Proceeding contribution from Martin Salter (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 3 March 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Communications Allowance.
Communications Allowance
No I will not. I reject Sir Christopher Kelly's analysis. I wrote to the Members Estimate Committee to pull apart his arguments. In paragraph 8.6 of his report, he acknowledged that the communications allowance was introduced in part to compensate for the cap on postage, but he made no recommendation that the cap be lifted. He stated that""some MPs of all three main parties make use of it."" What he did not mention was that only 43 MPs have not claimed the communications allowance. There is a degree of hypocrisy, is there not, in the Leader of the Opposition calling the allowance""nothing less than old-fashioned, state-sanctioned propaganda"?" I have listened to the protestations of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who tells us that it is corrupt. Well, he was quite happy to claim £4,679 of corrupt money. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham says that he had no choice but to claim it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c298-9WH
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Candidates Allowances Campaigns Committee on Standards in Public Life Elections Expenditure Leaflets Members Reform Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:03:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626487
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626487
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626487