Public-sector pay review bodies 2012: pay freeze enters second year

The Government confirmed that the second year of the public-sector pay freeze would follow the approach taken for the first stage in 2011, with the review bodies making recommendations on pay only for those earning a full-time-equivalent salary of £21,000 per year or less. For a second year, the review bodies recommended the minimum increase of £250 set out by the Government for lower-paid workers.

For around 2.5 million workers whose pay is determined by the six independent public-sector pay review bodies, 2012 marks the second year of the public-sector pay freeze announced by the coalition Government in the June 2010 Budget. Here, XpertHR looks at the recommendations made by the review bodies for the 2012 pay round and at the issues they raised with respect to their remit groups, which include the armed forces, prison officers and workers in the NHS.

Shortly after coming to power in 2010, the Government announced in the emergency Budget that public-sector workers would see their pay frozen for two years, with the exception of those earning a full-time-equivalent salary of £21,000 per year or less, in which case the Government would seek an increase of at least £250 in each year of the freeze. For all the pay review bodies, the pay freeze started in 2011, so they are entering the final year of the freeze in 2012.

Second year of pay freeze

In June 2011, Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to the chairs of the pay review bodies to set out how they should approach the 2012/13 pay round. He confirmed that the review bodies would, for a second year, be asked to make recommendations on pay only for those earning £21,000 per year or less, as higher-paid staff would have their basic pay frozen. As the School Teachers' Review Body had made a two-year recommendation covering both 2011/12 and 2012/13, it would not be expected to look at this matter again - it recommended a non-consolidated payment of £250, in monthly instalments and pro-rated for part-timers, for unqualified teachers on points 1 to 3 of their pay scale from 1 September each year.

Alexander said that the Government believed that the case for pay restraint across the public sector remained strong: the labour market position suggested that significant recruitment and retention problems in public-sector workforces over the coming year would be unlikely; and pay restraint remained a crucial part of the Government's fiscal consolidation plans and would help protect jobs and support the quality of public services. The letter also stressed that changes to pensions, including increased contributions from 2012, "do not justify upwards pressure on pay".

The letter confirmed the definition of employees earning £21,000 or less, explaining that this should be determined on the basis of basic salary of a full-time-equivalent employee, pro-rated on the basis of hours worked, with part-time workers receiving a pro-rata increase. It said: "The £21,000 is based on the normal interpretation of basic salary and does not include overtime or any regular payments such as London weighting, recruitment or retention premia or other allowances." With regards to the size of increase, the Government would seek an uplift of at least £250 and, when making their recommendations, the review bodies might want to consider:

• the level of progression pay provided to the workforce;
• affordability;
• the potential for payments to be more generous for those on the lowest earnings; and
• how to avoid "leapfrogging" of those staff earning just more than £21,000.

As in 2011/12, while the Government would not submit evidence or request recommendations on pay uplifts for workers paid more than £21,000, it would provide information on recruitment, retention and other matters as appropriate for these workforces to enable the review bodies to fulfil other aspects of their terms of reference. This meant that, although some of the review bodies would not be asked to make pay recommendations because all those in their remit group have earnings above the pay freeze threshold, they would still be producing a report on other matters.

In the autumn statement on 29 November 2011, the Chancellor, George Osborne, made two further announcements that affected the pay review body remit groups. The first was that public-sector pay rises would average 1% for each of the two years following the pay freeze, which for the pay review bodies means it will be 2015 before pay restraint comes to an end. The second was that the Government would ask the review bodies to look at how public-sector pay could be made more responsive to local labour markets, reporting back to the Government by July 2012. The judiciary, the armed forces and doctors and dentists would be excluded from this work.

The review bodies therefore had to consider the effect of these announcements alongside other areas where government policy was having an impact on their remit groups - the effect of the pay freeze, changes to public service pensions, budget cuts and issues affecting particular groups, such as the reform of the NHS in England and cuts to the armed forces.

On 13 March 2012, the reports of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB), the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) covering England and Wales, the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB), the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) and the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) were published on the Office of Manpower Economics website. While the DDRB and the SSRB did not make any pay recommendations because their remit groups earn more than the pay freeze threshold, the AFPRB, the PSPRB and the NHSPRB recommended an increase of £250 on salary points of £21,000 or less. The PSPRB took the same approach for the remit group in Northern Ireland in its separate report, which was published in April 2012.

The pay awards for the review body groups covered in this feature are summarised in table 1.

