Top Pay in the Public Sector - Public Administration Committee Contents

3  Identifying the problem: levels of pay

15. There was general agreement among our witnesses that top public sector pay is an issue of public and media concern. There was substantial disagreement among our witnesses, however, about the nature of the problem that needs to be addressed, and indeed whether there was a problem with public sector executives' salaries at all. This chapter attempts to put the issue in context by considering the statistical evidence and the appropriate comparators for public sector pay.

How much are public sector executives paid?

16. Chart A gives a broad-brush picture of the current state of play as regards pay in different parts of the public and private sectors. Only in a small number of relatively unusual public corporations does pay in the public sector approach that of a chief executive at a FTSE mid-250 company: these include Network Rail, BNFL, Royal Mail, Channel 4, the BBC and nationalised banks. Pay is not far behind at the Financial Services Authority and at the bodies organising and delivering the 2012 London Olympics. Pay of other top public servants is within a range of approximately 10-25 per cent of that of a FTSE mid-250 chief executive.

17. To judge from at least one poll, facts such as these are unlikely to be widely known. According to a poll conducted by YouGov and ITV in October 2009, 36 per cent of those surveyed thought that people who ran public sector organisations were paid less than their private sector counterparts, while 25 per cent thought they were paid more - in other words, only just over a third of respondents reflected the data shown below.[18]

Source: IDS Executive Compensation Review and Committee Office Scrutiny Unit

Is public sector pay too high?

18. Much of the media and political focus on public sector pay has been on the absolute amounts received by individuals. For example, the Daily Telegraph on 22 November 2009 reported that Harriet Harman, as Minister for Women and Equality, had blocked a proposed salary of £185,000 for the new Chief Executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.[19] Meanwhile the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, told the Conservative Party conference that "The excessive salaries at the top [of the public sector] have to go" and proposed that any public body offering to pay someone more than the Prime Minister should first seek the Chancellor's approval.[20]

19. Some of the evidence we received echoed these concerns. The TaxPayers' Alliance has provided much information about pay levels at the top of the public sector, although it has its own tax-cutting and state-reducing agenda. Their evidence argued that "top posts in the public sector are very well remunerated, by any standard or measure", referring to "excessive wage inflation" and "escalating costs". [21] The Institute of Directors (IoD) cited pay as one of a number of factors leading to what it described to us as "the worst of all worlds—a disappearing culture of public service, few executives moving between the public and private sectors, insufficient accountability, and high levels of remuneration".[22] Polly Toynbee, of The Guardian newspaper, said that in her view "people are very concerned if they see what they consider to be large numbers of people earning more than the Prime Minister".[23] This notion of a benchmark is one to which we return later in this Report.[24]

20. Chart B, below, shows how pay relativities have changed since the beginning of the decade and partly explains this growing concern. Public sector executive pay has been rising at a rate considerably faster than average earnings, albeit (with one exception) at a much slower rate than the pay of private sector executives, which has sky-rocketed. These increases are part of longer-term trends that stretch back over the past few decades, a period that also saw reduced taxation for higher earners which may have sharpened the issue of salary disparities.

Source: IDS Executive Compensation Review and Committee Office Scrutiny Unit

21. However, very few of those who contributed to our inquiry thought that there were large numbers of public sector workers being paid excessive salaries or that there should be an absolute bar on high pay in the public sector. Polly Toynbee told us that, "according to the TaxPayers' Alliance's own figures, only 387 people in the public sector are earning more than £150,000, so it is not a huge number of people, given how many public sector workers there are"[25]; while Professor Tony Travers similarly pointed to the "small number" of public sector chief executives being paid "stratospheric sums".[26]

22. The TaxPayers' Alliance themselves accepted that increased rigour in public sector salaries "does not have to mean an end to appropriate rewards" or that some public servants should not receive substantial salaries. They said that "the key consideration in the setting and monitoring of executive pay must be value for money; 'what is the lowest amount we can pay while securing a suitable candidate'."[27]

