Public sector pay: Chief Executive framework review

Stakeholder Feedback

60. Through the survey and roundtable discussion both CEs and Chairs provided specific feedback on elements of restraint, but also provided some general feedback on the policy aims, and the methods of achieving these aims.

61. Stakeholders had a recognition of the need for continued public sector pay restraint, and they noted that until recently this was built into the pay policy. There was fairly broad agreement that progressive principle requires senior pay to be more restrained than the lower paid. Significant concern was raised that CE pay has been singled out instead of senior pay as a whole, and it was noted that this was despite the impact of CE pay on wider public sector pay bill being very small.

62. Stakeholders discussed their concern that pay restraint levers that were introduced as one off or short-term interventions to address specific pay issues have a very different and unintended impact if retained and repeated over a significant period. They noted the issue of restraint seemed to reflect a previous era where there were bonuses were in place and increases were beyond what was justifiable, but that some moderate progression now seems reasonable.

63. Respondents noted the varied pension landscape for CEs, that CEs are not unionised, and there is a sense that they have no opportunity to negotiate their pay. Stakeholders were concerned that the combination of many pay restraint levers suggests that the contribution CEOs make to the delivery of public outcomes is not valued.

64. Ultimately CEs highlighted that while pay is not usually the final defining reason for taking on a CEO post, and they broadly agree with a progressive pay principle, this should not be at the expense of parity and fairness. This is both within the sector and also in terms of responsibilities they have when compared to what others do at the same level across all sectors.