In a letter in the Guernsey Press yesterday, a former States member took us to task for our coverage of the deputies’ pension scheme and made two rather telling points.

Firstly, he said, the pension (in which the taxpayer puts in £4 for every £1 from the deputy) helped to make up for the ‘derisory’ pay they received and, secondly, the media should be building up the image of and respect for those seeking election, not giving them flak for any compensation they receive.

The underlying issue on pensions, however, is one of fairness and the States scheme is weighted in favour of its members and against taxpayers and their best interests.

Remuneration for States members is a different matter, in many respects, because islanders generally do not see much wrong in the current rates, which give an average member approaching £30,000 a year.

Whether that changes after the independent review board makes its recommendations into members’ pay remains to be seen but when the first review was held, in 2003, some deputies felt they should be on £100,000, equivalent to around £130,000 today.

Few voters would think that justified but linking pension with pay is an interesting matter for a group of individuals who are regarded as self-employed by the Social Security Department.

When this was last looked into in depth, the then independent panel of accountant Dave Warr, financial services company executive Dave Cherry and trades union official John Guilbert held that the key criterion was to ensure that pay  was sufficiently high to provide all members of the community with the opportunity to stand for election.

They also felt that a pension was necessary and increasingly important if membership of the States became the principal occupation of more deputies.

What the island’s view on this is remains less clear. Unlike today’s bottom-up approach to policy making, where people’s views are sought ahead of making recommendations, that package was offered on an accept, amend or reject basis.

So whether Guernsey is ready for career politicians or whether electors believe decisions are best taken by those with a financial interest in remaining popular has never really been tested.

Perhaps it is time that it was.