23. By no means all of our contributors thought that there was a significant problem with the current level of top public sector pay. The Senior Salaries Review Body, which gives advice on pay levels for senior staff in parts of the public sector, told us that the approach suggested by the TaxPayers' Alliance was, in fact, precisely the approach it takes:

    our approach to pay is to pay at the lower end of what would be justified and, in fact, our view is to pay the minimum necessary to get people of the right quality in a sustainable position.[28]

24. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has written that it "believes that much of the current media and political focus on public or private sector executive pay is misguided".[29] Stephen Taylor, an experienced reward consultant, has written that "in general we get extraordinarily good value for money from the roughly 1000 people at the top of our public services; more than we deserve given the small-minded abuse they get".[30]

25. One point made in evidence was that it can be difficult to compare in a fair way current and past salaries for a post whose roles and responsibilities have changed. Hamish Davidson, a recruitment consultant, argued that the job of local authority chief executives had been substantially more complex compared to twenty years ago, resulting in increased salaries to recruit a more skilled group of people.[31] This is especially true in some NDPBs, where roles and responsibilities can change regularly. An example of some of the difficulties of comparing a post holder's job with that of his or her predecessor relates to the Chief Executive of Ofcom, and is discussed below.
A Spurious Comparison? Remuneration of the Chief Executive of Ofcom

Pay at Ofcom has received particular attention in the media and from politicians. In a speech on 19 March 2009, the Leader of the Opposition said:

"In 2001 the Chairman of the Independent Television Commission earned £77,590 a year. The Chief Executive of the ITC's replacement, OFCOM, earned £417,581 last year - more than a five-fold increase. In fact, fourteen OFCOM executives are now paid more than the old ITC Chairman was."[32]

As Ofcom argued at the time, in terms of the roles and responsibilities of the post, the pay of the Chief Executive of Ofcom is better compared with that of the Chief Executive of the Independent Television Commission (ITC), rather than its part-time Chairman. This came to £195,000 in 2001-02.[33]

However, Ofcom inherited the duties of not only the ITC, but also four other public bodies. The combined annual earnings of the executive heads of these five bodies came to more than £600,000 the best part of ten years ago. Even taking inflation into account, the Chief Executive of Ofcom is thus significantly better paid than any one of his predecessors, but he also receives substantially less than their combined earnings, even before inflation.

A comparison with the pay of his predecessors thus allows for it to be argued that the Chief Executive of Ofcom is either more expensive than his predecessors, or cheaper than them. This illustrates both the difficulties of comparing past and present remuneration and also the importance of ensuring comparisons are appropriate and rigorous.

26. At least one of our witnesses suggested that executive pay in the public sector was if anything too low. Christopher Johnson, a remuneration consultant who was previously a government official responsible for top pay in the civil service, suggested top public sector pay is "in general terms, too low, because in general terms we are not able to secure the talent into the public sector."[34] Put bluntly:

    The cost of employing public sector talent is low compared with the private sector. That low cost may result in less competent talent being available to provide leadership of service delivery for and on behalf of citizens and to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.[35]

While acknowledging that "hard evidence" was in short supply, he pointed to challenges in terms of "leadership and people management" and "small fields of suitable candidates for externally advertised senior vacancies".[36]

27. Too often, the debate about top public sector pay carried out in the media is reductive and relies upon taking individual examples of "inflated pay" out of context. A more considered look at the statistics and other evidence shows that the issue is not a simple one: top pay in the public sector can be both significantly too low and much too high, depending entirely on perspective. Judged against the private sector, the public sector has exercised considerable restraint on executive pay, both in terms of the amounts paid and (with the occasional notable exception) the rate of increase. But pay for public sector executives has been increasing far more quickly than average pay in the economy as a whole, a fact that has inevitably fuelled anger amongst some taxpayers.

Benchmarks: Comparisons with the Prime Minister's salary

28. The discussion above touches on comparisons between the pay of public sector executives and the Prime Minister's salary. This comparison, as well as benchmarking against private sector pay (discussed in the following section), attempts to put the level of top public sector pay into some kind of context. The key question, however, is whether such attempts use the right comparator—and if not, what the right benchmark would be.

