Proceeding contribution from David Heath (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 3 March 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Communications Allowance.
Communications Allowance
I am glad the extra time the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) took came out of my allocation, Mr. Cook. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) on securing the debate. I have to say that it has been extremely muddled, because, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said, two entirely different topics have been discussed. One issue is party funding and the hugely adverse effect the lack of limits on party funding has on the election contests in marginal constituencies across the country. That was amply demonstrated by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and, it would appear, by the right hon. Member for Streatham, although that is the only constituency I have ever heard of where the Liberal Democrats are outspending the other parties. I am delighted to know that there is at least one constituency in which we have some assets. I draw hon. Members' attention to the comment on "The News Quiz" last week that the Conservatives are funded by multi-millionaire businessmen, the Labour party by the unions and the Liberal Democrats by a bring-and-buy sale in Truro. That is actually largely the case. Having said that, what the right hon. Gentleman said when quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth)—he could easily have quoted me because I have spoken in many of the same debates—is clearly our position. We need caps on expenditure and caps on donations, and we need those to extend beyond the election period and the proximity of the election period. Those caps also need to cover central office funding because that is one of the great abuses of the system at the moment by all parties. If the parties believe there is a marginal seat, they put in an enormous amount of generic election material that does not refer to the candidate and is completely beyond the radar of the current electoral system. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that way, he should have voted with us when we put down amendments that would have dealt with that matter. However, he did not and the Government refused to do so. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned the all-party talks, with which I was also involved. I have a slightly different recollection from him of the sequence of events, but, nevertheless, it is sad that we were not able to reach a conclusion. May I deal with what we are supposed to be talking about, which is the communications allowance? I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West that one of the sad things about the debate is that two issues have been conflated and the communications allowance has been seen as the answer to the lack of limits on political party spending. It cannot be the answer to that problem, and if that is how the matter is being seen, it is absolutely wrong for the allowance to be abolished on that basis. A communications allowance that is designed to allow Members of Parliament to communicate with their constituents should not be used for party political purposes. If the right hon. Member for Streatham has difficulty raising funds and putting out leaflets and newspapers in his constituency, that is a problem he has with his political base; it is not one that should be dealt with by the communications allowance. I voted against the communications allowance because I thought it was an unnecessary additional expenditure, but I am not against some of things that it provides for, which were already allowable under the other office costs allowances. Annual reports are a useful mechanism for communicating what an MP has done for constituents, provided they are not used for party political purposes. Over the past few years, one of the problems has been that people do not understand what MPs do and why we are here. That is why the expenses scandal had so much potency. It is important that we advertise where we do our surgeries. In my case—I have a very rural constituency of 900 square miles—I do an annual tour each year of more than 100 villages. I want people to know that I am going to be in their village and when they can meet me in the pub, outside the post box or wherever.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c301-2WH
- 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 22:03:09 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626501
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626501
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626501