---

Communications Allowance

I have my own speech to make, and if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Cook, he will be able to make his own. When the communications allowance was brought in, I did not use it for the first year. I felt uncomfortable, to be honest. Since then, I have been 545th in the list. In the first year, I spent £2,349, on surgery advertisements and so on, but people were saying to me, "What on earth are you doing? You're doing nothing down at Westminster, but we've been getting all this stuff from Andrew Stephenson". I was getting letters in my office addressed to Andrew Stephenson MP, the MP for Pendle. He may well be the MP in a couple of months' time. It is not just people in this room who are listening to this debate, it is people outside as well, and he could very well be the next MP. I used my communications allowance on five occasions, in October 2008, and in January, April, October and December 2009. My communications were not bland at all. There are no photographs of me cuddling babies, or with police officers—none of the usual stuff. In my latest parliamentary report, I complain in the article "Waiting for the ambulance" that in the West Craven part of my constituency people were having to wait ages for an ambulance, even when their situation was life-threatening. That probably did a lot of damage to my Labour Government. In an article in the previous issue, entitled "Afghanistan: What now?", I talked about my position on Afghanistan, saying that "the bloody conflict in Afghanistan drags on" and that it is now time to set a clear exit strategy. That is me speaking, not the Labour Government. In the issue before that there was the article, "Royal Mail: Save it—don't sell it"; that is not bland communication. I was arguing against the position of my own Government. I want to see Royal Mail stay in public ownership. That is not bland; it is letting people know my views. Another article was entitled, "Fat Cats slated". I had to pay money back to the Commons authorities for that. There was one anonymous complaint. The Commons authorities could not tell me who had made the complaint, but it was about two paragraphs that I had written in one of my reports. I hope that you will allow me to read them both out, Mr. Cook, because they are, as we now know, absolutely factually correct. The first paragraph stated: "I told the Commons"—I was quoting from a Commons speech—""the Conservative peer and donor, Lord Laidlaw, was ennobled in 2004 after promising to become a UK resident for tax purposes. He reneged on that promise and lives in tax exile in Monaco."" That is a fact, but I had to pay money back for saying what I did. In the next paragraph, I said:""Another Conservative peer, Lord Ashcroft openly admits bankrolling local Conservative Associations yet refuses to say if he pays UK taxes. He is based in the Central American tax haven of Belize."" As a result of those two paragraphs, I had to reimburse the Commons authorities. [Interruption.] No, I will not go down that road; everyone knows about Lord Ashcroft.