Review Body on Senior Salaries

For a second year, the SSRB was not asked to make recommendations on pay for any of its remit groups - the senior civil service, senior officers in the armed forces, the judiciary and "very senior managers" (VSMs) in the NHS - because they are covered by the two-year public-sector pay freeze.

The review body outlined the impact of government policy on the pay of its remit groups: for the judiciary and VSMs pay has not increased since the award in April 2009; although the pay ranges for senior civil servants have not changed since 2009, the average pay in the senior civil service has fallen as a result of a decrease in the percentage of paybill used for non-consolidated performance-related payments; while members of the senior military have continued to benefit from incremental progression as well as restructuring of their pay scales.

Three of the remit groups are seeing significant changes as a result of government policy - the number of senior civil servants in the remit group was down by 12.7% on the previous year's total; the senior military are expected to see reductions in numbers as a result of Ministry of Defence (MoD) plans; and the number of VSMs is around half the estimated number last year. Of the VSMs currently in the review body's remit group, only those in Special Health Authorities (SpHAs) are expected to remain from April 2013, as Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts are abolished, and Ambulance Trusts become NHS Foundation Trusts, as a result of the Government's NHS reforms in England. However, there will be VSMs employed in new SpHAs, and the review body's remit group is expected to be extended to include VSMs in new Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies. Surveys of the senior military, senior civil service and VSMs showed a sharp drop in motivation, caused by the pay freeze, changes to pensions and, for VSMs, job insecurity, and the review body's contact with the judiciary suggested that this group had been similarly affected.

The SSRB noted the Government's announcement that pay rises would average 1% for the two years following the pay freeze, alongside other changes that affected its remit groups' pay and pensions. It said that it was growing increasingly concerned that the morale and motivation of its remit groups was being affected by the deterioration in their terms and conditions, both in absolute terms and in relative terms. While this had not yet led to recruitment and retention problems, the SSRB said that there was a risk of this happening if it was perceived that terms and conditions were declining. It urged those responsible for the pay and benefits of its remit groups to prepare, or review, workforce strategies to identify the number of people and the skills and knowledge needed to deliver these public services once the economy returned to more normal growth. Remuneration should then be tailored to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitably able and qualified people are recruited, retained and motivated to carry out the tasks. It also issued this warning: "Government for its part must resist singling out the pay of senior managers in public-sector roles as a means of holding back pay awards elsewhere. Public-sector pay is already compressed... We recognise that there are some compensating benefits in public service, for example job interest ... but there are limits to the extent that those intangible benefits can offset a shortfall in remuneration when compared with opportunities elsewhere."

The pay systems for the senior civil service and VSMs in the NHS are being reviewed, and the review body presented proposals for reform of the judicial pay structure last year, although the Government has not yet responded to most of these.

The review body set out the principles that it believed should govern the pay structures for its groups once the current constraints are lifted:

• reward systems should be designed to support a workforce strategy that in turn aims to support the organisation's strategy or objectives, so the workforce strategy should be defined before the reward system;
• the total reward should be enough to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient numbers of suitably able and qualified people. The Government needs to establish mechanisms to identify problems in these areas that look at quality as well as the numbers involved because if these posts become regarded as inferior occupations the leadership of key parts of the public sector could suffer;
• treatment of the SSRB groups should be fair in comparison with other public-sector groups; and
• reward should be related to performance where appropriate. It said: "Unfortunately the case for performance-related pay has become confused by the furore over bonuses. The redesign of the reward systems for some of our remit groups should provide an opportunity to go back to first principles and use reward to strengthen organisational capability."

Responding to the report, Prime Minister David Cameron said that the Government would carefully consider the principles set out by the SSRB. He said that the recommendations on the judicial salaries structure made by the review body in 2011 were still being considered in the context of the announcement in the autumn statement that pay awards would average 1% in the two years following the freeze: "As such, the Government will respond to the major review recommendations as a whole, rather than individually, when able to do so. It would not be right to implement new judicial pay increases during a period of pay freeze."

Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration

The DDRB covers 202,800 doctors and dentists working in the NHS in the United Kingdom (as at September 2010). Because all the members of its remit group earn above the £21,000 pay-freeze threshold, the review body was not given a remit to make recommendations on pay for the two years of the pay freeze. As a result, the DDRB did not produce a formal report in 2011, but instead wrote to the UK health ministers reporting on recruitment, retention and motivation and other matters. It also produced a separate report for the four UK health departments on clinical excellence awards and distinction awards for consultants - although this was submitted to ministers in July 2011 it has not yet been published. For 2012, the DDRB returned to preparing a report that again looked at recruitment, retention and motivation, as well as considering the dental practice expenses of independent contractors in Scotland as requested in the remit from the Scottish Government.

