Morning:
21°c
Three MPs and peer to face charges over expenses
Paul Waugh and Martin Bentham05.02.10
Three Labour MPs and a Tory peer were today charged with theft by false accounting on Westminster's blackest day.
Labour's Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine and Tory shadow communities minister Lord Hanningfield will all be prosecuted, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced.
A fifth criminal investigation, believed to involve Labour peer Baroness Uddin, is still on-going and charges are under consideration.
DPP Keir Starmer said there was insufficient evidence to charge Labour's Lord Clarke over his use of peers' overnight allowances. Today's criminal charges — which centre on claims for mortgages, computers, rents and stationery — are the first to result from the MPs' expenses affair that hit Parliament last spring.
The scandal, which has tarnished Britain's reputation around the world, has led to a revolution in the way Parliament polices its use of public money and has ended the political careers of scores of MPs. The charge of false accounting carries a possible seven-year jail term.
The four accused vigorously denied the charges today, with Mr Devine even claiming he was being “picked on” by the police. “If you look at the Legg report, I'm being questioned over two receipts that amounted to about £8,000,” he said. “I don't understand why I was picked on.”
In a statement, the three Labour MPs said: “We are clearly extremely disappointed that the DPP has decided to instigate proceedings against us.
“We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.”
The MPs said they believed their cases should have been dealt with by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, adding: “We are confident of our position and have been advised by eminent QCs.”
Gordon Brown said he was “very angry” about the scandal. He went on: “These are very serious criminal allegations. All criminal allegations must be investigated. It's a matter now for the courts. We must get rid of the old politics. They can't be part of the new system.”
The charges under the Theft Act follow a special investigation set up by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson weeks after the scandal broke last May.
The files on the six parliamentarians accused of the worst excesses were passed to the Crown Prosecution Service in November and December.
Mr Morley, Labour MP for Scunthorpe and former agriculture minister, faces two counts of dishonestly claiming expenses for his mortgage.
Mr Chaytor, Labour MP for Bury North, faces three charges of false accounting over his invoices for IT services and second home claims.
Mr Devine, Labour MP for Livingston, faces two charges of false accounting over cleaning and stationery invoices.
Lord Hanningfield, who today re-signed as leader of Essex County Council, faces six charges relating to claims for overnight stays in London from March 2006 to last May.
He claimed for the House of Lords overnight allowance, but had driven home and did not stay overnight, said Mr Starmer. He was also today suspended from the Tory front bench and had the whip withdrawn.
Mr Devine said: “I am astonished and devastated at the decision taken today. Two new charges have been brought, both easily explained and both of which I'll be explaining in court.”
He has already been barred from standing for Labour at the coming general election. Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor are also stepping down.
Lord Hanningfield said he refuted the charges and would “vigorously” defend himself against them. “All claims I ever made were in good faith,” he said.
The last MP charged with false acc-ounting was Labour's John Stonehouse, who faked his own death in 1974.
Today's CPS announcements follow yesterday's damning verdict on MPs' expenses by Sir Thomas Legg, who audited all claims in recent years and branded the system “deeply flawed”.
Hundreds of MPs were ordered to repay a total of £1.12 million.
DAVID CHAYTOR
The backbench Labour MP for Bury North faces Rhree charges of false accounting — including a claim that he used public money to rent a home from his elderly mother.
He is accused of dishonestly claiming £1,950 for IT services in May 2006 by using false invoices. Mr Chaytor has been charged with claiming £12,925 between September 2005 and September 2006 for renting a property in Regency Street, Pimlico, which he owned. Thirdly, he is accused of dishonestly claiming £5,425 between September 2007 and January last year —purportedly for renting a property in Lancashire, from his mother.
Reports last year alleged that Mr Chaytor, 60, who is married with three children, had some of the most controversial arrangements of any MP. Since 2004, he claimed for five different properties, “flipping” his designated second home between London, Yorkshire and Bury — one a house registered in his son's name. After being exposed last year, he said he had made an “unforgivable error in my accounting procedures for which I apologise unreservedly”. Mr Chaytor said he was repaying the money immediately and referred himself to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon. The former teacher and lecturer was suspended from the Labour Party and said he would not seek re-election.
ELLIOT MORLEY
The Labour MP for Scunthorpe, a former environment minister, faces two charges of false accounting.
He is accused of illegally overclaiming £14,428 between April 2004 and February 2006 for a mortgage on a property in Winterton, Lincolnshire. He is also charged with dishonestly claiming £16,000 in mortgage expenses between March 2006 and November 2007 on the same home when the mortgage no longer existed.
