate purpose. I don't agree that they should take it, but it is not correct to say that it is ill-gotten.


Or who to vote for. No vote from me for short term populists - Jersey needs them like a hole in the harbour wall.

Captain Fantastic

Name & shame, should also make half of them redundant like every other business in the island.


Half of them should not be in the states what you on about!!

The problem is us Jo public put them there!! More foul us


OK we voted them in, but what is the alternative? Other potential candidates must have been deemed unelectable by those who voted. Would they have been any better? Probably not. How do you suggest we proceed?


I will be looking to see whether the members like Geoff Southern take the benefits.

Some believe they would not get such pay in the private sector.


Mind you these sorts are better than some I could mention who are in the CoM. It appears some on here are happy with elected candidates as long as they aren't left wingers who support the working man.


Spot on Mario. That's what it's about.

Anyway, some members said they were going to take the pay rise and give it to charity. Naming and shaming is useless because it doesn't let us hear their justification.

James Wiley

If I want my money to go to charity I will give it.

I do not want to pay for some States Member especially not just to give MY money to charity.


It's not your money, it's their money.

Just because it came from taxes does not give you any right to dictate to them how they spend it.

Nurses, teachers and police officers pay also comes from taxes, but you won't be telling them what they can and can't do with it, presumably?


I think you are deluded if you think that the left wingers support the working man/(woman). They don't. They support the non-workers who will vote for them in order to protect their social security payments. No-one supports the working man/woman, he/she's the cash cow.


On an island where the vast majority of the population are completely apathetic about using their right to vote, you honestly believe the unemployed leap down to the polling booths on election day to defend their benefit payments?

Get a grip.


Scrooge, I will be looking to see whether Kevin Lewis takes the pay rise.

He should be offering Jersey's taxpayers their money back, never mind taking more.

The transport ministers 'patchwork quilt' transfer of the bus contract is nothing less than shameful...not to mention the 'untruths' he fed the public and the fact that he refused to answer questions from other States Members with regard the matter.

Thanks to him and his band, Jersey's bus service received over 5000 complaints in the first week and is quickly descending into some sort of 'regular chaos' rather than developing into a regular bus service.

Those who knew this would happen, Geoff Southern for one, can now sigh and say: "Told you so!"


Get real Henry....any opportunity...you take....

As a very regular bus user, my opinion has not changed...in fact it has been cemented....the bus drivers have and still are using the situation To what they think is their advantage....average late time this week....13 mins.....amount of times left Liberation station early 3 times....all designed at creating disharmony and animosity....


In another report today they ask how much the Police are worth, the same report should be applied to states members !

I hope the list of those not wishing to recieve this wage rise does get published.


Pity the manual workers never got the option to refuse it. Paltry amount was paid into hubbys wage, it will not pay all the utility bill rises this year that's for sure


Oh, the envy being expressed. Oh, the misconceptions. Oh, the agony.

The States has an independent body that determines what they should be paid. That is a good thing. Whether any individual States member chooses to take that rise is a personal choice, not a public interest item.

Some Members are extremely wealthy, or married to someone who is extremely wealthy - they might feel they could manage without the pay rise. Others might, quite reasonably. decide that they will accept the independently-determined £818. I would not expect States members to open their bank account for public inspection before taking a pay rise (or not).


Why all the hate here?

An independent commission was established for the purposes of setting fair salary increases, to avoid all of this debate. How many of you know how the recent historic rises of States members compare against other public sector workers over say the last ten years?

I personally believe that the pay rise recommendended by the independent commission should be obligatory. None of this name and shame.

The States members who can most afford not to take the pay rise are likely to be those with the highest other income and business interests and are therefore not likely to represent the majority of islanders. Alternatively they will be bullied into it under fear of this name and shame manhunt, for a modest, well below inflation increase.

In addition, come the next elections, I actuallt believe that as long as there are fewer members, the salaries should be increased significantly, in order to attract a higher level of candidate. But that's a separate debate!


It's just the right wing dummies who don't know who the good guys are. They are easily impressed by a few promises on a glossy election manifesto pamphlet.


Mario, I don't think the left wing dummies have a clue either and are just as easily impressed. It is those of us in the middle who are suffering but can't do anything about it because of the left and right wing dummies.


I think this goes for the left wing dummies as well.


Arrogant, patronising, childish, ignorant......just four descriptions that come to mind regarding Mario's post. Pitiful. That's five.

