Philip Webster, Political Editor and Siobahn Kennedy
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
Gordon Brown sparked an immediate backlash yesterday after freezing ministers’ pay and seeking to limit rises in MPs’ salaries.
The Prime Minister was aiming to set an example of restraint to the public sector. However, the move to withhold the 1.5 per cent rise due to ministers this year, and to attempt to hold back MPs’ pay, is likely to provoke a backbench rebellion.
A senior minister described Mr Brown’s surprise move on ministerial pay as “gesture politics of the worst kind”. Mr Brown was inviting ministers to wear a hair shirt as a stunt, the minister said.
The idea that it would make other public-sector workers limit their pay rises was “cloud cuckoo land”. “Nobody asked us, nobody consulted us,” the minister added.
Mr Brown announced the freeze at yesterday’s Cabinet meeting. He said that ministers would not accept a pay rise “given the importance of public-sector pay restraint at a time of economic uncertainty”. Ministers will still receive the general MPs’ pay rise.
David Cameron and a few senior Conservatives who receive ministerial salaries are also to forgo the rise to which they are entitled this year.
The Government also rejected proposals from an independent review for MPs to be given three £650 catch-up pay rises on top of their annual increases, and proposed that the public sector link that will determine their salaries should be less generous than the one proposed by the report.
MPs will be given an opportunity in a Commons debate next month to override the Government’s wishes and opt for the recommendations in the report from Sir John Baker.
The Government’s preferred option would give MPs a rise of about 2.5 per cent, while the proposal from Sir John would mean a rise of 3.5 per cent.
Sir John also revealed in his report that three senior MPs had called, in evidence to him, for the current salary of £61,820 to go up to £75,000 after the next general election.
An influential backbencher predicted that many MPs would defy the Government. “We are getting it in the neck from the public anyway. We might as well take the money and run,” he said.
The Government did back Sir John’s proposal that MPs should no longer vote on their own pay rises. It also proposes that MPs’ pay increases should be linked to the median average of rises paid to a wide range of public-sector workers. Mr Brown also accepted recommendations from the Senior Salaries Review Body for pay rises next year of 1.5 per cent for senior civil servants, 2.2 per cent for senior military officers and very senior NHS managers, and just over 2.5 per cent for judges.
Ministers’ pay should go up in line with that of senior civil servants, who will receive a 7 per cent increase over the next three years.
Theresa May, the Shadow Leader of the Commons, described the move by ministers to give up their pay increases as a gesture. She said that it was also a “distraction” from the central issue of the day, which was “the rising cost of living for families across the country”.
The Government’s decision to award in two stages the 2.5 per cent pay rise recommended for public -sector workers — meaning that they were effectively getting 1.9 per cent — prompted anger from the unions.
A spokeswoman for Unison said: “It is all very well ministers giving up their pay increase, but this is small comfort to millions of public-sector workers who are faced with an effective three-year pay cut.”
The union is balloting its local government members on possible strike action over a pay offer of 2.45 per cent.

Sam Coates's blog about Westminster, politics and spin
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Like any endangered species, MP's are desperate to get whatever they can get to try to ensure their own survival after they are cast into the political wilderness when the electorate is actualy consulted and asked about them at the next General election..,if one is allowed under the Lisbon Treaty
DAVID ALEAXNDER PATTERSON, KEADBY, ENGLAND
Regardless of their opinion of them MP's should get a fair a fair salary, What they should not get are the alowances or other benfits like pensions that the public cannot claim. Try claiming the cost of a new kitchen from the Inland Revenue!
Clive Vaughan, Forest Row, England
"Nobody asked us, Nobody consulted us". Diddums, a small taste of their own medicine.
When do these parasites ever consult or listen to the electorate when they regularly vote with the whip against the wishes of the majority on issues outside the promises and scope of their so-called mandate?
Jim Hendry, slatina, romania
£61,820 for an MP is pathetic when you consider that a tube driver earns about £40,000 for working only 42 hours a week in what must be one of the least mentally and physically demanding jobs around.
Josh, London,
Grunt grunt, snort,snort, the pigs are looking for more food!
Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire
As a Teaching Assistant who runs around like a headless chicken all day and regularly does work with responsibility attached to it and entirely outside my remit, I have this year had an £8 a month tax increase on a wage of just £10,500 a year. Please tell me how these pocket liners deserve this?
judy, Liverpool, England
Let me get this straight. MPs might revolt over pay freeze because they deserve every penny. Any potential losses will no doubt be claimed back via the backdoor in expense claims, like housing allowance, food, etc. Dare they revolt?
d, london,
For Aristotle, public service was a choice against wealth. Those who represented the people should be of the people, sacrificing money making for political power. For democracy to flourish the rich had to be denied political power.
Since 1980, MPs income has massively increased.
This must end now!
Harlan Leyside, Basildon, England
Thought it worth pointing out that the Scottish parliament have voted to abolish their allowance for second homes.
When will this be mirrored at Westminster? Currently they each claim over £22,000 per annum and cost the taxpayer circa £14,000,000 per annum.
Douglas, kirkintilloch,