It has been an absolutely fascinating debate, and I am grateful to Emily Thornberry for proposing this motion, because it has given us an opportunity to explore what responsible government really is. I will tell the House what it is not: it is not about creating one-paragraph legislation to get a soundbite on this evening’s news. One need only listen to the debate that we have had to see how the current drafting of the motion is totally inappropriate. It makes only one recommendation. It states that retiring Ministers should
“receive an amount equal to one-quarter of their earnings over the previous 12 months as a Minister, minus any period covered by a previous severance entitlement, where that is lower than an amount equal to one-quarter of the annual salary paid to that Minister before their departure”, but that applies only to those under the age of 65. However, in this relatively empty Chamber we have heard several suggestions as to why that is inappropriate—whether it does not go far enough or it is missing important additions.
This is a serious issue and an area that could do with review. My right hon. Friend Esther McVey suggested from the Front Bench that the Government are open to reviewing it, but this is absolutely not the right way to do it, as this debate has demonstrated, and we need only look at the contribution from Lloyd Russell-Moyle. He fairly raised the issue of the prime ministerial pension or severance payment, which continues beyond the moment of retirement. It is not just a one-off payment, but continues for the rest of his or her life, as I understand it. That is a perfectly proper area for review, although it is not mentioned in this motion.
Bill Esterson made the very good point—I intervened on him at the time—that the entitlement comes from day one. Is that reasonable? My hon. Friend James Sunderland recognised that there is a contradiction. Those under the age of 65 are entitled to these severance payments, but times have moved on; we work much later, and the retirement age is rising to 67 and then to 68. There was an article in The Times just yesterday suggesting that in future years it might rise to 71, yet the legislation has this arbitrary figure of 65—why? That is a perfectly reasonable area to explore as part of a wider review of a piece of legislation that is perhaps coming towards the end of its natural life and needs to be reviewed. This motion, however, is not the way to do it.
Labour Members cobbled together this drafting last night when they were thinking, “What’s a good wheeze that we can have to create a soundbite or a bit of a line in our social media content this evening, saying ‘Conservatives vote against…’?” That is not legislation, and in my submission it is particularly inappropriate to use the exceptional mechanism of disapplying Standing Order No. 14 to achieve it. There are many benefits to Brexit, but one of the costs is the adoption of this mechanism to interrupt the workings of Parliament by disapplying Standing Order No. 14. If that disapplication is acceptable in any situation, it is in exceptional and urgent situations, not to get a soundbite for the evening news.
There are elements where there is genuine cause for review, but if we followed the right hon. Lady’s train of thought, we would have thousands upon thousands of one-paragraph Acts clogging up the legislation. We need to do better than that. With responsible government, which is what we on the Government Benches try to focus on, we review appropriately, we use advice from civil servants and then we propose legislation.
Beyond the poverty of Labour’s motion drafting, there is the wider issue of ministerial pay and value for money. As my hon. Friend Anna Firth pointed out in her good speech, when the Conservatives came to power in 2010 as part of the coalition, it was not a case of just accepting what had gone before. The Government, under the leadership of David Cameron, cut ministerial salaries by 5%. More importantly, every single year since then—throughout the coalition period and the Conservative Government period—ministerial salaries have been frozen.
Let us look at value for money and the difference we get between a Labour Administration and a Conservative one. I see the Labour Whip, Gerald Jones, is in his place. In 2010, under Labour, he would have benefited from a salary of £40,926. [Hon. Members: “He doesn’t get anything.”] Under the Conservatives, that equivalent position—if he were in government—receives a salary of £17,917.
For Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, Labour Members paid themselves £48,270 in addition to their parliamentary salaries. Under the Conservatives, that has been reduced, in modern terms, to £22,375. At Minister of State level, under the Conservatives they are paid £31,680; under Labour, they paid themselves the equivalent of £63,594—they would have had no trouble with their mortgage payments. Cabinet Ministers under the Conservatives are paid an additional £67,505; Labour thought it appropriate to pay theirs £122,598. We have heard how Liam Byrne said there was no money left, and now I am beginning to understand where it all went.
We come to the position of Prime Minister. This Prime Minister is paid an additional £75,440. Labour Prime Ministers think it appropriate to pay themselves £204,329, in today’s money, on top. When we add the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013—Keir Starmer has his own special pension arrangements from his work as Director of Public Prosecutions, disapplying any lifetime allowance for him, not for anyone else—to £204,329 for being Prime Minister, plus his MP’s salary of £86,584, it is no wonder he votes Labour. He can afford to be a socialist.
The question for Labour is, will it commit today to continue the freeze on ministerial salaries? The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury was asked that by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, and she was unable to answer it. I gave her the opportunity again to answer it, and she refused. If she does not know the answer, perhaps she can write to me.
This motion is half-baked. We have seen over the course of a couple of hours a number of interesting suggestions that could apply to potential legislation in this event. It is clearly an improper use of the disapplication of Standing Order No. 14. Look at the Labour Benches: if it such an emergency, why are those Benches so bare? Even Labour Members of Parliament do not think that this is urgent. I have no hesitation in voting against this motion and I invite everyone else to do the same.