The Department of Health information to both the DDRB and the NHSPRB emphasised that the Government's first priority was to reduce the structural deficit. It said: "This strategy necessarily involves tight control of public spending, including pay, which represents around 50% of departmental resource budgets in England." It also said that NHS resources were under considerable pressure and the Government was determined that the NHS would deliver productivity savings of up to £20 billion by 2014-15 to reinvest in front-line services. It continued: "However, delivering these savings will be extremely challenging and any unnecessary increase in pay would make this more difficult."

Because it had not been asked to make recommendations on pay, the DDRB said it could only note the affordability information. NHS Employers, which represents employers in England, reported that employers believed that the present pay and conditions arrangements were not affordable. They were concerned about the incremental progression in the pay structures contributing to earnings growth and believed that earnings should be frozen, claiming that restraining paybill costs was essential to protect services and minimise job losses.

The number of staff in the DDRB's remit groups had increased by 1.2% on the previous year. This, together with the available vacancy rates across the UK, suggested that there was no real cause for concern on recruitment and retention grounds - although the review body was worried that the NHS Information Centre had suspended the publication of some vacancy data in England for 2011. It observed that the relative position of total earnings for most of its remit groups against comparator professions had declined slightly since 2010, and said it would continue to monitor pay comparability and its impact on recruitment and retention.

Staff surveys indicated that motivation among the remit group was also not a concern - although these were carried out before the first year of the pay freeze had taken effect and predated the Government's changes to the NHS Pension Scheme and the various NHS reforms. The review body said that it would monitor the impact of these changes on the motivation of its remit groups.

The British Medical Association (BMA) wanted to put on record that it continued to disagree with the Government's instructions to the review body in relation to the pay freeze and believed it was not appropriate for the review body process to be restricted in this way. The BMA, the British Dental Association and NHS Employers all emphasised the significance of the independent review body process to them.

The DDRB said that it expected to return to making recommendations on pay and other allowances for doctors and dentists in its next report, which would also look at:

• new contractual arrangements for junior doctors, on which NHS Employers has submitted a scoping report to ministers;
• how the proposed system of clinical commissioning groups in England would operate in practice and the effect on the income streams of general medical practitioners;
• the effect of the increase in tuition fees on applications to medical school; and
• changes to pension arrangements.

NHS Pay Review Body

The NHSPRB covers around 1,450,000 NHS staff covered by the Agenda for Change (AfC) agreement in the UK (although the data from England and Wales relates to an earlier period than the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland). The review body makes recommendations to the First Ministers and health ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health. The remits from the devolved administrations again followed a similar approach to that of the UK Government, so the NHSPRB was asked to make recommendations on pay only for those earning a full-time-equivalent salary of £21,000 per year or less. The review body estimated that around 37% of the remit group were paid at or below pay-spine point 15 (£20,804 at 2011 level).

In view of this restricted remit, the review body reiterated the importance of the independent process, and its ability to consider the full range of evidence, in maintaining the confidence of AfC staff.

The staff side raised concerns over a range of issues that could affect morale and motivation, including the pay freeze, budget cuts, job security, workload, workforce restructuring, pension changes and NHS reforms in England. Its surveys were beginning to show evidence of falling morale. As the DDRB had done for doctors and dentists, the NHSPRB noted the proposed NHS reforms and the changes to public-sector pensions, and said it would keep these matters under review and assess their effect on the recruitment, retention and motivation of the NHS workforce in the next pay round.

On the first of the four factors the review bodies had been asked to consider by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury - the level of progression pay - the NHSPRB repeated its view that incremental progression is a separate issue to basic pay. It noted that two-thirds of AfC staff earning £21,000 or less had not reached the top of their pay bands and would be entitled to receive a progression increase worth between 1.8% and 3.7%.

NHS Employers said that employers had the same concerns about the affordability of current pay arrangements as they had expressed for doctors and dentists. In the employers' view, the pay freeze would not be sufficient to restrain paybill growth and further cost reductions were required to protect jobs. The DH, and the devolved administrations, emphasised the cost pressures the NHS was facing and the need to make efficiency savings.

