Members' Allowances

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:51 pm on 3 November 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London) 12:51, 3 November 2004

Does the Leader of the House accept that the conclusion in paragraph 4.35 that there were

"no major concerns about the London Supplement" is odd, given that I have spoken and written to him and his predecessors about the very low level of the supplement? I was particularly disturbed to read that the report stated that

"we did not interview any MPs with inner London constituencies."

On what basis, therefore, can it possibly conclude that the recommendation that the allowance should go up to a paltry £2,500 is credible, given that central London Members have to have a main, rather than a second, London home, when Members who claim the additional costs allowance are claiming at the rate of £20,902 a year? The methodology behind the London supplement is entirely wrong. A figure seems to have been plucked from the sky, which is one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment to the motion, although it has unfortunately not been selected.