Pay rise for judges is branded unfair
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.John Major last night announced a 3.3 per cent pay rise for judges - the same average increase recommended by pay review bodies, but rejected by the Government, for nurses, teachers, doctors, dentists and the armed forces.
The Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, immediately condemned the decision as unfair, saying: "Judges are set to receive up to pounds 8,000, while thousands of nurses receive only a fraction of this."
The Prime Minister said in a written Commons reply that average recommended increases of 3.3 per cent for all 1.26 million public servants covered by six pay review bodies was a "move in the right direction", because it was down from last year's 4 per cent. "But the recommendations are still high considering the general level of public-sector pay settlements in the past year, and higher than the retail price index," Mr Major said.
"It would be difficult to meet the costs from existing spending plans without squeezing services ... We intend to accept the recommendations this year but, as last year, we intend to stage their introduction."
The staging, with everyone getting 2 per cent from 1 April - provided Labour does not come to power before then, along with its promised freeze for top people's pay - provides for a top-up payment from 1 December.
That reduces the overall increase in this year's pay bill from 3.3 per cent to an average 2.4 per cent - reducing the recommended increase, overall, from an extra pounds 1,068m to pounds 805m.
Asked why the judiciary had received preferential treatment, a Treasury source suggested that the small numbers involved - 3,053 judges - made it affordable, and their pay review body had urged a higher award following a special two-year review.
In a complex package, the biggest tangle of all was provided on ministerial pay - with Labour adding to the muddle by saying that if it came to office after 1 April's staged, 2 per cent award, it would not be clawed back for top people in Whitehall, the judiciary or the armed forces.
Citing the Prime Minister's pay as an example of what was proposed for ministers in the Commons, the Treasury source said he already had in the pipeline a catch-up pay increase of pounds 42,272 due immediately after the election, taking him to pounds 102,000. The average ministerial increase was put at about pounds 16,000.
If the Conservatives win the election, that would be paid automatically, along with a further 2 per cent from 1 April and another 0.75 per cent staged rise from 1 December.
But a Labour spokesman said that if they won the election, that pipeline increase would not be taken; Tony Blair's ministerial pay would stick at pounds 58,557. Labour ministers would take only the 2 per cent, 1 April increase that is due in MPs' pounds 43,000 salary - that would also be paid to Conservative ministers - which follows a resumed linkage with civil service pay levels.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments