SHOULD we make public what public servants are paid? As we the taxpayers fund them, should we not know what is being dished out on our behalf, and to whom, and what they are doing to deserve it?

By raising that question Chief Minister Lyndon Trott has, as the eloquent Deputy John Gollop put it: ‘opened a bottle and let a genie out that absolutely must be dealt with, because it is the most important issue we have got in terms of the economic well-being of our States’.

The chief minister’s crusade has followed the UK Government’s drive to try to reveal where the public’s money is going there, and to whom.

Standing in the Trott camp are the likes of Housing minister Dave Jones, who has called for total transparency with a shout of ‘Islanders have a right to know’.

They have taken up the issue in the context of trying to control soaring States expenditure – which rocketed by 10% across the board in 2009 despite all sorts of promises to ‘tighten belts’ and act with restraint.

But those calling for transparency still face stiff opposition from fellow ministers as well as some reluctance – perhaps unsurprisingly – from civil servants themselves.

Among the reluctant ministers is Social Security head Mark Dorey, who argued that releasing the pay details of individual civil servants could damage the sector and prevent some good people from wanting to work in it.

‘The key issue here, which does not seem to have been brought up yet, is recruitment and retention,’ he said.

‘If publicising the pay details is detrimental to attracting good people and keeping them, then it is not a good move for the States.

‘The States used to publish them, but this ceased in the 1980s, because of the effect it had on recruitment and retention – I don’t believe the circumstances have changed.’

Commerce and Employment minister Carla McNulty Bauer saw another problem.

‘In a close-knit community like Guernsey, if all people’s salaries are placed in the public domain beside their names, that is difficult because people will be labelled with a price tag.’

She was happy with the present system, of announcing what different bands of civil servants are paid in an annual Billet.

‘I think that is sufficient.’

Her view was shared by Education minister Carol Steere and Culture and Leisure minister Mike O’Hara.

However, Treasury minister Charles Parkinson said he would not object to the details being released, and some on the floor of the House perceived flaws in the opposition’s arguments.

‘When the States decided to stop publishing information about civil servants’ pay except the general bands, before my time, I think it was a retrogressive step,’ said Deputy Gollop.

‘They are afraid of people knowing what they are paying for.’

He argued that letting people know what senior public servants made and what they did for it could attract them to the job, rather than put them off.

He called for the issue to be debated properly. ‘It should come to the States because, frankly, pay is the most significant item of public expenditure year on year.

‘The business community and the community are asking the States to cut public expenditure, and the only way to do that is not to close a few toilets, or shut down a bus service.

‘We need to reduce and cut the number of high salaries at the top end of the public sector.’

The suggestion is that releasing civil servants’ individual pay information and a breakdown of what they do might provide a clearer picture of what is expected of them for their cash.

This, perhaps, could help the public appreciate what is being done for them and afford them some sort of performance indication as well.

However, there is another aspect to this, which could help end political apathy and some people’s detachment from the running of Guernsey.

It might encourage them to feel some more ownership of their public sector and take more pride in it.

It will be interesting to see whether this debate actually takes place as there is such a clear split in opinion on the subject.