Four questions Osborne must answer before introducing regional pay

Why has the Chancellor jumped the gun of an independent review?

Why has the Chancellor jumped the gun of an independent review?

The budget leak about introducing more localised pay-setting for civil servants in a number of government departments is not a great surprise. The Treasury has been toying with regional pay issues since the IFS reported that earnings are 10 per cent higher for men and 15 per cent for women in the public sector in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

What is surprising is that such an announcement should pre-empt the findings of the Independent Pay Review Bodies' review, commissioned by Mr Osborne, which is due in July. If the Chancellor is to jump the gun in this way then he needs to address four big questions.

1) Is there evidence that public sector pay rates have a direct effect on private sector wages and job creation in regional economies?

While few dispute evidence of a pay gap, changing the current system would appear to be based upon the principal assertion that high public sector pay rates in weaker local economies are making it difficult for private sector companies to recruit staff. It is not difficult to find disgruntled employers who are prepared to endorse this line of thinking but policy by anecdote is a dangerous business and there is no substantive evidence that this is the case.

What limited evidence there is on the impact of public-private pay gaps - an LSE report on the impact of pay differentials on hospital performance - highlights pay effects on depressing performance in high wage areas, but this is an altogether different argument.

2) Will the pay gap will close without further government intervention?

In his first budget as Chancellor, George Osborne announced a public sector pay freeze which he has subsequently extended to last over three years. In preliminary analysis carried out by IPPR North, this in itself would appear to be sufficient to close the gap by 2015. If the government needs to embolden its approach then it must provide evidence that additional measures are needed above and beyond the pay freeze already announced.

3) Has the Chancellor screened out a raft of unintended consequences?

Perhaps the greatest concern about reducing public sector pay is the risk of depressing weaker economies still further. The government's argument that public sector jobs were crowding out the private sector is looking increasingly flawed as Northern economies experience a double dip jobs recession and unemployment touches 10 per cent across the North.

In fact, public sector cuts have hit the public and the private economy hard and what is needed is stimulus not further constraint. Furthermore, squeezing pay risks a race to the bottom which ultimately undermines productivity and reduces the competitivity of Northern economies exacerbating the North-South divide.

4) If localising pay is such a good idea, then why are private companies doing the reverse?

In one of the more interesting interventions on this debate, the Incomes Data Services have produced a report looking at the use of regional and local pay by the private sector. They find that the only real regional pay variations that exist are between London and the South East and the rest of the country.

Furthermore, aside from housing costs in the Greater South East, the cost of living across the country is converging. For this reason, most large national and multi-national private sector companies are moving away from complex regional, zonal and local pay structures which breed resentment and reduce productivity, in favour of simpler systems which top-up London pay.

If the Chancellor is serious about stimulating growth in less prosperous places then perhaps he should look to grow investment and productivity outside London rather than precipitate a race to the bottom in places that are poor enough already.

Ed Cox is Director of IPPR North

Ed Cox is Director at IPPR North. He tweets @edcox_ippr.

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.