---

Communications Allowance

No, I want to be very brief. The communications allowance was brought in—no one has mentioned this—on the back of the cap on MPs' postage, which was implemented and introduced by the previous Speaker, because some Members of Parliament were taking the mickey with the House of Commons free post. I have always been a high user of it, but I think very much as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is not in his place, does—or the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), among the Conservatives. He had a huge issue in his constituency—the closure of Ashford hospital, I think. How could he deal with receiving a petition of perhaps 15,000—I do not know how many people wrote to him—on the subject? Within the rules, because he was reacting to what people wrote to him about, he was able to reply to them and keep them informed and engaged in that campaign to keep Ashford hospital open. He was successful, but because of abuse by one or two Members, we were taking away the tools to do the job, so something had to be put in its place. Before Opposition Members get too aerated about the issue, I point out that only one of them has not claimed the allowance. It was not fought tooth and nail by the Conservative party. I was there and I know. A lot of the points in favour of the introduction of the communications allowance were conceded by the Conservatives. In the debate in 2007, when Parliament eventually got around to introducing the communications allowance, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) said in response to me:""The hon. Gentleman is speaking of allowing MPs to engage in reactive communication with constituents, which I am in favour of."—[Official Report, 28 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1530.]" The problem is that the ability to engage in reactive communication with our constituents was hidebound by the cap on MPs' postage. We had to have something to put in its place.