Responses to MPs’ expenses claims beg more questions than answers

Jun 4 2009 West Lothian Courier

I WRITE in reference to the article in the West Lothian Courier of May 28, 2009, “MP defends his claim for electronic items”.

Mr Connarty states that he has been misrepresented over the claim for £249.99 on an alarm clock and indeed that the Telegraph, the West Lothian Courier and all other sources of the media reporting on the aforementioned alarm clock were lying or at the very least, got it wrong.

I can only advise Mr. Connarty that if this is indeed correct that the item claimed for was not an alarm clock, then he has only one person to blame, that being himself, as it was Mr. Connarty who made the claim for £249.99 (1p under the threshold, where MPs are required to provide receipts for the items they are claiming).

Mr Connarty initially argued that it was the correct cost, not that we had all got the item claimed incorrect, in fact, I can still remember the heading “Are we only allowed to buy things in 99p stores”.

Further, Mr. Connarty did not advise us of this alleged mistake on May 19 during a discussion with the Telegraph he advised “The Daily Telegraph is involved in using stolen property to financially benefit the newspaper….”

Every time I see something in the media about Mr. Connarty and his colleagues, it begs more questions than it answers.

In the Telegraph of May 19 we are advised that Mr. Connarty sold his flat to Mr. Devine along with £4000 worth of second-hand furniture, however, in the West Lothian Courier of May 21, we are told that “Due to a change in my circumstances, I found myself without a London home after the lease on the flat I was renting ended.”

So, did he sell his flat or was he renting. This also begs questions about Mr Devine’s claims for household items bought from Mr Connarty. It has been stated by Mr. Connarty that all of the household items were old second-hand pieces, that he had obtained over the years, suggesting that the items were not new and therefore we as tax payers had not already paid for them.

However, that did not stop Mr Connarty asking Mr Devine for £1000 for a bed that is allegedly second hand and that we as tax payers reimbursed Mr Devine after his claim for such.

The Green Book, which advises MPs on how to claim allowances, what they are allowed to claim and what they should not claim, states that “Parliamentary allowances are designed to ensure that members are reimbursed for costs properly incurred in the performance of their duties and that claims must only be made for expenditure that was necessary for a member to incur, to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her duties”.

Can anyone tell me why a CD/DAB radio allegedly costing £249.99 was needed in the performance of Mr. Connarty’s duties? It is also well to note that the aforementioned CD/DAB radio is shown as costing £99.99 or if you order online it will only cost you £79.95 (a great bargain). We are now told that Mr. Connarty did not buy the said CD/ DAB radio but it was instead bought by another colleague of Mr Connarty’s, that being Mr. Ian Davidson (MP for Glasgow South West), who Mr Connarty was living with at the time.

Surely Mr Davidson should have made all of the claims for his own flat. I find Mr Connarty’s expenses claims unbelievable until I remember this is the same MP who came second only to Eric Joyce MP (a neighbour of Mr Connarty) in the list for all of the UK for the total amount of expenses claimed last year, that being £183,000 and this does not include his salary of £64,000.

How can Mr Connarty continue as an MP; do we as tax payers have to pay these large amounts of money for an MP, who is unable to realise that he should be trying to save the tax payer money, not buy the most expensive gadget in the shop?

It is time for a change in government, it is time for an election.

David McGowan

Millhaugh Lane, Bathgate