Former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has publicly questioned why Labour MP Angela Rayner has not returned a severance payment of approximately £17,000, drawing a parallel to her own experience repaying a similar sum.
Dorries’ Severance Pay Experience
In 2022, Dorries, then serving as Culture Secretary, received a severance payment of £16,876 upon leaving her ministerial role. She stated this was an automatic sum provided to all departing ministers and was unaware of its existence until her former department’s annual accounts were made public two years later.
It was revealed that a rule stipulated ministers over the age of 65 should not receive this payment. Dorries, who was over 65 at the time, described the rule as “pretty ageist” but resolved to return the money, adhering to the Ministerial Code. She recounted being “besieged by Left-wing journalists” and facing media scrutiny, including an interview with Laura Kuenssberg, before returning the funds.
Dorries emphasized that she did not contest the repayment and promptly returned the money, stating, “At no point did I double down on the error and refuse to repay.”
Allegations Against Angela Rayner
Dorries contrasted her situation with that of Angela Rayner, who reportedly received a severance payment of nearly £17,000 after being removed as Housing Minister. Dorries alleged that Rayner has “dug her leopard-print heels in over paying back the severance she received.”
The former minister questioned whether Rayner was facing similar media pressure to return the funds, suggesting a disparity in treatment. “It’s one rule for Rayner and it was another for me,” Dorries asserted.
Rayner’s Role in Amending the Ministerial Code
A central point of Dorries’ criticism is that Rayner, in 2024, was instrumental in amending the Ministerial Code. The amendment reportedly included a clause stating that “No person departing ministerial office while under investigation for allegations of gross misconduct or breaching the Ministerial Code will be entitled to severance pay.”
Dorries argued that Rayner’s continued retention of the severance pay, despite her role in introducing this stricter clause, constitutes hypocrisy. “Here we are. Rayner is sticking two fingers up at the very code she helped amend,” Dorries stated.
Allegations of Misconduct and Financial Dealings
Dorries also referenced an incident from the previous autumn when journalists reportedly discovered Rayner had underpaid stamp duty on her second home by approximately £40,000. This led to reports to HMRC and the Parliamentary ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus.
Sir Laurie Magnus reportedly conceded that while Rayner had “acted with integrity… I consider the [Ministerial] Code to have been breached.” Dorries noted that Rayner subsequently moved to the backbenches but retained her severance pay.
Furthermore, Dorries detailed Rayner’s earnings from public speaking and a memoir advance, totaling over £182,000 during a period she described as a “gap year” after leaving ministerial office. This, Dorries contended, was contrary to Rayner’s 2023 public stance against MPs earning second incomes, where she stated, “Being an MP is not a second job. It is the job.”
Broader Implications and Responsibility
Beyond the specific case, Dorries raised broader points about the responsibilities of individuals from working-class backgrounds entering Westminster. She argued that such individuals carry a greater responsibility to prove their worth and uphold high standards to ensure opportunities remain accessible for others from similar backgrounds.
Dorries suggested that Rayner’s actions have “let down every woman of working-class stock” and tarnished their reputation, potentially leading to her being remembered for “the whiff of scandal” rather than her achievements in office.
The former minister concluded by suggesting that appointing Rayner, given these circumstances, sends a message that “standards and the ministerial code don’t matter.” She warned that any prime minister appointing someone perceived as lacking “moral and ethical clarity” is “clearly heading for a fall.”
Conclusion
The exchange highlights ongoing debates surrounding ministerial conduct, severance pay regulations, and the application of the Ministerial Code. Dorries’ public comments place a spotlight on Angela Rayner’s financial dealings and her adherence to parliamentary standards, while also touching upon broader themes of representation and accountability in British politics.
