By Vivienne Russell | 19 June 2012
Downing Street has indicated that it is cooling on plans to introduce regional pay in the public sector.
A Number 10 spokeswoman said yesterday the government would introduce regional pay only if there was ‘strong evidence’ and a ‘rational case’ to support it. Her comments echo remarks made by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander last week. He told the GMB union conference that there would be no change to public sector pay arrangements without a convincing case.
There has been sustained criticism of the plans from unions and the devolved administrations since Chancellor George Osborne announced them in the Budget in March. He said then the UK government would explore a shift away from national pay rates to make public sector pay more responsive to local markets. He asked the independent pay review bodies to examine the issue and they are expected to report next month.
More recently, several backbench Tory MPs, representing marginal seats in ‘low pay’ areas, have voiced their opposition. Guy Opperman, Conservative MP for Hexham in the Northeast, said the move would be ‘wrong and divisive’, while Cumbrian MP Rory Stewart suggested they would provoke bitterness and resentment between regions.
Liberal Democrats have gone further, with several backbench MPs signing an Early Day Motion stating that the policy would harm local economies. It calls on the government to suspend the plans until a ‘full and independent’ assessment of its economic impact has been conducted.
Public sector union Unison yesterday warned MPs that backing regional pay could cost them their seats. The union is targeting MPs in England and Wales whose majorities are vulnerable to a revolt by public sector workers.
General secretary Dave Prentis said: ‘In almost 100 constituencies the backlash from public sector workers could wipe out [the MPs’] majority, their seat in the House and sweep the Tories and LibDems from power.
‘The arguments against regional pay are compelling. The sheer time, cost and burgeoning bureaucracy should be enough to persuade government that it is a bad idea. However, it would also lead to shortages of key staff in areas where pay was lower as well as increasing staff turnover.’
