Downing Street Says » Senior Salaries Review Body

The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) began by informing Lobby that the Written Ministerial Statement had just been laid giving the Government response to the Review Body on Senior Salaries Report on Parliamentary Pay, Pensions & Allowances. We had also published copies of the report.

Asked what this meant in monetary terms for the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, the PMS replied that he did not have those figures to hand.

Asked if there had been any resolution of the ongoing disagreement between the last Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, and the Prime Minister about pensions in the light of all this, the PMS replied that his understanding was that the situation had not changed.

Asked if it was also correct that what the current Lord Chancellor had agreed was what the Prime Minister would like to do to Lord Falconer, the PMS replied that this was a fair interpretation of the position. The key point was that it was consistent with previous statements from the Government when there was a reform of the position of Lord Chancellor in 2003.

Asked if the Speaker had been consulted on this, the PMS replied that the Speaker had been consulted.

Asked if we were effectively saying that the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor would be taking a pension cut, the PMS replied that it would depend on all sorts of factors such as length of service for example.

Asked if it also affected when it cut in as the Prime Ministerial pension cut in as soon as they left office, the PMS replied that whatever the current rules were for Secretaries of State, that would apply in future to the Prime Minister.

Put that this was pretty significant as Tony Blair for example has ten years of pension at £65k a year, whereas a future Prime Minister retiring at the equivalent age would have to wait until they were 65, the PMS replied that whatever the rules were for existing Secretaries of State would in future apply to the Prime Minister.

Put that the Prime Minister was potentially foregoing quite a substantial sum of money, the PMS replied that if it was the recommendation of the Senior Salary Review body that this should apply to future Prime Ministers, it was in his gift for that to apply to current holders of the post as well.

Asked why he has decided that this, the PMS replied that the Prime Minister accepted the principal set out by the Senior Salaries Review Body for the reasons set out in their report that it should apply to future Prime Ministers. And if it applies to future Prime Ministers, and he is still in post, then he thinks it should apply to him as well.

Asked how we would find out the details of what this meant in monetary terms, the PMS replied that Lobby should check with the Cabinet Office. But much depended on his length of service.

Asked if there was any difference between the approach to pay compared to the approach to MPs’ pensions, whereas we were holding down the rise in pay to 1.9%, MPs were being assured that they would get protection at 2.8% on their pensions, the PMS replied that to be honest he thought this was a bit of a red herring. The pension provision applied to your salary at the end of the financial year, which was true for everyone in the public sector. Since we were staging the increase, by the end of the financial year your salary was the same as what it would have been had we not staged it. That was true of everyone in the public sector, so was a position that was applied consistently across the board.

Put that the SSRB also recommended that consideration should be given to ending the current pension arrangements for MPs, and asked if the Prime Minister supported this, the PMS replied that on that the Prime Minister thought this was a matter for the House to decide.

Asked if the Government’s view was that the overall pensions scheme should be more lucrative for MPs to compensate to the cap on their pay, or would it be staying much the same, and the same for allowances as staff allowances had been increased from 3 to 3.5, the PMS replied that the position was as set out and he did not have anything further to add to that. Nobody was suggesting any linkage between a decision made in relation to one year in relation to the staging of pay, and the wider package of recommendations set out here. It was not a trade off between one or the other.

Asked what difference the pension package was likely to make, and were most MPs likely to end up with a more or less rewarding pension, the PMS replied that it would entirely depend on their individual circumstances. But it was best to check with Cabinet Office what this would mean for typical MPs.

Asked if MPs would be whipped on this, and would they vote on the Prime Minister’s pension arrangements as well as their own salaries, the PMS replied that he did not know whether the Prime Minister’s pension would be subject to a vote. With respect to the pay increase, it would be a free vote but the Prime Minister had made his position very clear on this.

Asked how a cap would work, the PMS replied that detailed questions on this should be put to the Cabinet Office.

Put that for the financial year 2007/08 the calculation for the SSRB’s recommendation ended up with the same final figure of £61,820 both under the Government’s proposal and the SSRB proposal, but there was a figure in the SSRB proposal of 0.66% already in payment, and was this already in their pay packets, the PMS replied that he thought this correct. The key point was that the total amount of income an MP would receive over the year would have been 2.56% higher under the SSRB proposal. Under our proposal it was 1.9% higher, even though it was the same figure at the end because it was staged.

Asked why the Prime Minister thought the SSRB was right on pension arrangements for the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, the PMS replied that the reason was set out in some detail in the SSRB’s report, and the Prime Minister accepted their reasoning and analysis.

Asked if the Prime Minister consulted the Leader of the Opposition on the pension arrangements for future Prime Ministers, the PMS replied that these were Government proposals we were setting out. How the other parties reacted was obviously a matter for them.

Asked if the proposal put before the House would include the proposal to change the way in which MPs’ pay is decided, the PMS replied that this was not the case as it was subject to a review.

Asked when this would come to a conclusion, the PMS replied that it would be sometime later this year.

1 Comment »

Hello admin, i must say you have hi quality content here.

Your website can go viral. You need initial traffic boost only.
How to get it? Search for; Mertiso’s tips go viral
Comment by 94Jefferson — 6 Aug 2017 on 2:58 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Senior Salaries Review Body

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries