Can someone tell me why this man needs a hairdryer, let alone one which is on the tax payer?
I'm very pleased it was turned down by the fees office but aren't they only allowed to claim furnishings for their second home? Because if it was the London flat which allegations were made in the Telegraph over the summer, the daughter looks much more in need of a blow drier than he does. And I don't want to be paying for hers when mine is on the blink. Or even if it wasn't, for that matter.
In 2007-08, he billed taxpayers for £1,343.81 in household goods and redecoration including a new bath, although a claim to have the archway between the hallway and lounge removed was rejected. His file indicates that the £223.04 annual home insurance policy with the Post Office was taken out solely in the name of his daughter, listed as “Miss M George”. She began studying in London in autumn 2007, just months after her father bought the flat.
Commons rules state that MPs must only use the second homes allowance to claim back living costs that they themselves incur.
Neighbours confirmed they had seen Miss George regularly in the area. Last night her father said she had been in halls of residence in her first year and now lived with her boyfriend. He admitted she did stay in his riverside flat but denied she was there more often than him.
All looks very suspicious to me; I do hope this isn't another example of an MP trying to fleece the tax payer when it was against the rules.
Perhaps chaps could confirm whether or not they are in need of hair drying equipment as part of their daily routine?