Thursday, 4 February 2010

News Flash Andrew Mackay Repayment

Here is an extract from Sir Thomas Legg Report.

''Rt Hon Andrew Mackay MP
Mr Mackay is married to another MP. He designated his London flat as his second home, while his wife nominated it as her main home. He designated his constituency home as his main home while his wife nominated it as her second home. This meant that, between them, the couple had no main home which was not funded by the ACA. Throughout the five years of the review period, they both claimed at or close to the full allowance to support their two homes. These arrangements obtained a financial benefit for the couple which appears unintended under the Green Book rules, and as such contrary to the principles governing it. Had they made different
designations, each MP might reasonably have claimed up to two-thirds of the full allowance on a shared second home. On this footing, each of them was overpaid by one-third of the maximum ACA for each year of the review period. This is £29,243.

He was also paid £9,950 for cleaning over the four years 2004-05 to 2007-08, thus
exceeding the allowable maximum by a total of £1,950.'

Total repayment recommended: £31,193.00
Total repayments received since 1 April 2009: £31,193.00
Balance recommended to be repaid: £0.00

So Andrew Mackay has made a payment, it is at the higher end of other MP's repayments. However many believe he should pay more (£170,000) see here

His wife, Julie Kirkbride, MP for Bromsgrove, has also been asked to pay back £29,243.

What I find amazing about this is that both MacKay and his wife have appealed against these claims, they failed. Does this not prove that they infact believe that their claim was not false?

The full report can be read here

Goodbye Andrew Mackay also reports here


  1. Richard, Sandhurst4 February 2010 at 18:11


    Claiming for 2 second homes and no primary home between the two of them, and getting the taxpayer to fund both their expensive homes while they fund neither, and doing it for over 5 years (the review period was only for 5 years)... and they are only asked to repay £60,000. What a joke, and to add insult to injury they have both appealed against the judgement!

    Obvious where their priorities lie... not really public service, more like self-service. What a pair of money-grubbing hypocrites.

  2. yep you could not make it up, could you.

  3. Where's Mr Plod in this? Of all the scams this one seems closest to fraud to me.

  4. Richard T, I think we find out tomorrow

  5. I find it amazing that they had so much spare cash floating around that they could afford to repay it so quickly and easily.

    Do you have to be a millionaire if you want to be an MP? Obviously not, but if you can last over 20 years in the job without ever facing a stiffer challenge than the whisky and soda with the backbenchers whose arms you're employed to twist then you're pretty likely to find a few wheezes here and there.

  6. What a slimy pair amazing that they have the utter gall and hard face to appeal.
    Bracknell will be well rid of this greedy arragant man who obviously thinks that honesty is for others.

  7. The lack of any sort of moral integrity is absolutely disgusting.
    They committed fraud and if anyone else in another job did the same they would have been sacked and sent to gaol.

  8. Thanks for your informative post it very nice we are also searching on this please visit our website....