Mr Morley, 57, reportedly repaid £16,800 to the parliamentary authorities two weeks before the MPs' expenses scandal broke last May, and offered an unreserved apology for a “mistake” he blamed on “sloppy accounting”. He was suspended from the Labour Party and as the Prime Minister's climate envoy. He refused to resign as an MP but announced he would not seek re-election. He reported himself to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon in a bid to clear his name.
The father of two, a former councillor and special needs teacher from Liverpool, entered Parliament in 1987 and was an environment minister between 1997 and 2006. His responsibilities included foxhunting and the foot-and-mouth outbreak. He has been a birdwatcher since boyhood.
In a statement last May, Mr Morley said he did his accounts in “yearly bundles” and he had “simply let the established payment run as it has for some years”. He said: “I accept that I have made a mistake in this case and have rectified it in full. I deeply apologise for such sloppy accounting in a very loose and shambolic allowance system but there is nobody to blame but myself and I take full responsibility for this. I apologise unreservedly.”
LORD HANNINGFIELD
The Tory front-bench spokesman in the Lords has been charged, under the name Paul White, with six offences of false accounting.
Between March 2006 and May 2009, he is alleged to have “dishonestly submitted claims for expenses to which he knew he was not entitled”. This included “numerous claims for overnight expenses for staying in London when records show that he was driven home and did not stay overnight in London”. Attention had focused on Lord Hanningfield after Parliamentary records showed he claimed almost £100,000 in overnight subsistence over seven years despite living 46 miles from Parliament. He has a taxpayer-funded chauffeur from his other job as leader of Essex County Council.
A former pig farmer, he became an Essex councillor in 1970, was made a peer in 1998 and is the Tory spokesman on local government and transport in the Lords.
JIM DEVINE
Scottish Labour MP Jim Devine faces two charges of false accounting — one for dishonestly claiming £3,240 for cleaning services using false invoices between July 2008 and last April, and a second for dishonestly claiming £5,505 for stationery using false invoices last March.
Known throughout Westminster as a gossip, Mr Devine, who was Robin Cook's election agent and succeeded him as MP for Livingston after the former Foreign Secretary's sudden death in 2005, had struggled to explain newspaper allegations relating to his London flat and constituency office.
He was initially believed to have made false claims for office shelving in his constituency office and electrical repair work at his London flat. He claimed to have been the victim of a vindictive campaign by a former employee but has been barred from standing again for Labour. He denies wrongdoing and said: “I basically made a mistake.”
Reader views (36)
All MP's who tried to abuse the system must be removed. Those that don't go this time should go after the next parliament.
Surely it is time now to have a system whereby MP's are only allowed to serve two terms - rather like the American president. We also clearly need an inspectorate for MP's - OFSFMP perhaps - who will ensure that individual standards are maintained.If they can create such bodies for teachers and energy etc, they must realise the value of such teams and should applaud the creation of a body to oversee them.
Finally we need a massive reduction - how many people actually use their mP anyway? We need big changes and we want them very soon.
- Maths Teacher, London, 07/02/2010 18:16
Report abuse
It is reported elsewhere that the cost of the police probe is £486,000.00 using 13 Police Officers.I am not sure if that means on these 4 accused only or the whole expenses investigation. If it's the former the Police are NOT underfunded
- Old Contemptible, Poole, England, 06/02/2010 10:50
Report abuse
In the eyes of the Public the House of Commons is now seen as little more than a den of thieves.
- Frank, Bristol, 05/02/2010 22:41
Report abuse
I could not care less about these crooks. What concerns me is that they, and their colleagues, run every aspect of our lives. They sit in judgement on the rest of us and pass laws that we must obey. The hypocrisy is overwhelming and has ruined what has taken centuries to achieve
The have destroyed democratic government in the UK. When will the Yanks come over and re-impose Democratic Government.
- Aylyn, Orihuela Costa,, 05/02/2010 19:05
Report abuse
Come on now these four were not the only ones,lets see it how it should be.
- Davey_Bouy, Chertsey, 05/02/2010 17:10
Report abuse
Getting scared boys.
How does it feel to be knocked off your high horse.
Hope this message gets across to all in high positions, Respect those who put you there.
Remember the fall of the roman empire.
- Martin, Sheffield, 05/02/2010 16:37
Report abuse
If they did these guys then what about Baroness Uddin ~Hmmm?
- Steve, UK, 05/02/2010 16:18
Report abuse
Oh how dare the government make these MPs pay back their expenses! They are entitled to every penny!
- Scotty, London, 05/02/2010 15:46
Report abuse
There are several more even more egregious cases.
I hope there will be more prosecutions.
- Convenient Truth, Reading, 05/02/2010 15:34
Report abuse
Why only 4?? Reading the reports and having seen what some MPs and Peers have been up to I (and I am sure I am not alone) was expecting many more charges.
Also can someone explain why they have only looked at 4 years of expenses? Do we beleive that our represenataives in the Palace Of Westminster were good as gold untill 2004???
