Mahmood: Striking a balance
The Lord Chancellor yesterday rejected the recommended pay rise for judges – but they will still receive more than the government told the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) it could afford.
The SSRB called for a 4.75% pay rise across the judiciary – higher than the recommended increases for other senior civil servants – but Shabana Mahmood said she would instead award 4%.
The SSRB report recorded that both HM Treasury and the Ministry of Justice had given evidence that the increase should not exceed 2.8%, or it would affect budgets for delivery of services.
In a written statement in Parliament, Ms Mahmood said 4%, backdated to April 2025, “strikes a balance between addressing SSRB’s advice and managing the overall affordability to my department”.
She continued: “The SSRB highlighted their concern over the persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary when making this recommendation. I share these concerns. That is why I commissioned the SSRB to undertake the major review of the judicial salary structure.
“The terms of reference for this review were published on 13 May, and include looking in depth at the specific recruitment and retention issues affecting the judiciary.”
Ms Mahmood described the review as “the right place to address these areas through targeted reform, and presents better value than the flat-rate pay uplift of the annual pay review”.
The judiciary received pay awards of 7% and 6% in the previous two pay rounds, which met the SSRB’s recommendations in full. Judicial salaries for the 2024/25 financial year are estimated at £778m.
The SSRB report noted that the justice system was “under an increasing amount of pressure” and may be placed under further strain due to the new legislative programme, including measures on employment rights, renters’ rights, and mental health reforms. These could hit tribunals in particular.
There has also been “a marked rise in the workload of salaried judges, and increasing security concerns, including those resulting from heightened social media pressures”. Much of the court and tribunal estate “is in poor condition” too.
The “persistent issues” in filling judicial vacancies was a matter of “serious concern”, with the recruitment trends continuing to worsen for the district and circuit benches in England and Wales in particular.
Only 51 of the 100 vacancies were filled in this year’s campaign for district judges, and continued the “sustained declines” over the past decade in the proportion of district and circuit judges recommended for appointment rated as ‘outstanding’ or ‘strong’.
The SSRB said: “These ‘quality’ ratings do not reflect performance in post and there are no concerns about fundamental competence. Nonetheless, as the reputation of the UK legal system requires a very high-quality judiciary, the sustained decline in these ratings is a source of concern.”
It was also concerned by evidence of poor morale in the most recent judicial attitude survey.
The review concluded: “While pay is not the only factor affecting recruitment, it is a significant one. The judiciary has a considerable number of unfilled posts. We are recommending a 4.75% pay award for the judiciary. We hope this will have a positive effect on the recruitment situation.”
Leave a Comment