Jerry Gosselin

Don't think I haven't noticed that there is a little campaign going on here: every time an article concerning States Members' remuneration has been published on local websites in the last few months, we quickly get a comment from someone saying that they would very much like to see States Members (usually referring to the ministers) receive much higher salaries in the future in order to attract a better class of candidate. How weird that comments like this are suddenly proliferating at the same time as ministers are heavily promoting doing exactly the same thing- increasing their own pay! Mr Horsfall, Mr Gaiger, the Deputy of St Mary, Senator Gorst and many other top Establishment figures, all coming out in favour of differential pay at the same time. The comments submitted on here are always very similar too- only the alias seems to change. Well we're not all swallowing flies on here, AndyF. Your views are remarkably similar to 'Sanity' - the two of you should meet up some time! ;-)


Campaign? Not from me there isn't. I have not posted under any other alias, I am not a States member, related to one, and only know one member from my school days, but I rarely speak to him and certainly have not on this matter.

I have not even seen "Sanity's" posts. No, I actually don't think ministers should get a differentiated pay level. Just fewer higher quality members across the board, and that Constables should look after parishes, not have an unfairly weighted voting power within the states.

Perhaps these kind of comments are proliferating because that is people's opinion?

You accuse me of being part of a campaign and insinuate I am posting under different aliases, but then don't even comment on the other element of my post which also represents a valid and well constructed opinion.

Perhaps you chose to question my integrity and make these accusations because you struggle to find a flaw in my opinion?



AndyF, Jerry is a proponent of a couple of conspiracy theories on the future of States Members wages and pensions. You've been implied to be another under an alias, whereas I've been accused of fronting a group of politicians wanting to reduce the number of States Members so they get better pensions.

He's not one to pay too much attention to, despite how articulate he is.

C Le Verdic

'the salaries should be increased significantly, in order to attract a higher level of candidate'

The same argument is trotted out to justify the takings (I think that is more appropriate than 'earnings') of bankers, footballers,top civil servants and all other who con the gullible public into revering their dubious value to society.


Shame on the 25 members who are not taking the money for not standing up in the states to suspend states standing orders so they could vote on it which ment everybody would know who was for taking the money and who was not.Yes well done for not taking it but this way is the easy way. No bottle you lot get a backbone and let the people see who the greedy ones are!The Constable of St Saviour

was the only one to do this, more backbone in her than all the rest of you shame on you.

Jerry Gosselin

Even worse: the CTV article dated 9th November 2012 (link below) reveals that 32 States Members who were contacted at that time by CTV said that they would refuse the 2013 pay rise. Yet now we know that only 25 actually did so in the end. On the face of it then, this means that 7 States Members who were contacted for that survey must have misled CTV by claiming that they would reject the rise when the evidence shows that they accepted it. Whether or not they subsequently passed it on to charities is entirely irrelevant- the public simply wants to know how much it is all costing us, not who ultimately gets the benefit of it. Unfortunately, data protection law will prevent us from ever being able to personally identify these 7 sharp politicians who saw us coming.



What do you plan do with money.... how about giving it to Hospice for more beds and carers...

No axe to Grind

You get what you pay for.

Maybe we should be paying fewer members VERY much more.

Think about it.


I'm inclined to agree that we have too many members, but what is the ideal number in your opinion?


A list needs to be printed with those who have refused it...those who have and those who have taken it and on their 'say so' given to charity.It does make me laugh when some members point out they spend 70-80 odd hours on States work.....let me point out to them they stand for election because they want too, nobody forces them too,and we all know the ones with the big pound signs in their eyes!!


I'm so bored of this silly witch hunt.

Being a States Member is a full time job and therefore has to be paid. People need to just get over that. And like all jobs, it should be paid fairly. Some States Members work very hard (and I include in that even the ones who I strongly disagree with).

The whole point of having an independent commission decide their pay is to specifically avoid this whole debate, because at the end of the day, it isn't right for them to spend so much time talking about it when there are far more important things to deal with. The Constable of St Saviour was wrong to bring forward her silly proposition because it sets a precedent. If the States are allowed to vote against a pay rise this year, next year they'll be able to vote against a pay cut, and then see where we'd be!

Would YOU reject a pay rise if you were independently offered one?


