Ms Hopkins criticised a former Justice Secretary for claiming severance payments totalling almost £33,000 in the face of a cost-of-living crisis. She highlighted that this individual received three months' pay after only seven weeks as Justice Secretary.

Ms Firth responded by noting that when the Conservative Party came to power in 2010, they froze ministerial salaries and would maintain this policy if re-elected.

Mr Mayhew sought clarification from Ms Hopkins but did not provide a detailed position in the provided text.

Mr Russell-Moyle suggested that individuals leaving government roles under questionable circumstances should not receive lifelong payments and questioned whether it is appropriate for such people to benefit from lifelong pay cheques.

Mr Williams supported Ms Hopkins, arguing that a lax culture has developed over the years which benefits few but taints everyone. He inquired about adopting a Labour-supported private Member’s Bill proposed by his colleague to criminalise lying for public office.

Mr Pritchard sought to interject but did not provide detailed arguments or contributions in the provided text.

Ms West agreed with Ms Hopkins, suggesting that similar situations faced by constituents would likely have different outcomes compared to those experienced by Ministers receiving severance packages.

Mr Fuller argued against the Labour stance, stating that it is unreasonable for MPs and Ministers earning £80,000 annually to receive additional payments upon losing their job, especially when individuals struggling financially would face different outcomes.

Ms McVey argues that the proposed legislation is not an emergency issue and criticises Labour's approach, highlighting past mismanagement under their previous governments. She emphasises that severance pay recognises the unpredictable nature of ministerial office and supports current measures to recover incorrect payments.

Ms Thornberry argues for reforming ministerial severance pay, criticising the Government's handling of the issue and highlighting the need for transparency. She emphasises that this is an important matter requiring urgent action.

Mr Esterson questions the Minister about her personal experience with severance pay, the discretion of individuals in accepting payments, and calls for a review before the next general election.

Ms Blackman criticises the UK Government for the high severance pay given to Ministers and contrasts it with Scottish Government's voluntary pay freeze. She highlights discrepancies such as a former Chancellor receiving £296,081 in severance pay versus an asylum seeker receiving just £47.96 over 38 days. She also mentions the frequent reshuffles leading to excessive use of public funds for severance payments and criticises the lack of value for money. Ms Blackman argues that Westminster's system is designed to enrich participants rather than serve the people, advocating for independence as a solution to institutional failures.

The Labour Government had the opportunity to amend the legislation during their 13-year tenure but chose not to do so. Moreover, when Labour left office in 2010, outgoing ministers still accepted severance payments despite leaving a financial mess behind. In contrast, the Conservative Party froze ministerial salaries upon entering office and has kept them frozen since then. This highlights the hypocrisy of the Labour party in criticising these payments now.

Labour brought in similar legislation for Scotland through the Scotland Act 1998, which repeats the approach for severance pay. It is therefore hypocritical of Labour to claim outrage now when they enacted such policies themselves.

The Scottish National Party highlighted issues with ministerial severance payments in Scotland, questioning the SNP's stance on these matters given their own controversial practices.

Esterson emphasises that the excessive severance payments are a result of outdated rules and argues for reform to ensure fairness. He notes that under proposed Labour legislation, the amount received by assistant Whips would be significantly reduced from £4,479 to £454, reflecting their actual earnings during their brief service. Esterson also challenges beneficiaries like Damien Moore and Katherine Fletcher on the justification of automatic entitlements and highlights the discrepancy in comparison to standard employment practices.

Mr. Ellis disclosed he received severance pay in the past and defended it, arguing that ministers should be entitled to such payments as they serve without contracts or notice periods and can be removed without cause. He criticised ad hominem attacks on MPs who accepted severance payments and emphasised the unique nature of ministerial roles within government. Mr. Ellis also pointed out inconsistencies in Labour's argument regarding ministerial salaries, noting that Labour ministers under previous governments received more generous payments than those under the current Conservative government.

Mr. Brennan agreed with Mr. Ellis on the principle of severance pay for Ministers but questioned whether it is appropriate for a Deputy Leader of the House who served for 81 days to receive three months' worth of severance pay.

Mr. Madders suggested that if Mr. Ellis finds working conditions as a Minister so poor, he should consider joining a trade union.

The debate criticises the amount of severance payments given to Ministers in 2022-23, highlighting the disparity with grassroots organisations' funding. Catherine West emphasised that while £900,000 was raised over five years by Haringey Giving for local community support, a single Cabinet Minister's severance payment was equivalent to their annual fundraising total. She pointed out the struggle of constituents facing food and housing crises during this period, while Ministers were securing personal benefits.

The debate is not about creating one-paragraph legislation for soundbites but about serious review. The current motion only addresses those under age 65, missing other important aspects. Labour's drafting lacks depth and appears opportunistic rather than constructive. There are elements worth reviewing, such as the prime ministerial pension and the contradiction between rising retirement ages and severance payments at age 65. Ministerial pay should reflect value for money, with Conservative Governments freezing salaries since 2010 compared to higher payments under Labour. The question arises whether Labour will commit to continuing this freeze.

The debate is an opportunity to address the public's concerns about ministerial redundancies and severance pay during a cost of living crisis. The speaker highlights that while some former ministers returned their redundancy payments, many constituents are struggling financially and see these payouts as unfair. She advocates for a review of the 1991 legislation governing ministerial severance pay to ensure it aligns with current economic conditions. Proposals include preventing MPs who break the ministerial code from claiming severance pay, setting a reasonable service period before payouts can be claimed, and barring claims if reappointed within a year. This would allow MPs to demonstrate they are not in politics for personal gain.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West highlights the case of a former MP who received a redundancy payment despite being over 65, raising questions about transparency and accountability in ministerial severance payments.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet agrees that the amount Ministers receive as a severance payment is out of touch with most people's financial situations, suggesting that these payments should be reformed to reflect the realities faced by ordinary workers.