The DH evidence reiterated that the aim of NHS pay policy was to ensure that the NHS could recruit, retain and motivate sufficient high calibre staff to deliver government policy and ensure best value for the taxpayer. It said: "The aim is not to keep pace with any particular index of inflation or to protect the relative purchasing power of NHS staff compared to other groups." While the review body said it had sympathy with the staff side argument on the impact of high inflation rates, particularly on the lower paid, this was just one of a range of factors to be considered.

NHS Employers concluded that there were no labour market problems affecting those groups earning below the pay freeze threshold, and no evidence to support a recommendation above the minimum increase of £250. This was a view shared by the DH and the devolved administrations. Supply and demand for non-medical staff was broadly in balance, and staff turnover was low. Although concerns were raised about pressure on NHS staff, there was no evidence presented that this was feeding through to recruitment and retention - although, as the DDRB had found, the absence of vacancy data for England constrained the review body's assessment. With regard to leapfrogging, an increase of £250 would not produce an overlap between pay points, so the review body concluded that no action need be taken this year. However, if the flat-rate increase was applied, the difference between the highest point that would be increased (point 15) and the point above would be reduced to just £122, which would need to be discussed in the next pay round.

Overall, the review body concluded that it had not received evidence to support more generous increases for those on the lowest earnings, and found there was no justification for increases of more than £250. In the light of public-sector pay policies, affordability concerns, no evidence of recruitment and retention problems, and the economic and labour market situation, the review body recommended an uplift of £250 on spine points 1 to 15 from 1 April 2012.

Responding to the review body's report, Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley said that the recommendations of the review body would be accepted, and they were also accepted by the devolved administrations. The resulting pay scales are shown in table 2.

Armed Forces' Pay Review Body

The Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) covers 187,880 members of the armed forces at and below the rank of brigadier and equivalent. Senior officers in the armed forces fall under the remit of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. The 2012 AFPRB recommendations also cover medical and dental officer cadets, the only group earning below the pay freeze threshold among those usually included in a separate report on the 1,536 medical and dental officers in the Defence Medical Services.

The AFPRB said it had been informed that personnel felt the two-year pay freeze had undermined perceptions of the review body's independence and they had stressed their expectation that it would return to making pay recommendations for the whole remit group from 2013. The review body made clear to the Secretary of State for Defence that it believed the remit group would be disappointed by the Chancellor's announcement of continuing pay restraint for a further two years following the pay freeze. It said: "We recognise that the Government's pay policy and MoD's severe affordability constraints will continue to be important factors in the next round. However, we hope our next remit will allow us to exercise our judgment against the full range of issues relevant to setting armed forces' pay."

The MoD is considering major changes to the current employment model for service personnel, with the vision of a "New Employment Model". This will cover pay and conditions of service, including allowances and accommodation, with implementation expected to start in 2014/15. The review body stressed that there needed to be effective communication with service personnel and their families as work on the new model progressed. It expressed its concern about whether the work was realistically resourced, given that the MoD was intending the new model to address a wide range of problems. It felt the pay strand alone would "need to tackle some deep-rooted problems" with the existing system and "establish robust mechanisms" for rewarding skills that are in demand in the open market. Some of the allowances come within the remit of the pay review body.

The review body reported that it had been a difficult year for service personnel. It had identified concerns among its remit group about the impact of the pay freeze, as well as anxiety over the proposed changes to public service pensions and the uncertainty resulting from the Strategic Defence and Security Review. The SDSR projected a reduction of 17,000 in the number of personnel by March 2015, with the first stage of the armed forces' redundancy programme starting in April 2011. In addition, there were continuing operational commitments in Afghanistan and operations in Libya contributing to pressure on service personnel and their families.

However, it found that levels of recruitment and retention were acceptable against a reducing manning requirement and, with continuing pressure on MoD finances, it recommended a pay award of £250 for those earning £21,000 per year or less. Incremental progression will continue for those personnel who qualify. Examples of the resulting pay scales are shown in table 3. As well as the pay award, the review body recommended a reduction in the qualifying interval between levels of longer separation allowance from 240 to 180 days, and harmonisation of new entrants' rates of pay for direct entrant graduate and non-graduate officers from 1 April 2013. Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond accepted the review body's recommendations in full.

