MPs who lose their seat at the next General Election will receive double the financial support.
Winding-down payments designed to help departing MPs close their office and manage the departure of staff will also now be available to those who step down at the election.
MPs received two months’ wages after losing their seats at the previous General Election, but the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) – which governs MPs’ expenses – has ruled that should be increased to four months.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour accounts 'prove they aren't a party'
The payments will not be given to MPs leaving outside of an election, meaning people like Tory former prime minister Boris Johnson, who resigned in June, will not be eligible.
Ipsa said the decision was made because the time to fully close down an MP’s parliamentary and financial affairs is longer than the period covered.
The ruling said: “Former MPs will continue to have access to their normal budgets (pro-rated) for that four-month period, and they will continue to employ staff as needed to assist them in winding up their affairs.”
MPs who have served more than two years are also eligible for loss-of-office payments, with longer-serving MPs receiving larger amounts.
The payments, similar to redundancy packages, will be available to all eligible MPs who leave Parliament at the next election.
More than 70 MPs have announced they will not stand again at the next election.
Those standing down include Mhairi Black, ex-SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, Tory former cabinet ministers Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock and Sajid Javid, and the current Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. Labour former ministers Harriet Harman and Margaret Hodge have also said they plan to step down.
READ MORE: Westminster is terrified by Bute House Agreement
Speaking on TalkTV, Tory MP Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) said: “I don’t think people resigning should be getting a payout.
“But this is an independent body, I’m afraid to say we don’t get to vote on it unless somebody tells us that we do, and frankly, I am more concerned about dealing with my constituency casework.
“So I’m not particularly happy about this either because it just shows us in a bad light and despite the fact it’s an independent body, everyone is going to blame us for it.
“It really winds me up, frankly.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel