MPs’ expenses: cash-for-peerages MP claimed for Toblerone
The MP whose police complaint triggered the cash-for-peerages inquiry tried to charge the taxpayer for his drinks bills, a chocolate bar and hundreds of pounds of “petty cash”.
Angus MacNeil also attempted to use his expenses to pay for books, mobile phone calls and stays at the Union Jack Club, a private members’ society in London, after he had bought a flat in the capital.
The Commons’ fees office rejected the claims but did not withhold the entire cost of the Scottish National Party MP’s drinks bills, which came to more than £90.
By dividing the sum in two, he ensured that it did not breach the £250 limit, above which MPs had to provide receipts.
On the same claim, which totalled £750, he tried to recoup £152.58 of mobile phone costs and £42.50 for books. However, the fees office rejected these too and only £20 was paid.
In December 2005, Mr MacNeil, MP for the Western Isles, submitted 15 receipts for hotel stays in London, totalling nearly £3,600.
They included bills for vodka, soft drinks, cans of Heineken lager and small bottles of white wine from the mini-bar, bar bills, the cost of room service and £2 for a Toblerone chocolate bar.
Mr MacNeil’s total drinks and mini-bar bill came to more than £70, but the fees office only reduced his claim by £43.49.
He tried to claim for beverages again the following March, but his £22.50 claim for “night porter drinks” at the Glasgow Hilton was refused.
At the end of 2005 he bought a flat in London for £220,000, charging the taxpayer nearly £3,500 in solicitors fees and stamp duty and £834.26 per month in mortgage interest.
However, in July 2006 the Scottish Nationalist he attempted to claim for two nights’ stay at he Union Jack Club, which is about a mile from Westminster.
Mr MacNeil has also had a £373.54 claim for a bunk bed rejected as only costs essential to his duties as an MP are allowed by the Commons Green Book.
However, he successfully claimed £4,000 for his London home’s kitchen, flooring, furniture, gas fire, boiler and doors to be removed.
He then claimed another £3,000 for new ones to be installed, including £448 for a black granite and golden pine fireplace.
The SNP MP claimed more than £3,500 for household goods, including £606 on curtains and sheets from John Lewis and £500 for a LCD television.
Mr MacNeil claimed for several hotel rooms in his constituency, which is usually forbidden. But he later got permission from the fees office for the arrangement, given the difficulty of travelling within the Western Isles and to and from the mainland.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister and SNP leader, last week said that MPs owning a second home was “dangerous” and property speculation lies at the centre of the expenses scandal.
However, the Telegraph has revealed that both Mr MacNeil and Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, have used their allowance to fund mortgages on their London homes.
Mr MacNeil stressed that his drinks claims also included soft drinks and denied that he had been “chancing his arm” by submitting them.
He said that expenses were a low priority for him because of his busy schedule, and he looked to the fees office for advice. The MP argued it was “reassuring” that his inadmissible claims had been rejected.
Mr MacNeil said that his petty cash and telephone claims were valid expenses, but had been claimed for under the wrong heading.
In the case of the telephone bills, he said he had not resubmitted them, adding: “I’m the loser in this carry on financially.”
He argued it was unfair MPs with constituencies near London could see their families during the week, but he could not claim for the cost of a bunk bed for his.
Two years ago, Mr MacNeil made a public apology after it was revealed he had drunkenly kissed two teenage girls in an Orkney hotel.
1 response so far ↓
UK Voter // May 16, 2009 at 3:17 am
So, can someone tell me just who MacNeil is representing, because it certainly doesn’t appear to be his constituents? Nor does he seem too concerned about spending taxpayers money carefully. He is not alone, but that is no excuse. I suggest he is deselected as ‘not fit for purpose’.