Skip to main content

Move to Scrap Cabinet "Generous Golden Goodbyes"

A cross-party move to scrap the deal whereby Cabinet Ministers can get 1/4 of their salary tax free every time they resign has been launched with the tabling of a motion in the House of Commons by John Hemming MP.

"The Government", he said, "is planning to cut redundancy payments made to people over 41 next year. In the mean time they have a scheme whereby a cabinet minister gets £18,000 tax free for resigning. This arises from an act of parliament passed in 1991. The end result for David Blunkett is that he got more cash for resigning than he would have got had he stayed in post."

"This situation is indefensible. Payments for loss of office should take into account how long the office has been held. If people are popping in and out of the revolving door that leads to the cabinet office then they should not get a generous golden goodbye every time they 'pass go'.

Mr Hemming has tabled an Early Day Motion with the support of Lib Dem and Conservative MPs that calls for this practise to end.

ENDS



EDM 1047 REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

Hemming, John
That this House notes that the Government is considering cutting statutory redundancy payments to people aged over 41 years as a result of an EU directive; believes that it is more urgent that the Government reviews the redundancy payments due to Cabinet Ministers who could be entitled to a tax-free generous golden goodbye every three weeks; and calls on the Government to act to change the law so that the practice whereby it is possible for Cabinet Ministers to make more money by continually resigning than staying in post ceases, and equity between people within the Cabinet and in the country as a whole is introduced.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
That old Hemming-Tory pact... you just can't keep away from them can you?
john said…
Actually it is the offices on the top floor of Star Chamber Court in fact.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…