Criticises the proposed reform relating to severance payments for outgoing Ministers, arguing that it is a betrayal of public trust and an abuse of rules set in 1991. Proposes changes to calculate severance based on actual time served rather than full year's salary. Also calls for reforming the public duty costs allowance paid to former Prime Ministers, citing lack of scrutiny and inappropriate use.

This Labour motion would stop that and reduce the amount of severance pay for serial Cabinet returnees. The amount should not be three months’ pay regardless of time served... To ensure the public get good value for money from their Government Ministers, Labour is making sensible and reasonable proposals today, which should be supported by all Members of the House.

Andrew Slaughter criticises the Government for being defensive and dismissive of the debate's motion, which aims to address abuses in ministerial severance payments. He notes that the motion is not punitive but seeks to correct specific anomalies such as mistaken payments, clear misconduct, excessive pay, and double severance benefits when Ministers are reappointed within three months of resignation or dismissal. Slaughter provides an example from his constituency regarding Greg Hands's case where he received a higher severance payment due to being reappointed shortly after receiving the initial payment, suggesting this is unjust enrichment. He calls for restitution in such cases.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and other Opposition Members have laid out very clearly why we need reform and why rules that never envisioned the churn and chaos that we have seen over the past 18 months need to be tightened up. We have heard from numerous Opposition Members and one or two Government Members as well. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), emphasised just how out of touch this Government are, reminding us of the stark choices that many of our constituents have to make between heating and eating. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) described the case of the three assistant Whips getting two and a half times more in severance pay than they did in salary, taking away some £4,479 each, whereas under our reforms they would only be entitled to £454. He also made the point very clearly that under the leadership of a Labour Government we had 2% growth, whereas, sadly, under this Government we have seen only 1%, which has a huge knock-on effect for all our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) also made reference to the hardship faced by her constituents, who are being hammered by record peacetime tax burdens, and called for some contrition from Tory Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) pointed out the anomaly that, under the current system, for just one day in the post of Secretary of State, an MP can receive some £16,000 in severance pay. That is why reform is really needed. He contrasted that with his expert knowledge of what ordinary people can expect in terms of statutory redundancy pay, and the horrible shadow of zero-hours contracts, where people often worry whether they will have enough hours to make ends meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) pointed out that MPs such as Joe Ashton were even questioning back in 1991 whether a full 13 weeks’ severance should be payable for just two years. He would certainly be astounded about MPs taking ministerial severance pay after just a few weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) pointed out how nothing got done in the summer of 2022 about matters of immense importance to her constituents, such as cladding. As she reminded us, Labour has full plans, if in government, for a proper ethics and integrity commission to clean up politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made a strong case for reform, illustrating it with the case of the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) reminded us that there is genuinely a valid case for proper reform of ministerial severance pay, especially with the rapid turnover in ministerial posts, as constituents are paying for the way in which the Tories have trashed the economy. It might surprise the hon. Lady, but I am going to stick to the topic of this debate, which is severance pay.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who I understand gave back some ministerial severance pay upon taking up new ministerial posts, but it is a great pity that no other Members recognised how totally inappropriate it was to take 13 weeks’ severance pay for a post that they had held for a much shorter time than that, or to keep the full 13 weeks’ pay when they were reappointed in a shorter time than that. Today, they have the opportunity to vote to reform the system that their party has brought into disrepute. Those in government have a duty to get value for money and to respect the hard-earned taxpayers’ money with which they are entrusted. Let us not forget the financial turmoil caused by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), when she and her team pushed through the Budget in September 2022, ignoring expert advice and leaving people with hundreds of extra pounds to pay on their mortgages—and not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. From this Conservative Government, we have had not just higher mortgages but higher rents, rampant inflation, a real cost of living crisis causing people up and down the country to struggle to make ends meet, and, of course, hollowed-out public services that are scarcely able to meet demand.

If Labour’s proposed reforms had been in place in 2022, that would have saved the taxpayer some 40% of those payouts, or some £377,000. During the Tory turmoil of the past couple of years, some Ministers have received more in severance pay than in actual pay. For example, Ministers who only served for a matter of weeks—perhaps only eight or nine weeks—have been entitled to walk away with 13 weeks’ severance pay. That is clearly totally absurd and unacceptable. Labour is proposing a pro rata system, whereby those Ministers who serve for less than a full year should only receive in severance pay a quarter of what they have actually earned. In other words, if a Minister had been in post for eight months, they would be entitled to two months’ severance pay; if they had been in post for eight weeks, they would be entitled to two weeks’ severance pay.

We propose to strengthen the rules concerning Ministers who are reappointed. Under the existing rules, ministerial severance pay is only withheld if the departing Minister takes up another post within three weeks of quitting, which covers a normal reshuffle situation. However, with the revolving door we have seen, some Ministers have returned after more than three weeks but less than 13 weeks and yet kept their full severance pay, which is in accordance with the current rules. That is another loophole that our proposals seek to close: individuals who return to the Front Bench while still benefiting from severance pay would have that pay clawed back.

We propose that individuals who leave their jobs while under investigation for gross misconduct or breaches of the ministerial code would not receive any severance pay unless and until they were cleared of those allegations by the relevant authority. We would therefore not be in the situation where the disgraced former Member for Tamworth, who should never have been appointed in the first place, has been able to walk away with full ministerial severance pay.

I appeal to Conservative Members to do the decent thing and support Labour’s reforms, and to support bringing forward the necessary legislation in the next fortnight, as set out in our motion on the Order Paper. If they do not support our reforms, we will have to conclude that they are more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting taxpayers’ money.