Prison Service Pay Review Body

The Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) makes recommendations on the pay of 32,410 operational managers, prison officers and support grades in the public sector prison service in England and Wales. It produces a separate report on the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

As with the other review bodies, the PSPRB was asked for pay recommendations only in respect of those earning a full-time-equivalent salary of £21,000 per year or less. The remit letter from Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, confirmed that the Government would provide information on recruitment and retention for the whole remit group, and would also include proposals for new pay and grading structures to apply to new entrant staff from April 2012. The new structure, which covers all the grades in the review body's remit group, was set out in a document entitled "Fair and Sustainable".

Discussions on the document between the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Prison Officers' Association (POA) were continuing alongside the review body's work, and in January 2012 the document was accepted in a POA ballot. The review body reported that the Prison Governors Association (PGA) had "cautiously accepted" the new structure, while discussions with the PCS union were at an early stage.

The review body was therefore asked to make recommendations on pay increases for those on existing pay scales as well as to give its views of the new pay arrangements set out in "Fair and Sustainable" for new operational support grades (OSGs) and new prison officers.

With regard to the pay award for 2012, the POA proposed an increase on basic pay of £400 for all staff, as well as a 5% increase on allowances. However, the review body said it was clear that the secretary of state had the power to restrict its remit to cover basic pay only for those paid up to £21,000 and it would make recommendations only for these groups. The Prison Governors' Association acknowledged the pay freeze, and, as all its remit group members earn above the pay freeze threshold, it made no proposals on pay. NOMS proposed that the minimum award consistent with government policy, an increase of £250, be applied to scale minima and maxima below £21,000, but that intermediate points should remain unchanged, as should the two lowest points on the closed prison officer scale. NOMS told the review body that increases above this level would affect its ability to introduce the new pay structure in future. It said that the case for pay restraint was compelling and would help limit staff losses as NOMS delivered its savings targets.

One of the arguments NOMS put forward in support of its proposal to freeze intermediate pay points for OSG staff was that staff on these points would receive an increase of at least £250 as a result of progression. It also believed this approach would encourage some OSGs to move to the new pay bands set out in "Fair and Sustainable". The review body noted that in 2011 NOMS proposed that all the OSG scale points should be increased, and it saw little to suggest that the evidence relating to this group had changed sufficiently to justify this different treatment.

The review body felt the same should apply to the prison officer 2 (PO2) scale, which had been intended to be an interim scale prior to the introduction of a new pay band as set out in "Fair and Sustainable", and the closed prison officer scale.

The review body recognised that the reforms to public-service pensions would mean higher pension contributions for many members of its remit group, but said it believed that "increases in pension contributions will become the norm in the public sector". It also believed that the recruitment and retention evidence, the weakness of the economy and the labour market, and the financial constraints facing NOMS all pointed towards a low award. It therefore recommended an increase of £250 on all pay points of £21,000 or less. Examples of the resulting pay ranges are shown in table 4.

New working structures for the prison service

In its 2011 report, the review body had said that NOMS and the POA should work together on pay arrangements for new OSGs and the pay structure for PO2s. It welcomed the collaboration that had led to the development of the "Fair and Sustainable" proposals and hoped that similar discussions would follow with other staff representative bodies.

The "Fair and Sustainable" document published in November 2011 sets out a standard structure for all public-sector prisons. Current grades are mapped to 11 new bands, with roles mapped into the bands on the basis of a job evaluation scheme score. Pay progression will be subject to receiving an "achieved" or better marking, with progression through incremental pay points for bands 2 to 5 and a percentage progression award in open pay ranges (bands 6 to 11). The new structure also moves to a system of three area-based pay structures rather than separate locality pay, with inner London, outer London and national pay ranges.

The review body examined the proposals for the pay bands for prison officers (band 3) and OSGs (band 2) joining the service from 1 April 2012. Existing prison officers and OSGs will be able to move to the new pay bands if they choose to do so.

For prison officers, NOMS put forward a five-point national band, made up of the three highest points of the interim PO2 scale, increased by £250, and two higher points. Although the POA said in its evidence that it endorsed the structure of the pay band for prison officers, it proposed that the interim scale points (at their 2011 values) should be increased by £400 in line with its evidence for the other grades.

The proposed starting salary for the national pay range for prison officers is £16,000, compared with the 2011 starting salary for PO2s of £14,940, for a 37-hour week. If officers work unsocial hours and choose to work a 39-hour week (as officers on the closed prison officer scale do) the maximum salary is £23,499. This compares with the maximum on the closed scale of £28,930.

