The day MPs faced the law
By Ian Dunt
Four MPs face criminal charges over their expenses, the director of public prosecutions confirmed on Friday.
The shock development marks the first time the expenses scandal slipped from a media obsession into actual legal proceedings.
Three Labour MPs, Elliot Morely, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and one Tory peer, Lord Hanningfield, will face charges, all under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968.
Anyone convicted faces a maximum sentence of seven years’ in prison.
Lord Hanningfield resigned his position as frontbench Conservative business spokesman in the Lords just moments after the announcement was made.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Lord Hanningfield has today resigned his position in the House of Lords as shadow business spokesman.
“David Cameron has also asked Lord Strathclyde, leader of the oposition in the House of Lords, to suspend the Conservative whip with immediate effect.”
Gordon Brown expressed his anger at the situation today.
“We took steps some months ago to remove the right of these people to stand as candidates for the Labour party,” he said.
“These are very serious criminal allegations. All criminal allegations have got to be investigated. It’s a matter now for the courts.”
In a dramatic press conference this morning, Keir Starmer confirmed Mr Morley, Labour MP for Glanford and Scunthorpe, faced two charges.
The first charge alleges that between April 2004 and February 2006, Mr Morley dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £14,428, in excess of that to which he was entitled, in relation to a property in Winterton, Lincolnshire.
The second charge alleges that between March 2006 and November 2007 Mr Morley dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £16,000 for the same property when there was no longer a mortgage on that property.
Mr Chaytor, Labour MP for Bury North, has been charged with three instances of false accounting.
The first charge alleges that in May 2006 Mr Chaytor dishonestly claimed £1,950 for IT services by using false invoices.
The second charge alleges that between September 2005 and September 2006 Mr Chaytor dishonestly claimed £12,925, purportedly for renting a property in Regency Street, London, when he was in fact the owner of the property.
The third charge alleges that between September 2007 and January 2008 Mr Chaytor dishonestly claimed £5,425, purportedly for renting a property in Bury, Lancashire, from his mother.
Mr Devine, Labour MP for Livingston, faces two charges of false accounting.
The first charge alleges that between July 2008 and April 2009, Mr Devine dishonestly claimed £3,240 for cleaning services using false invoices.
The second charge alleges that in March 2009, Mr Devine dishonestly claimed £5,505 for stationery using false invoices.
Lord Hanningfield faces six charges for claiming expenses for which he knew he wasn’t entitled.
The charges allege that between March 2006 and May 2009, he dishonestly submitted claims for expenses to which he knew he was not entitled, including numerous claims for overnight expenses for staying in London when records show that he was driven home and did not stay overnight in London.
“All the claims I have ever made were made in good faith. I have never claimed more in expenses than I have spent in the course of my duties,” he said.
“To avoid any embarrassment or distraction for my party, I am standing down from my frontbench duties in the House of Lords with immediate effect.”
A fifth man, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, is off the hook, after Mr Starmer said there was insufficient evidence against him.
A sixth man – as yet unnamed – is still under investigation.
“These files have been reviewed very carefully by senior prosecuting lawyers in the CPS, assisted where necessary by an external and highly experienced criminal QC,” Mr Starmer said.
“In four cases, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned.
“Accordingly, summonses in these cases have been obtained from the City of Westminster magistrates’ court and will now be served on the individuals in question.”
A joint statement from Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor and Mr Devine said: “We are extremely disappointed that the DPP [director of public prosecutions] has decided to instigate charges against us. We are confident of our position and have been advised by eminent QCs.
“Clearly the parliamentary system of expenses is utterly discredited but we believe there has been an inconsistency of approach.”
Defence lawyers for the accused argued that parliamentary privilege prevents any prosecution but the CPS has decided this defence should be “tested in court”.
MPs were quick to bat the defence away themselves this afternoon.
Liberal Democrat shadow leader of the House, David Heath, said that if parliamentary privilege did protect MPs from fraud, parliament should quickly pass a resolution saying it did not.
“There should be no question of MPs or peers charged with serious criminal offences sheltering behind parliamentary privilege,” he said.
“We do not have immunity from prosecution for parliamentarians in this country. Parliamentary privilege exists purely to ensure we can do our job properly, not to protect us from the law.”
The men are due to attend Westminster magistrates’ court on March 11th.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is excellent news that the CPS have decided to bring charges against these politicians. It is essential that MPs face justice, just like any normal person who had behaved like this.
“The taxpaying public wants to see justice done, and it is right that MPs aren’t able to simply wave repayment cheques and walk away from this.”
The announcement comes just a day after Westminster found itself awash with new developments in the ongoing expenses scandal.
Sir Thomas Legg’s report on the additional costs allowance (ACA) scheme which structured second home permissions found the system was “deeply flawed”.
He ordered 390 MPs to pay back a total of £1.1 million.
But his efforts at closure were somewhat undermined by comments from Sir Paul Kennedy, the man charged with hearing MPs’ appeals, who found Sir Thomas’ tough approach to be “damaging, unfair and wrong”.
The attempt to move on from the scandal was also hindered by a fresh batch of ridiculous claims, such as Anthony Steen’s claim of £28 for a flagpole rope.
Previous instances of the police handing politically-related cases over to the CPS have traditionally been met with a brick wall.
During the cash-for-peerages scandal, for instance, the CPS concluded convictions were unlikely and decided not to proceed with the cases.
