Duck Ponds and Docking Stations
Two of the more extraordinary MPs' expenses claims reported by the Daily Telegraph concern 'lifestyle' purchases - from two honourable members at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
The first is from Tory grandee, Sir Peter Viggers, who bought a floating duck island - at a cost of £1,645 to the public purse. Taxpayers will be relieved to learn that the structure is based on a 18th century building in Sweden and is designed to protect the birds from foxes and suchlike.
The second is from a 'left-wing' Scottish MP, Michael Connarty, who is reported as claiming for - amongst other things - a Bose iPod Docking Station (£211.91), Bose Sound Dock Headphones (£191.49), an alarm clock/radio (£249.99) and plasma TV (£1,099) - making a grand total of £1,752.39
"Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties."
"The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."
Some MPs are now falling over themselves to pay money back - others say they have done nothing wrong - because their claims were approved by the House of Commons fees office.
But that ignores the obvious question: Why were they made in the first place?
The first is from Tory grandee, Sir Peter Viggers, who bought a floating duck island - at a cost of £1,645 to the public purse. Taxpayers will be relieved to learn that the structure is based on a 18th century building in Sweden and is designed to protect the birds from foxes and suchlike.
The second is from a 'left-wing' Scottish MP, Michael Connarty, who is reported as claiming for - amongst other things - a Bose iPod Docking Station (£211.91), Bose Sound Dock Headphones (£191.49), an alarm clock/radio (£249.99) and plasma TV (£1,099) - making a grand total of £1,752.39
Quite how these claims can be squared with the principles that underpin the 'Green Book' on expenses claims (see post dated 21 May) is anyone's guess - here are just two of the rules that would appear to make such claims ineligible.
Extract from the Green Book on Expenses Claims"Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties."
"The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."
Some MPs are now falling over themselves to pay money back - others say they have done nothing wrong - because their claims were approved by the House of Commons fees office.
But that ignores the obvious question: Why were they made in the first place?
