Senior government lawyers have been offered an average 16% pay rise over the next two years – well ahead of the civil service norm of 2-3% – after new warnings of a staff exodus. Almost a third of government lawyers had been thinking of leaving their jobs within a year, leaked figures from the Civil Service People Survey 2022 results survey revealed in December.
Only 9% in the Government Legal Department had said they were happy with their pay and benefits.
It has now been revealed by GLD permanent secretary Susanna McGibbon that ‘an enhanced pay offer’ had obtained ministerial agreement.
However, in an internal memo seen by Civil Service World magazine, McGibbon apologised that the offer ‘falls short’ of the business case GLD had submitted to the Treasury and Cabinet Office.
The proposal covers the next two years and, if accepted by unions, would see pay increase by 8% in each year for Grade 6 and 7 lawyers across the department, in addition to a recent 3% increase paid from August 2022.
Grade 7 government lawyers start at £52,015 while Grade 6 senior lawyers have a London starting salary of £61,200.
McGibbon added: ‘There are conditions attached to the offer and changes will be made to how pay is determined through the introduction of a new capability-based pay arrangement.’
The department was working on implementing the pay offer, which she said would be ’complex’.
The FDA union, which represents senior civil servants, said it ‘recognises the benefits the proposals could bring to many staff’ but it is ‘extremely disappointed’ that over a third of the workforce has been excluded from the offer.
In a message to members the union added: ‘FDA has consistently campaigned for a pay business case to address pay issues for all staff in GLD, and the fact this business case excludes junior legal staff and staff in non-lawyer roles is a slap in the face for them and all of their hard work.
‘We have made it clear to GLD that we are unhappy with this outcome and we want to be clear to members that FDA has not had any input into this decision to exclude non-lawyer staff from the business case and we do not support it.’
