Remuneration of States Employees: 2005.

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (12/05/2006) regarding Remuneration of States Employees: 2005.

Subject:	Remuneration of States Employees: 2005
Decision Reference:	MD-C-2006-0023		Exempt clause(s):	None
Type of Report: (oral or written)	Written		Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?			Report File ref:	MJP/KP
Written report – Title	Remuneration of States Employees: 2005
Written report – Author (name and job title)	M J Pinel, Deputy Chief Executive
Decision(s): To present the Report on Remuneration of States Employees in 2005 to the States for their information and to arrange for the information contained within the Report to be communicated more widely to the Island’s community by means of a news media release.
Reason(s) for decision: Following discussion at the meeting of the States Employment Board on 26th April 2006, it was agreed that the “Report on Remuneration of States Employees in 2005” should be presented to the States. Members noted the information to be contained in the Financial Report and Accounts for 2005.
Action required:  Mr Pinel to arrange with the Communications Unit for a media release to be made.
Signature: (Chief Minister)		Date of Decision: 12 May 2006

Remuneration of States Employees: 2005.

REMUNERATION OF STATES EMPLOYEES: 2005

In accordance with normal practice, the States Treasurer has included in the Financial Report and Accounts for 2005, Notes regarding the remuneration of States employees in 2005. (Appendix A).

In order to provide more information to States Members, the States Employment Board is providing details of the types and numbers of posts to be found within the remuneration bands used by the Treasurer in the Notes to the Accounts. (Appendix B).

The Report and Accounts show that the number of employees earning £70,000 and above increased from 245 to 267 between 2004 to 2005. However, if this figure is increased in line with the average earnings index (5.3%) for this period - ie to £73,710 – the total number of employees earning at this level or above was 238 in 2005 – a reduction of 7 employees.

Hospital Consultants and other doctors feature significantly amongst the higher earners for 2005. This is largely explained by a new agreement in the UK in 2004 which was linked to the introduction of a new contract of employment for consultants. (The pay of Jersey’s Hospital Consultants is directly linked to the UK rates of pay). This agreement provided for an increase of pay of up to 10% plus additional performance related salary increments.

The analysis shows that 267 States employees received a total remuneration of more than £70,000 in 2005. Of these 119, less than half, were Civil Servants or Chief Officers. When the figures are properly adjusted for inflation they show that this number has fallen by 20 from 2005.

A recent salary survey of States pay rates showed that, as at 1 January 2006, States pay was on average 10% ahead of the median for the private sector on basic pay and 3% ahead on total pay. However, with regard to Senior Officers/Chief Officers pay, the States were on average 9.1% behind the median basic pay of the private sector and 32.8% behind on total pay.

In comparison with the UK public sector, States pay was on average 40% ahead on both basic and total pay, though the figures were much lower for Senior/Chief Officers.

The tables attached at Appendix C show the comparison of rates of pay for States employees with the UK public sector and local private sector respectively.

M J Pinel

10 May 2006