Review Body On Senior Salaries Thirty Sixth Annual Report On Senior Salaries 2014

Dated March 2014. A TSO version of a title previously published by HM Government

This is the thirty-fourth report on senior salaries with the remit of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Health on the remuneration of holders of judicial office; senior civil servants; senior officers of the armed forces; very senior managers in the NHS; and other such public appointments. However it covers the second year of the Government's pay freeze for public sector workers paid over £21,000 a year. Therefore, no recommendations for the relevant remit groups could be made. The Review Body report concentrates accordingly on any evidence about recruitment, retention or motiviation, and sets out its views on changes it would like to see in the pay and performance management systems for the remit groups, systems which are nearly all currently under review.

This is the 33rd report on senior salaries from the Review Body on Senior Salaries. Following the Coalition Government's announcement to tackle the budget deficit, a two-year pay freeze for all public sector workers paid more than £21,000 was put in place. This Review therefore makes no general recommendations for pay increases for the remit groups normally covered by this review, which include senior civil service, military officers and certain senior managers in the NHS. The Review Body though was already engaged in a major review of the judicial pay structure, although implementation of these recommendations for the judiciary may be affected by the overall pay freeze. The Review has set out 10 recommendations, including: that for senior officers in the armed forces the Ministry of Defence should review the performance management and pay system to define the objectives of performance-related pay and whether the existing system can be improved. The other recommendations look at the judiciary. The publication is divided into five chapters, with nine appendices

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.

Dated July 2017 Web ISBN=9781474148467. Print and web pdfs available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications