States Members Remuneration

An argument which was deployed recently in the debate on GST was about the changing economic circumstances of the world since GST was introduced. A common theme amongst people who voted against exemptions - but who had noted only back in November when running as Deputy that they would vote for exemptions - was that "the world had changed" with the credit crunch, and the economic recession. But that surely cuts both ways. If we have to tighten our belts, and cannot afford to remove GST because of falling States revenue - which is a fair enough argument - then surely the expenditure on States members remuneration cannot be taken for granted either. It cannot be assumed that by default the pay must rise because it always has.

Related to that is the notion of "fairness". I am sure that despite Philip Ozouf calling for a freeze in pay for public sector employees, this will somehow not apply to the proposed increase in remuneration for States members, which is really quite unjust. It is about time the States set by example, rather than by exception, and realised that the determination of their pay will certainly be scrutinised by public sector unions - and quite rightly. The notion of "fairness" is as C.S. Lewis noted in the 1940s, is very strongly rooted in people, and I think this is still so today.

Lastly, one of the other ideas is that Ministers should have more pay than ordinary States Members. They already have more perks - Ministers have their own free blackberry mobile phones while in office. But should they have more pay? To bring a proposition to the States, the Minister has the backing of his own department, a multitude of civil servants from Chief Officer downward to advise him. They take at least some of the care, effort and time away from him, and one is hoped, stop him making mistakes. A private member bringing a proposition has to spend all, his own time researching and preparing the proposition, and does not have the backing of a large department.

To take just two recent examples. Whatever the merits of his case about the incinerator, Daniel Wimberley had to investigate and research a multitude of matters on his own, or possibly with one or two helpers, and then put it together in a coherent form. The Minister, Michael Jackson, on the contrary, had a reply prepared for him by his own department. The same happened with the proposition by Ben Shenton on Reg's Skips. Planning, and the Law Officers department both prepared replies on behalf of Freddie Cohen and Ian Le Marquand, the Ministers involved in those areas.

The argument that a Minister spends his time "running his department" is a nonsense; that is what we have Chief Officers for. Does the Health department suddenly grind to a halt when Jim Perchard resigns? Of course not! The Minister supplies oversight, decides on policy, and is the accountable face of a department to the public. But when a Minister makes his own decisions regardless of his departments advice - Guy de Faye allowing utility companies to just dig through land without the landowner's permission - they invariable come adrift. So should Ministers have more pay? Do they have more or less time for their electorate as a result of having to take time to run a department? If less, as certainly has been the case - Alistair Layzell said he thought he had spent too little time looking after the electorate in St Aubin when he lost an election, and Mike Jackson has certainly found it has taken him away more from Parish matters, and Simon Crowcroft gave up his committee when he became Constable - then it is not a case of spending more time on their department in addition to helping the electorate, but often instead of doing so; backbenchers are supplying the democratic deficiency, and if they do it well, as they often do, they deserve equal pay for doing so.

Loo of the Year Awards for TTS

http://www.gov.je/TransportTechnicalServices/News/Toilets.htm

The Minister for Transport and Technical Services (TTS), Connétable Mike Jackson, has been congratulating the staff in the Toilet Cleaning Section on recent achievements in the national Loo of the Year Awards announced at the end of 2008. This is the first time that TTS has entered this event and four of the five toilets entered received the top 5 Star Awards. The Toilet Cleaning Section entered the toilets at Corbière, Sand Street Car Park, Bouley Bay, Côtil du Grouin in St Brelade and La Mare in St Clement. The toilets at La Mare only narrowly lost out on 5 Star status. There were over 1,700 separate entries for the Loo of the Year Awards coming from all over Britain. The facilities are given a 1 - 5 Star Grading. This is awarded following an unannounced visit by an independent Loo of the Year Awards Inspector, who makes an assessment against set criteria which include: cleanliness, signage and communication, décor and maintenance, air quality hygiene equipment and overall management and customer care. In 2008, only 42% of the total entries achieved the top 5 Star Grading. "If you have pride in the work you do, it shows" said the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, Connétable Mike Jackson. "These toilets have been benchmarked against a national standard and have been found to be top class. I am delighted that the staff have received this recognition, it is well deserved."

Yes, it is all true! It must be true, I read it on the States website. What an odd world we live in!

But I wish they would check out the toilets at Minden Place Car park or St Catherine's Breakwater, both of which often are sadly lacking in cleanliness. The ones in the Parade aren't that nice either. It seems rather strange that they can enter only a few toilets, and I think this curious and strange award would be better if all the Island's public toilets were open to inspection, and the selection was random. Instead, no doubt the best kept ones were selected.

I'd also love to know what the "air quality hygiene equipment" means when it is at home. I googled it, and got the single reference to it being this article! Any suggestions?

Whacko Jacko

The name that is often used for Michael Jackson, the pop star who lives in New Jersey, is "Whacko Jacko" , a nickname gained because of his habit of behaving in a seemingly outrageous manner.

Our own Jersey Constable and namesake, Michael Jackson, does not behave in any kind of outrageous manner, but he has recently come up with a few really "whacky" suggestions to improve parking.

One is to use the "Petit Train" from St Aubin's to St Brelade, which he says if used by commuters could release up to 30 parking spaces in St Helier, if the car drivers using it were all single car users. The Jersey Evening post has already pointed out one disadvantage - the passenger compartments are not water tight or well-shielded from the elements, which would lead to a very cold ride, and in case of high tides, a very wet one.

But a more fundamental flaw is that - unless it could be guaranteed that all the 30 drivers came from their own private parking spaces in St Aubin - those 30 cars would need somewhere to park - at St Aubin! Where St Helier might have congestion problems, it has nothing like the level of difficulty that parking in St Aubin has, and to add 30 cars to 9-5 stay in the car parks in St Aubin would significantly reduce the parking. I am sure the St Aubin businesses would have something to say about that! It is a perfect example of non-joined up thinking - "how can I reduce the impact of cars on St Helier", leading to completely forgetting the impact on St Aubin. But then Michael Jackson, as Constable, has his own private space at St Aubin's Parish Hall - don't forget that.

The other suggestion to tax private parking spaces is also poorly thought out. In fact, a number of these are already taxed because the landlords are businesses charging GST on the rental, so there would be a double tax impact. Moreover, if private parking became sufficiently expensive to act as a deterrent, the idea that this would make those commuters take to the bus is laughable. They would simply move to public parking, and the impact would be there instead. This might have a knock on effect so that some road users would take the bus, but it is only a might be.

Of course one set of private spaces are free, and therefore would presumably be untaxed. States members, and the senior Crown Officers, have their own private and free parking in St Helier, and it seems a bit unfair that they should consider other private car parking, and somehow exclude their own, which they do not even pay for. Guy De Faye, to give him credit for something, did take the bus in and out of St Helier, and somehow managed to get to States meetings on time without trouble. Perhaps Michael Jackson, as Minister for TTS, would set a similar example before penalizing others?

A park and ride scheme, perhaps around La Collette, with frequent buses, say minibuses every ten minutes over the rush hour period, would be a better suggestion, and has been tried before with a measure of success, and I assume the "Hoppa Bus" service suggested could accommodate this. Unfortunately, at the moment, the headline grabber is a picture of "Le Petit Train", and our own home grown "Whacko Jacko", who obviously aspires to be as colourful in the post as Minister for TTS as his predecessor for making really whacky suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/01/22/parking-spaces-to-be-taxed/