29. The idea of using the Prime Minister as a benchmark for senior pay in the public service is superficially attractive. He is, after all, the head of the executive: why should any of those working beneath him earn more than he does? The idea has been taken up by politicians from both main parties including the Leader of the House and the Shadow Chancellor.[37]

30. The Prime Minister is entitled to £132,923 a year in addition to his Parliamentary salary of £64,766, making a total of £197,689. [38] According to the TaxPayers' Alliance, in 2009 323 people in the public sector were paid more than the Prime Minister. These figures came from a wide range of public sector organisations and the "state controlled" banks.[39]

31. It is notable that the Prime Minister's pay has increased at a far slower rate over the past ten years than pay for other senior figures, both in the public and private sectors. Indeed the Prime Minister's salary increased by less than average earnings in the private or public sectors.[40] This suggests that the pay of the Prime Minister is subject to a very different set of factors from executive pay in the wider economy.

32. We heard a possible reason why this is the case:

    The Prime Minister's salary is a political compromise and the main earnings opportunity for a prime minister are not what he or she receives in office but the amount they are able to earn after leaving office from public speaking, directorships, publications and so on. It is an artificially low figure.[41]

The Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body told us that "the Prime Minister's pay is not objectively linked to the value of his job in relation to comparators" and that "the political world seems to be subject to its own salary discount".[42] The SSRB believed that Ministers' pay "is now lower than is justified, in the SSRB's view, by the responsibilities of those posts".[43]

33. A number of our witnesses were strongly opposed to the idea of using the Prime Minister's pay as a salary cap on the public sector at large, Peter Boreham describing it as "a very bad basis on which to set other people's salaries".[44] Remuneration consultants and the Senior Salaries Review Body thought that it would lead to serious difficulties in recruiting and retaining good quality senior staff, because it failed to reflect circumstances in different labour markets.[45] In the words of Sir John Baker, a former Chair of the SSRB, the public sector "would become totally uncompetitive for top talent".[46] Even the TaxPayers' Alliance acknowledged that "there are certain people who are going to demand higher pay than the Prime Minister",,[47] particularly ""if we want to see good managerial talent come in from the private sector, taking over public sector organisations".[48]

34. There is therefore evidence suggesting that tying senior salaries to political considerations runs the significant risk of losing talented candidates. A practical example of this is the appointment of the Chair of the Electoral Commission, a post for which the salary and terms and conditions have to be approved by the House of Commons. When the post was last filled, the proposed salary caused some political controversy and both the salary and proposed time commitment were reduced to ensure the House's acceptance of the appointment. The headhunter involved in seeking candidates for the post told us that those responsible for the recruitment:

    were very lucky indeed that the candidate concerned accepted that cut and still took the job. I think most of the candidates would have declined to take the job because they would have been giving up a lot more money altogether.[49]

35. It would seem more appropriate to use the Prime Minister's salary as an informal benchmark. The TaxPayers' Alliance and Christopher Johnson agreed that "an extraordinarily good reason" or at least "clearer justification" was warranted where individuals were being paid more than the Prime Minister.[50]

36. Public servants who earn more than the Prime Minister are very well paid indeed. Reward at this level deserves a clear and public justification, and close and sceptical scrutiny. But any proposal to use the Prime Minister's salary as an absolute cap on public sector pay would be little more than a political stunt. Public servants are recruited from very different labour markets, and the pay they are offered needs to reflect those markets, even if it cannot match them. Prime Ministers pay themselves at a rate determined by politics more than by responsibility, and their earnings in retirement can if they wish vastly exceed their earnings in office.

Benchmarks: Comparisons with the private sector

37. For some of our witnesses, the increases in public sector executive pay are directly linked to the much larger increases in private sector pay over recent decades. Polly Toynbee has described the situation in the public sector as amounting to "a relatively small leakage from the extraordinary escalation of pay differentials over the last 20 years".[51] She described increasing pay among public sector executives as "an inevitable outcome" of increases in the private sector.[52] Chart C compares the extent of growth of executive salaries in the public and private sectors over the last ten years. This demonstrates how the percentage increases in pay identified in Chart B translate into absolute increases.