Absolutely, an objective independant body has looked at this and has made a recommendation about what States members jobs are worth. Quite right, transparent and proper. It is a shame then that the States is prepared to employ such double standards. In dealing with its own staff it has refused to allow an independant arbitration process to be followed despite a request from teh Unions and this being an accepted mechanism for resolving differences between employer and employees.


This isn't a witch hunt Sam, people have just had enough with an inept government who already get richly rewarded.

We work hard too, officially 35 hours a week but normally anything from 40 hours upward. We don't get paid overtime and the last salary increase we had was nearly 4 years ago.

I'm sure if my employer (and other employers) brought in an any independent commission they would decide to increase our pay too!


My friend, sounds like you are getting treated less well than you deserve. But explain how that is relevant?

Just because you work hard and haven't had a pay increase doesn't mean neither should anyone else too. Everyone should be arguing for better wages. Except for States Members who should just take what they are given and have no say in it at all.


Well said Sam, the whole point of the independent panel was to move away from this kind of nonsense.


Sam, Who says that being in the States is a full time job? All ex-States Members (some simply retired, minority voted out) that I have discussed this with say that it is not a full time job, except some (but not all) Ministers posts, unless you set about trying to make it one by getting involved in Parish issues and every little cause. Personally, I believe that some of the constables also have a full time job in the States and the Parish. Bear in mind, also, that the pay body has terms of reference given to them by the States, and also that there is this rather silly law that they all have to be paid the same.


Jerry – Interesting theory but perhaps just maybe there are more that a handful of people who don’t always share your views!

Do you honestly think that if we all elected a government on the criteria “lowest salary” that this will provide for future good governance and the intellectual capacity to bring us out of this mire that we have sunk? If so maybe we should get social security to put forward candidates from those that are unemployable and save on welfare at the same time.

Or perhaps we should scrap the salary completely and go back to having the gentry to rule us?

We could even replace elections with an auction and appoint our leaders on the basis of who will pay us the most. Perhaps just throw in a title such as “lord” to sweeten the pot.

For my part I want a competent and efficient government who will run the Island in a professional and business like manner for the benefit of all the people and especially me. I also realise that as with anything in life if you want quality you have to be prepared to pay the going rate – and choose very carefully.


Very well written point that I wanted to make myself. Perhaps I should pat myself on the back if Jerry's conspiracy theory is true!

The principal point is that the members should not decide their own pay, and they should be remunerated fairly for the level of responsibility they have, which includes incremental rises!

They deserve it!

Agree totally with people who say that some need this more than others. Some of our states members have large pensions, others have businesses and some (usually the left wingers) are doing this as their only job- as far as I know!

Plus we don't know if you've got children who could do with some help. This is the same as all the other arguments about pay. Its their job. They probably need to support their families. Lets be happy for them, not jealous! If you want their pay then become a states member or stop moaning about it.

Everyone who does a job has a right to a wage! I hope we don't get a published list again, it is turning into a "I'm a good states member, I'm donating mine to charityyy" Thats plain not fair and childish scoring points.


I do understand that some States members have separate incomes, which I would imagine that they have earned the hard way, in most cases. I am not sure I want to be legislated for by someone who has not been successful somewhere (and therefore gets a pension from somewher or runs a business). I am not at all keen on professional politicians with no experience of the real world other than school and retail shopping. There is nothing worse than being ruled by people who are no good at anything else. The real questions are much broader than this issue of pay rises at the margins. (1) Should we have this many paid politicians for an island of this size? Fortunately the referendum might move a little in the right direction.(2) Does being in the States need to be a full time job? Some ex-States members have told me that there is no way it is a full time jod, with the exception of some Minister's posts. However, I get the impression that there are 2 classes of States members in full time employment: some ministers and some constables. Anybody can be a professional busybody and get involved in everything trivial that comes their way. Frankly, this can be done of a voluntary basis. (3) What do we taxpayers need to pay them? I recall in the pay review body Terms of Reference something about 'a reasonable standard of living' or words to that effect. Presumbaly the same logic goes into the setting of pensions, and this is the kind of level that States Members ought to be paid. (4) Going a stage further, why is it that we have such a strong tradition of voluntary service everywhere except in the States itself? Perhaps the parishes should salary the 2 procureurs, and what about the Centeniers, in particular?


'I’m so bored of this silly witch hunt.'

Not so bored that you could resist giving us your 'views' unfortunately.

