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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…