So here we have the Djanoglys' primary home in London. It is a very large substantial home. But that doesn't worry me. I'm of the opinion that this shouldn't matter. I'm also of the opinion that MPs should claim for a second home, where necessary. All I have ever thought was the taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising through Parliamentary expenses the living expenses of the MPs.
Former home secretary Jacqui Smith is a case in point. Jacqui claimed a room in her sisters' house was her main home. The large gated house was in her constituency where her family lived was her second home. I thought that was wrong.
With Djanogly I feel the same sort of rules should be applied when looking at his second home expenses.
What the aerial photo shows is a very small garden with a bit of patio and no parking. So I look at what Djanogly has claimed in his second home in Alconbury against his primary house in London. So when his last claims for his second home were published I found Djanogly had claimed for: "Repairs to house/chimney spikes/tarmac road/drains/gloss and bitcherman plinth". I wrote an e-mail to my MP Jonathan Djanogly and he refused to answer my specific questions.
I still don't know what a bitcherman plinth is! But I can't see one outside his primary home in London. Nor could I see any driveway. So why did he charge the taxpayers for repairs for the one in Alconbury? The primary Home in London has a minuscule garden. So why did Djanogly claims for gardeners for his second home in Alconbury?
In the ruling allowing the publication of MPs' expenses the High Court judgement said: "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers."
No comments:
Post a Comment