Source: IDS Executive Compensation Review and Committee Office Scrutiny Unit

38. The TaxPayers' Alliance accepted that there could be a 'contagion' effect whereby growth in executive-level salaries had led, in part, to increasing top level public sector salaries. However, they argued strongly that attempting to compare public and private sector jobs (and therefore pay levels) is a fruitless exercise, except for "a select few senior posts". Indeed, a theme in the evidence we received that was critical of public sector pay was the claim that senior public servants are being remunerated on the basis of spurious comparisons with the private sector:

    by and large we see career public servants who have never been tested in the private sector justifying their pay on the grounds that they could just leave and go and earn fantastic money elsewhere, and so they deserve this. That is a concern for us, because where is the proof of the pudding?[53]

    Lots of people in public sector talk about believing they could do a job in private sector but few do in practice; equally, they keep finding reasons why private sector people would find it hard to do public sector jobs.[54]

Justifying this view, the TaxPayers' Alliance argued that the risks run in the private sector (in terms of job security, both for executives and those working for them) justify higher remuneration.[55] This is an argument we return to in the next chapter.

39. One of our witnesses from the SSRB disagreed with the tenor of the TaxPayers' Alliance's argument: "at the top levels there are, undoubtedly, people employed in the public sector who, if they chose, would be very marketable in the private sector". He suggested that the result of paying such people too little would be that it would be impossible to retain them:

    "as long as the discount, the pay discount, the benefit discount for doing that job is outweighed by the job interest and the public sector ethos, that is okay, but if it gets out of kilter, if the potential outside becomes too great, then they will go."[56]

40. Interestingly, at least one measure of public opinion suggests that top public sector salaries should be closer to those in the private sector. According to the poll conducted by YouGov and ITV referred to earlier, 72 per cent of people surveyed thought that the people who run public and private sector organisations should be paid about the same.[57]

41. The FDA trade union argued that there should be an explicit link between public and private sector pay.[58] Stephen Taylor also made a practical argument from attempting to maintain some degree of comparability, based on the need to enable people to move between jobs and sectors without pay disparities acting as a barrier to this movement:

    it is highly desirable that managers at many levels, including the top, are able to move reasonably easily between the public and private sector. Each sector would be much the poorer without the mutual understanding which this movement enables. The loss of that understanding in return for a little money saved from senior public sector salaries would be a very bad bargain indeed. So I am afraid you cannot insulate the public sector remuneration debate from the private sector one.[59]

42. This movement between public and private sectors is most marked in sectors where a regulator or other body needs to recruit people with relevant private sector experience. Christopher Johnson told us:

    Different parts of the public sector compete for executive talent in different markets. For example, government owned companies typically compete with the private sector for business leaders with proven track record; the civil service has grown about 2/3rds of its executive talent from within and recruited 1/3rd externally from the public and private sectors.[60]


43. In the course of our evidence we heard of several real-life examples in which public sector organisations had experienced difficulty in recruitment because of the increased pay levels in the markets from which they were seeking to recruit.

44. Millie Banerjee, the Chair of Ofcom's remuneration committee, argued that pay at her organisation was low, relative to the markets in which it needed to find its senior staff:

    Even as I speak, even with the recession, we are trying to recruit a senior person reporting to Ed Richards [the Chief Executive], and people are falling off the shortlist because we simply cannot afford them. [61]

    People do not come to work in Ofcom because of the pay. They do not. In fact, we have people coming to work in Ofcom, some of our specialist lawyers, for instance, competition lawyers, who we need, who actually take a cut in pay. They do not stay long; they stay about five years but they like to come to an organisation like Ofcom as part of their career development.[62]

She told us that the reward packages that Ofcom offered were "the minimum … if we did not pay what we pay, I do not think we would get the right kind of people", while acknowledging that "we know we cannot match the private-sector salaries."[63]

45. Tim Melville-Ross, who chairs the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), told us that "one of the principal reasons" the previous Chief Executive had left the Council was that "He was under-remunerated in relation to the market in which he operates and so he left HEFCE and is now at Birmingham on a considerably larger package." Difficulties were then encountered in trying to recruit his successor when the salary that was proposed for the post turned out to be "significantly less than what he was already earning".[64]

