PP 2016/0111 STANDING COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON EMOLUMENTS FIRST REPORT 2015-16 REMUNERATION FOR SCRUTINY ROLES FIRST REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON EMOLUMENTS 2015-16: REMUNERATION FOR SCRUTINY ROLES The Committee shall - (i) consider and report to Tynwald on - (a) the emoluments of H E Lieutenant Governor, their Honours the First and Second Deemsters and the Judge of Appeal, H M Attorney General, the High Bailiff, the Deputy High Bailiff and the Clerk of Tynwald; (b) the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme; and (c) in addition to its consultative functions set out in paragraph 4.3(ii) and as it thinks fit, the emoluments of Members of Tynwald; (ii) carry out its consultative functions under section 6(3) of the Payments of Members’ Expenses Act 1989, as the body designated by the Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 1989.” The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984. Committee Membership The Hon S C Rodan SHK (Garff) (Chairman) Hon R H Quayle MHK (Middle) Mr D J Quirk MHK (Onchan) Mr C R Robertshaw MHK (Douglas East) Mr D M Anderson MLC Mr D C Cretney MLC Mr J R Turner MLC Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW. Table of Contents I. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 1 WRITTEN EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 3 APPENDIX 1: STANDING COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON EMOLUMENTS REMUNERATION FOR SCRUTINY ROLES – CONSULTATION PAPER DATED 22ND APRIL 2016 5 APPENDIX 2: EMAIL DATED 10TH MAY 2016 FROM HON JUAN WATTERSON MHK 13 APPENDIX 3: EMAIL DATED 30TH MAY 2016 FROM MR TONY WILD MLC 17 To: The Hon Clare M Christian MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled FIRST REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON EMOLUMENTS 2015-2016 REMUNERATION FOR SCRUTINY ROLES I. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. It was resolved on 15th December 2015: That the Emoluments Committee should look again at the question of remuneration for committee roles. 2. We decided to consult all Tynwald Members about this matter. The attached consultation paper was issued on 22nd April 2016 and responses were requested by 27th May 2016.1 Two responses were received and these are also attached.2 We conclude that the introduction of remuneration for scrutiny roles is not seen as an urgent priority by the majority of current Tynwald Members and that consensus is unlikely to be achieved before the Dissolution of the House of Keys in August 2016. We conclude that this matter will merit further consideration by our successors after the 2016 General Election. 1 Appendix 1 2 Appendices 2 and 3 1 S C Rodan C R Robertshaw R H Quayle D J Quirk D M Anderson D C Cretney J R Turner 2 WRITTEN EVIDENCE 3 4 Appendix 1: Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments Remuneration for scrutiny roles – Consultation paper dated 22nd April 2016 5 6 Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments Remuneration for scrutiny roles Paper dated 22nd April 2016 Introduction 1. It was resolved on 15th December 2015 “That the Emoluments Committee should look again at the question of remuneration for committee roles.” This question was last debated in Tynwald on 17th May 2011 and on 14th July 2011. Since then the system of Policy Review Committees has been implemented. The Committee would now like to give all Members of Tynwald the opportunity to submit views in the light of their experience of the Committee system since 2011 the General Election. Submissions should be sent to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr Jonathan King, by Friday 27th May 2016. Background 2. In June 2010 a Select Committee was established to consider setting up a system of Standing Committees relating to the work of Government Departments. The Select Committee’s Report (PP 167/10) was produced in December 2010.1 This report was debated on 18th January 2011.2 At that debate it was resolved: That the question of the specific levels of remuneration for Members’ scrutiny roles should be referred to the Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments, who shall take into consideration the basis of the remuneration for such committee membership as applies within other parliamentary systems of the British Isles, and to set out the basis of such remunerations, and to make recommendations taking into account the following principles: i. There should be no overall increase in expenditure on Members’ remuneration and any changes should be made within the parameters of overall cost neutrality. ii. If at some time in the future the chairman of the PAC or of a “policy review Committee” were to be dedicated full time to this role in the interests of showing the importance of scrutiny, then for the same reason such a chairman should not be worse off financially than he or she would have been, had he or she served as a member in a government department. iii. The importance of Committee scrutiny is such as to warrant a member of the PAC or of a “policy review Committee” other than the chairman also receiving some enhancement in respect of that scrutiny role. iv. There need be no guarantee that every Member should in all circumstances have either a remunerated executive role or a remunerated scrutiny role. 1 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2010-PP-0167.pdf 2 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/OPIndexHansard0811/5507.pdf 1 7 The thinking of the Emoluments Committee in May 2011 3. We reported on this issue in our First Report for 2010/2011 (PP 0076/11), which was produced in May 2011.3 The Report included as its Annex 1 the resolution of January 2011 part of which is quoted above. After describing the existing system of remuneration for executive and presiding officer roles, and after looking at other jurisdictions, the Report said: SPECIFIC LEVELS OF REMUNERATION FOR SCRUTINY ROLES 8. In agreeing to the resolution at Annex 1, Tynwald has accepted in principle that the importance of scrutiny is such as to warrant both chairmen and members of the PAC and policy review Committees receiving some enhancement. 9. Point 3(ii) of the resolution makes it clear that, while it should continue to be open to elected Members of Tynwald to serve simultaneously in an executive role and on scrutiny Committees, a chairman of such a committee should be no worse off than a member of a Department if circumstances arose in which he was dedicated full-time to chairing the committee. Under the current system this means that the rate for a chairmanship of one of these committees should be at least 30%. 10. Point 3(i) invites us to consider what enhancement should be available to a member of a scrutiny committee who is not the chairman. We think it is self-evident that the rate for an “ordinary member” of a scrutiny committee should be less than the rate for a chairman. We have considered whether the rate for membership of a scrutiny committee should be 10%, by analogy with the rate for chairing a Statutory Board. We do not think, however, that this would adequately reflect the importance which the resolution places on scrutiny roles. 11. Our preferred model would be for the remuneration to be set at 40% for the chairman of a scrutiny committee and 30% for the other members. If a member of a committee is also a member of a Department he should not receive the 30% twice; but if he is not a member of a Department he should receive the 30% in recognition of his committee role. Similarly if a committee chairman is already receiving 40%, for example if he is a Statutory Board chairman as well as a member of the committee, he should not receive any additional enhancement beyond that; but if he does not already have 40% from other appointments his pay should be made up to 40% in recognition of his role as committee chairman. Recommendation 1 That Tynwald accepts that in principle: (a) a member of the PAC or a “policy review committee” who is not in receipt of an enhancement of 30% or more by virtue of any other office held should receive an enhancement of 30% in recognition of his scrutiny role; and 3 http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2011-PP-0076.pdf 2 8 (b) a chairman of such a committee who is not entitled to enhancements totalling 40% or more by virtue of any other office or offices held should be entitled to a total enhancement of 40% in recognition of his scrutiny chairmanship. COST NEUTRALITY 12. Point 3(i) of the resolution at Annex 1 calls upon us to take into account the principle that there should be no overall increase in expenditure on Members’ remuneration and any changes should be made within the parameters of overall cost neutrality. 13. We have indicated above that we consider the budgetary “baseline” for this calculation to be the sum currently available in principle for additional sums, as set out at Annex 2. It is clear that if we were to introduce the system recommended above in full there could be, potentially, an increase in overall expenditure, because we would be creating four new posts remunerated at 40%.