'People need to get over that' - Why do they need to get over that Sam ? Simply because you have spoken ? Taxpayers are entitled to express an opinion on how their money is spent.

'Some States members work very hard' - Indeed, but you seem to be advocating paying more taxpayers money to those that also don't ?

'it isn’t right for them to spend so much time talking about it when there are far more important things to deal with' - Isn't right ? What's 'right' to you Sam may not be 'right' to everyone. What do you think gives you the power to determine right and wrong ?

'The Constable of St Saviour was wrong to bring forward her silly proposition' - There you go again determining what is right and wrong. The Constable of St Saviour, as a States member, is entitled to bring whatever proposition she decides. There is no right or wrong about it. It either succeeds or it doesn't.

'Would YOU reject a pay rise if you were independently offered one?' - I might if the people paying for the rise were the long-suffering general public, rather than a faceless corporate entity.

We know you're a committed socialist Sam. Lets hope for most of our sakes that you can be disuaded from ever attempting to bring your dictatorial, overbearing and patronising manner to bear on the general public by attempting to become a politician.


A few potentially good points ruined by being needlessly personal and insulting. The worst of Jersey politics.

Quick point of clarification, I never advocated any member, hard working or not, receiving any more or less money. I advocated an independent commission being tasked with that decision. Something I don't think is very controversial, and certainly doesn't merit a personal attack like yours.


The trouble is the the commission is rather constrained in its thinking by the law, so it is not really all that independent.


'a few potentially good points ..' Gee. Thanks Sam. Don't know where i could have got the idea that you were patronising ?

You are obviously extremely fond of your own abilities, and seem to have trouble in understanding that not everybody agrees with either your message, or the manner in which it is delivered. If you are so willing to dictate to people what is right or wrong, you should also be prepared to be criticised for such a dictatorial approach.

I also note that you are not so squeamish about actively contributing to a certain politicians site which is very fond of ad-hominem attacks on all manner of individuals. If you believe that any form of personal criticism is anathema to you, perhaps you'd be so kind as to point to the numerous messages you have posted on that politicians site where you have asked him to desist from this practice ?

Perhaps you need to rethink both sides of that growing public profile you seem so desperate to cultivate.


What a fantastic post, James1. I agree with every point that you make and I cannot find anything to add.

Jerry Gosselin

"Lets hope for most of our sakes that you can be disuaded from ever... attempting to become a politician." -

Don't get your hopes up too high, James1. Sam's 2014 candidature is not so much pencilled in... more like chiselled in stone already! He's a dead certainty to stand if ever I saw one. The trouble is that he will soon have to start learning about the REAL down-to-earth political issues that MATTER to ordinary people, like the quality of the health service and long-term care provision, social security (hikes in contributions/cuts in benefits), but most of all about the lack of affordable housing and the terrible state of our economy. Despite the label of socialist, you can bet he'll go into the election offering nothing substantially different on these major issues than any other candidate.


@Jerry Gosselin

I can't agree with you when you say "he (Sam) will be offering nothing substantially different on major issues than any other candidate"...because he will.

He will be offering his intelligence, common sense and, most of all, he'll be starting with a clean slate...there are no mistakes in his past to be taken into account.

Personally, I would rather elect someone new than re-elect someone who has proven to me that he/she is incapable of dealing with Jersey's long-running troubles; and, who has also proven to me that he/she is detached from the real needs of the people of Jersey...such politicians should not be given another chance.


Yes, everyone is entitled to a wage, a realistic wage!

For that reason, I hope that our paymasters realise that the nurses are worth more than they receive at the moment


Like all jobs in the public sector, can we recruit nurses and then keep enough of them on the wages they currently have? This is the acid test, and this applies to the police as well.


You have to define "worth". If you think of "worth" as a price, the price is too low (ie nurses are worth more than they are being paid) if we cannot get enough nurses to do the job at that price.

I ask this because I simply don't know - how many vacancies are there for nurses in Jersey that we can't fill? That will determine whether I agree with your assertion or not.


£818 per year isn't alot at all. What is everyone on about? You have to put it in perspective slightly. It works out to £68.16 per month extra before tax. I suspect the ones who are not taking it are doing so not because of the goodness of their hearts to the people, but are thinking it's fly piss and might as well get the people's vote as well as a chuckle. Do you really think £68.16 is really going to make any dent in anybody's fortune these days?