46. Mr Melville-Ross, a former Chief Executive of the Nationwide Building Society, also countered the argument that "by anybody's standards £600,000 is a lot of money" in a discussion about the salary of the Chief Executive of the Financial Services Authority:

    By City standards it is not, I have to tell you. The sorts of packages that have been enjoyed by people running banks, who have had even more disastrous experiences than the FSA itself, are vastly greater than that … For goodness' sake, do not encourage the organisation [FSA] to pay less for talent right now because it really needs that talent to go through the process of reform that Lord Turner has suggested[65]


47. There has also been a trend towards other parts of the public sector, such as the Senior Civil Service, looking to recruit from the private sector where this would not formerly have been the case. Where career civil servants have not acquired the necessary skills—in finance, IT and human resources, for example—civil service management has had to look to recruit from better-paid markets. Even when taking "a significant reduction in earnings", such people have almost always ended up being paid substantially more than career civil servants at the same level.[66]

48. Christopher Johnson told us that this approach had two downsides, first, that he did not "see consistently the ability of the public sector to attract great talent" in this way; and, secondly that the pay differentials it created were bringing about "a very significant internal relativity pressure" which he saw "becoming quite a serious problem".[67]

49. Jonathan Baume from the FDA told us that, other than at Permanent Secretary level, Civil Service Departments had too often been led by "what the person we want wants us to pay" rather than by "what we are willing to pay", with the result that a number of senior staff were paid more than their Permanent Secretary bosses:

    Now, if you want to pay £1 million for a project manager, I am sure you would get a very good project manager. The question is: should the Civil Service be paying £1 million? I might be exaggerating slightly, but we have been led by the people rather than led by what we want to pay, which is how most organisations actually work and certainly in the public sector.[68]

50. We are looking at the broader ramifications of external appointments to the civil service as part of another concurrent inquiry, on which we hope to report soon.


51. Christopher Johnson attempted to put comparability in perspective, by suggesting that it "should be one input in determining pay alongside other factors that enable the public sector to attract and retain the talent it needs, and that take into account affordability."[69] This reflects the reality that pay at the top of the public sector is always going to lag behind possible private sector comparators; the issue is by how much, and whether it matters.

52. The extent to which individual public and private sector salaries are comparable is difficult to establish and will vary from post to post. The influence of private sector pay on public sector salaries is also felt in other ways, such as through the knock-on effects of spiralling private sector salaries over recent decades. This influence is especially evident in those areas where there has been a drive towards recruiting more public servants from the private sector, for example to fill skills gaps in information technology and finance.

53. It is in the interests of public sector executives to 'talk up' their marketability in the private sector, just as it is in the interests of private sector executives to talk up their incentive to move overseas. With this in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that those setting pay may have wanted to err on the side of caution when public finances were reasonably provident. Paying slightly over the odds risks wasting a little public money. Paying too little risks wasting a lot of public money trying to motivate those staff who have stayed while attempting to recruit replacements for the most competent staff, who have left. Against a background of budget cuts, the need for more stringency in setting salaries is clear. However it would be particularly damaging if talented managers able to deliver substantial savings left the public sector because of pay reductions that would contribute relatively little to deficit reduction.

Conclusion on benchmarking

54. It is impossible to have a constructive debate about executive pay without appropriate benchmarks. However, the previous sections have shown some of the difficulties in developing such benchmarks and the ways in which benchmarks themselves can become a source of debate. It is important that pay setters have access to appropriate benchmarks when negotiating senior executives' contracts and ensure that comparisons with the private sector are used appropriately. There is a strong argument for undertaking this benchmarking process centrally and in a way that is independent of the pay setters themselves. This is an argument we return to later in this report.

Reducing the deficit

55. A number of measures have been proposed to curb expenditure on public sector pay by both the Government and Opposition in order to reduce the public sector deficit. These proposals include measures on public sector pensions and a cap or freeze on public sector salary increases. This section briefly examines these proposals.


