The decision to remove the 1% limit on pay for two areas of the public sector but to insist that the increase is paid for out of existing budgets has some very clear implications. The public services concerned, Police and Prison services risk being compromised in other areas in order to fully reward the staff who are working hard to achieve outcomes to meet our needs. One clear way of achieving increases in pay without increasing budgets in organisations where the majority of the budget is used to pay wages is to cut the number of staff. Bearing in mind that both the Police and Prison Service have been hemorrhaging workers for several years this seems to be a poor way forward. It is also a bit inconsistent with Parliaments own decision making. They had delegated their pay reviews to an arms length body (IPSA) who approved a substantial rise several years ago. The increase came from the public purse and there has been no reduction in the operating costs of Parliament nor of the number of MPs. Since 2010 the pay of MPs has risen on average by 2% each year. If the same logic had been applied to the House of Commons there would be 47 fewer MPs today than in 2010. Perhaps if Parliament could take this approach, they would be setting a suitable example for the rest of the public sector. If this reduction in MPs all took place on the Government benches they would no longer be in power which would be good news for many people.