The wording of the Ministerial Code is:
Ministers are expected to waive, on appointment, entitlement to a ministerial severance payment upon leaving office if they have served less than six months, or where they have committed a serious breach of the Ministerial Code, resulting in their departure.
Sir Laurie Magnus did not consider her breach of the ministerial code serious. That word does not appear in his letter to the Prime Minister and that’s why she was entitled to the severance pay.
Whether Laurie Magnus’s was correct in concluding she had breached the code is disputed.
Tax expert Dan Neidle: Rayner’s lawyer Graham Aaronson KC says the publicly stated facts were incomplete and (although he is not that blunt) Sir Laurie Magnus got it wrong. Mr Aaronson says that, properly understood, the legal advice Ms Rayner received was sufficient to show she had taken reasonable care.
Importantly, HMRC did not find her careless regarding her Stamp Duty Land Tax; they have cleared her of carelessness and deliberate wrongdoing.
This was a complex case involving a trust for her disabled son. Had she postponed buying a property for a year until he turned 18, which he now has, the matter would not have arisen.
She has not been in a cabinet position for over 10 months.
A cabinet minister receives additional pay about that of a backbench MP of between of £67,505 and £72,454.
If Magnus was wrong then she had lost far more income than the £16,876 severance pay she received.
There was never any guarantee she would return to a cabinet position and arguably may not have done had we not had a change of Prime Minister.
She’s right to keep the severance pay.