56. As is well known, pension arrangements for staff in the public sector below senior levels tend to be more satisfactory than those in the private sector, because of the erosion of private sector schemes. This was described to us as part of a "deal" in return for lower pay.[70] However, the position at executive level is not so clear cut. It was pointed out that "in the private sector executives receive proportionately greater pensions on their already high salaries".[71]

57. There are also differences in approach in different parts of the public sector. Most senior civil servants are members of an unfunded[72] defined-benefit scheme based on final salary. Local government employees belong to a similar but funded[73] scheme, with fixed employee contributions and fluctuating employer contributions. Public bodies may offer their executives membership of a funded scheme or of an unfunded scheme, or may provide them with some other form of pension compensation. At Ofcom, for example, senior executives are "provided with an allowance, determined as a percentage of base salary, which the individual can take as extra salary or invest in a pension scheme of their choice".[74]

58. The overall cost of public service pensions is a matter which falls outside the scope of this Report. However, the final-salary-based nature of most public sector pension schemes means that the cost of pensions for the highest earners is correspondingly higher.[75] The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced as part of the 2009 Pre-Budget Report that employer contributions to public sector pensions would be capped and that the highest earners would be expected to pay a larger contribution towards their pensions.[76] The Chancellor said in his speech that "public pensions need to be broadly in line with those offered in the private sector."[77] We note that such a policy, if applied to pay as well as pensions, would almost certainly lead to substantial increases in public sector executive pay.

59. The Opposition has proposed imposing a £50,000 cap on annual public sector pension payments. We heard a more radical proposal in evidence, suggesting that pensionable salary should be capped at £30,000, implying a maximum final-salary based pension in retirement of about £15,000, with the option of a defined-contribution scheme for those seeking a higher pension.[78]

60. The FDA trade union has written that

    the current public sector pension provision is fully justified, and affordable in the long term. Most of the media criticism is economically ill-informed … The pension is also an integral part of the reward package for senior public servants and any attempt to remove or dilute it would inevitably create an inflationary pressure on the other elements of the pay package.[79]

61. In general, for a public servant to receive a pension of above £50,000, they would need to have a salary of around £100,000 and about 40 years' service. As a very small proportion of public servants fulfil these criteria, a cap set at this level would save relatively little money overall. Capping pensionable salary at £30,000 would save a great deal more, but would affect large numbers of people who are not by any means senior executives.

62. Proposals to cap pension payments to senior executives in the public sector go somewhat beyond the scope of this report. Such proposals deserve close attention, but a cap will only be effective and worthwhile if it is fair on the people affected, if it is sustainable in terms of recruitment, retention and motivation, and if the savings that it produces are genuine and significant across the public paybill.


63. One proposal that has been made by, among others, the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission and both main political parties is a short-term public sector pay freeze on senior salaries. The Government, in the Pre-Budget Report, has proposed a one-year pay freeze for senior people in the public sector, including chief executives of NDPBs, senior civil servants, GPs and senior NHS managers. It also announced a 1% on all public sector pay increases until 2013.[80]

64. The concept of a top pay freeze received significant support from our witnesses from across the political spectrum:

    You cannot underestimate the power of gesture, quite often, when you are in a national crisis.[81]

    President Obama acknowledged the need for action (for both political and economic reasons) and froze the pay of any White House Staff earning over $100,000 on his first day in office. A similar move should be replicated here, with the pay of all senior public sector staff frozen immediately to reflect the recession and falling pay in the private sector.[82]

65. Stephen Taylor, however, has warned that:

    History shows that holding down top pay does no more than that, i.e. it does not hold down pay at lower levels. All that happens is differentials are squeezed and then fewer people strive for the top jobs. That is already the case in the Civil Service.[83]

The SSRB meanwhile has warned of a world in which " 'signalling' becomes the dominant consideration", whilst the Prospect trade union described the announcements by the Government and Opposition as "politically motivated tokenism of the worst kind … a cynical ploy designed to grab the headlines while doing nothing to resolve the problems it pretends to cure".[84]

66. Given the level of the budget deficit, the announcement of a short-term pay freeze for senior public servants alongside a cap on all public sector pay increases was not unexpected. The arguments for such a move are less about the levels of pay themselves and more about saving money and ensuring that the public sector is seen to be 'sharing the pain' of recession fairly.