The review body said that the current recruitment position meant there was no need for the three lowest points on the new officer scale to be set higher than £250 above the 2011 interim points. Although the proposed maximum was 18.8% lower than that for officers on the closed scale, the review body said that this would place the prison service in a good position to compete against its private-sector counterparts. It therefore recommended that the national band 3 pay range be introduced for prison officers with effect from 1 April 2012.

The review body also endorsed the four-point band proposed for OSGs. The review body calculated that the proposed minimum of £13,740 for a 37-hour week, or £16,076 for those qualifying for the unsocial hours payment, was an increase of 7.1% on the 2011 starting salary on the existing scale, allowing for hours worked, and the proposed maximum was similarly in line with the existing scale maximum if it was uprated by £250.

The current system of locality pay is a flat-rate payment worth between £250 and £4,250 per year, and covers establishments that would not be included in the inner or outer London rates under the proposed area pay ranges. The POA expressed concerns over the effect this would have on recruitment and retention at these locations, while the PCS pointed out that the new system would mean nobody working outside the M25 would qualify for a location-based payment.

While it endorsed the proposed inner and outer London pay ranges for bands 2 and 3, the review body said that it would expect to hear evidence on the effectiveness of the arrangement as it beds in and before it is applied to other grades. This issue would also be considered as part of its remit to report on market-facing pay. The pay ranges are shown in table 4.

The review body calculated that, if its recommendations were accepted, the earnings of staff in post (if they stayed on their existing terms and conditions) would increase by £2.1 million in 2012/13, on top of an increase of £12.2 million from incremental progression. Responding to the report, Crispin Blunt confirmed that the Government accepted the recommendations, which would be implemented in full from 1 April 2012.

Northern Ireland Prison Service

The PSPRB receives a separate remit from the minister for justice in Northern Ireland to make recommendations for staff in the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), where its remit group consists of 1,753 governor grades, officer grades and support and other grades (full-time equivalents). As for prison officers in England and Wales, the review body was asked to make pay recommendations only in respect of those earning £21,000 per year or less, in line with the Northern Ireland Executive's pay policy. It was also asked to consider as a matter of urgency the allowance for staff working in accommodation housing prisoners engaged in a "dirty protest". The review body made a recommendation to increase the allowance, from £5 to £8 per day for periods of less than four hours, and from £10 to £16 for longer periods. This was accepted and implemented from 3 November 2011. Its main report was published on 12 April 2012.

With regard to basic pay, NIPS proposed an award of £250 for those paid a full-time-equivalent salary of £21,000 per year or less. The review body did not receive a proposal from the POA, which advised the PSPRB that as its proposal for a 4% increase in 2011 had not been endorsed and it did not see the situation being any different for 2012, it did not see the point in doing so. In oral evidence the POA stated a preference for an award that kept pace with inflation. On balance, the review body did not believe that there was evidence for an award higher than proposed by the NIPS, and recommended an award of £250 for night custody officers, operational support grades and healthcare assistants from 1 April 2012, with an equivalent increase in the hourly rate for prisoner custody officers and senior prison custody officers. The recommendations have been accepted.

Review of police pay

The second part of the Winsor review into the pay and conditions of police officers and staff in England and Wales had originally been scheduled for publication in June 2011, but was finally published in March 2012. Among the 121 recommendations in the report, which deals with long-term reform of the police service, is replacing the Police Negotiating Board with a new pay review body for officers. The Home Secretary is referring the recommendations of the second part of the review to the "appropriate bodies" to consider.

The first part of the review set out short-term changes to pay for police officers and staff, and included freezing pay progression for two years. The PNB was unable to reach agreement on the recommendations regarding police officers, and the matter was referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal. Its findings were accepted in full by the Home Secretary.

Members of Parliament

Responsibility for determining the pay of Members of Parliament was handed to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in May 2011 under provisions in The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. In February 2012, IPSA announced that the pay freeze for MPs would continue for a second year from 1 April 2012, and in due course it would consult on increasing pay by 1% in each of the following two years in line with Government policy. The salary of an MP therefore remains at £65,738. IPSA is carrying out a review of MPs' pay and pensions which is expected to be completed by the end of 2013. In the interim, MPs will retain their final-salary scheme and IPSA has announced that MPs' pension contribution rates will increase by 1.85% of salary with effect from 1 April 2012.