18   YouGov/ITV survey, 22-23 October 2009; accessed 4 December 2009  Back

19   The Daily Telegraph, 22nd November 2009, "Harriet Harman halts £185,000 salary for equalities chief after backlash fear" Back

20   "George Osborne speech in full",, accessed 2 December 2009 Back

21   TPA written evidence Back

22   IoD written evidence. The author of this paper also works part-time for the TaxPayers' Alliance. Back

23   Q 2 [Polly Toynbee] Back

24   See paras 33--41 Back

25   Q 2 [Polly Toynbee] Back

26   Q 28 [Tony Travers] Back

27   TPA written evidence Back

28   Q 271 [Bill Cockburn] Back

29   CIPD written evidence Back

30   Stephen Taylor written evidence Back

31   Hamish Davidson written evidence Back

32   The Guardian, 19 March 2009, 'David Cameron: Debt reduction more important than tax cuts' Back

33   BBC News Online,, accessed 9 December 2009 Back

34   Q 104 [Christopher Johnson] Back

35   Christopher Johnson written evidence Back

36   Christopher Johnson written evidence Back

37   Observer, Public sector fat cats' pay should be cut, says Harriet Harman, 15 November 2009 Back

38   House of Commons Library, Members Factsheet M6; This is the full entitlement. Prime Ministers have, from time to time, decided to forgo the full amount to which they are entitled. In 2009 the Prime Minister and Cabinet agreed to forgo an increase to both their ministerial and parliamentary salaries.  Back

39   Public Sector Rich List 2009,, accessed 8 December 2009.  Back

40   See Chart B. Back

41   Q 160 [Peter Boreham] Back

42   Q 267 [Bill Cockburn] Back

43   SSRB written evidence Back

44   Q 160 [Peter Boreham] Back

45   Q 160 [Peter Boreham]; SSRB written evidence; Christopher Johnson written evidence Back

46   Sir John Baker written evidence Back

47   Q 36 [Ben Farrugia] Back

48   TPA written evidence Back

49   Q 168 [Hamish Davidson] Back

50   Q 36 [Ben Farrugia]; Q 161 [Christopher Johnson] Back

51   Q 2 [Polly Toynbee] Back

52   Q 3 [Polly Toynbee] Back

53   Q 31 [Ben Farrugia] Back

54   Hamish Davidson written evidence Back

55   TPA Written evidence Back

56   Q 290 [Mike Langley] Back

57   YouGov/ITV survey, 22-23 October 2009 Back

58   FDA written evidence, paras 3.1-3.5 Back

59   Stephen Taylor written evidence Back

60   Christopher Johnson written evidence Back

61   Q 194 [Millie Banerjee] Back

62   Q 196 [Millie Banerjee] Back

63   Q 198 [Millie Banerjee] Back

64   Q 199 [Tim Melville-Ross] Back

65   Qq 221-2 [Tim Melville-Ross] Back

66   Q 103 [Christopher Johnson] Back

67   Q 103 [Christopher Johnson] Back

68   Civil and Public Service Issues Q 16 [Jonathan Baume] Back

69   Christopher Johnson written evidence Back

70   Q 173 [Dave Evans] Back

71   Q 171 [Peter Boreham] Back

72   Where payments to pensioners are made out of contributions made by existing employers, rather than a fund set aside for the purpose. Back

73   Where payments are made out of a fund built up by employee contributions and invested. Back

74   Ofcom Annual Report 2008-09 Back

75   Hay written evidence Back

76   HM Treasury, 2009, Pre-Budget Report 2009: Securing the recovery: growth and opportunity para. 6.51 Back

77   House of Commons Debates, vol. 502, part 13, col. 369 Back

78   Q 172 [Peter Boreham]; also Q 173 [Christopher Johnson]; Hay and Christopher Johnson memos Back

79   FDA written evidence Back

80   Pre-Budget Report para 6.50 Back

81   Q 35 [Polly Toynbee] Back

82   TPA written evidence Back

83   Stephen Taylor Back

84   SSRB report Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 21 December 2009