- Very Angry At Mp'S Expenses, Home Counties, 05/02/2010 14:53
Report abuse
Andrew, you've got me completely wrong (again!). If I didn't care so passionately about the UK, I wouldn't spend so much time complaining about it being exploited for their own ends by our MPs. I'm a Brit working overseas and I'm fighting to make sure there's something left when I return.
- Marianne, SW France/London, 05/02/2010 14:48
Report abuse
We are living in a kleptocracy. Disgusting.
KLEPTOCRACY: government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind
- Miles, London, 05/02/2010 14:23
Report abuse
One thing is for sure that atleast Mr. and Mrs. Keen have decided to pay up - and if they can all the other bent MP's can as well.
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt, 05/02/2010 13:48
Report abuse
Anyone that is arrested for a recorder-able offence, even dropping litter etc, should by law have their photo, fingerprints and DNA taken and stored on the police crime database etc.
It doesn’t matter if they are innocent or guilty under the laws passed by Parliament, and all those MPs etc; even if they are proved innocent by a court of law later on; their personal data should still be held for at least six years, if not for life etc, this is also the will of the Government, and the law of the Government etc.
Instead of a separate investigation into parliamentary fraud costing another million pounds, why did the police themselves not investigate all allegations of fraud, real or unreal, proved or unproved, which is what they are actually paid to do etc; and why have not all those MPs, not had their DNA, fingerprints and photographs taken and stored on the crime data base etc; for recorder-able offences, committed or uncommitted etc.
So far we have seen only four possible court appearances at this late stage of the saga?
You can forgive the general public for smelling a gigantic cover-up; as we are never given the full facts at anytime, we only get lucky once in a while, with a good whistle-blower that exposes corruption and the immoral actions by our rulers and elite etc.
Time for the official secrets act to become repealed and made illegal as well, as that only allows deceit and corruption to continue, unchallenged by the public at large, is this democracy?
- Mickinlondon, london, 05/02/2010 13:38
Report abuse
people wonder why the BNP are so strong and getting stronger............
- Jonny, London, 05/02/2010 13:37
Report abuse
Are we satisfied with these prosecutions? No!
The worst abuse has to be the practice of "house flipping". Claiming first home status for properties which have been proven in so many cases as brass necked fraud.
- Ronnie, what used to be England, 05/02/2010 13:34
Report abuse
There are serious differences between financial carelessness, immorality, and criminality.
About half of our MPs have been required to pay money back. They are the careless or immoral ones. They did not break the law. They claimed what was within the letter of the regulations, but was against the spirit. Or, they made claims that should have been disallowed by the officials policing the regulations, who failed to disallow them. "Dishonourable" is the word. Some have already resigned or will do so at the next election. I hope that the rest get their just deserts from their electorates.
These few are the ones where the CPS believes there is evidence to prove that they deliberately lied to obtain money to which they were not entitled. Deliberate deception, rather than legally milking the system.
- Nigel, London, 05/02/2010 13:32
Report abuse
I live in a safe Conservative Seat area and have voted for the last 45+years Lib-Dem in protest that MY Vote counts for nothing. I am a little bit adverse to Europe and this feeling concreted itself with the lack of a referendum on Lisbon and the rumours(?) that Tony Blair was in-line to become the President of Europe.
Gordon`s single transferable vote leaves me to support on of the "ugly sisters" but the charges against Lord Hanningfield leave a bitter taste in the mouth and I feel that all these politicians have badly let me down! BUT I do not think I can any longer vote Lib-Dem.
The only alternative I can see is UKIP but again my sentiments will be ignored by the system and the gravy trainers who ride on it.
Restore "FAITH" Gordon? Vote NOW for FULL PR and then call the election. A curse on both your houses never was more apt!
- Roy, Little Burstead (Billericay), 05/02/2010 13:20
Report abuse
I presume Andrew of St. Johns Wood is either an MP himself or married to one - as only MPs and/or their spouses would try to defend the indefensible. They are the dregs of society.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 05/02/2010 13:19
Report abuse
what about baronnes uddin indeed? Might a politicised DPP be waiting to see whether there is outcry at her name not being put forward at this point? in case so, let there be outcry.
- Steve Martin, london, 05/02/2010 13:06
Report abuse
@ Andrew, St. John's Wood, London
1/. Those not actively participating were complicit, they knew the system was hooey, they said and did nothing.
2/. Laws and rules are changed by this government and are implemented retrospectively, so should the rules for those thieving lot.
3/. There is a moral aspect here and our so called Law makers and betters should have acted above reproach.
Short is no better than any of the others, I remember her abstaining on a vote for the increase of MPs pay. She declared, "I abstained, but I suppose that wasn't very brave was it?".
None of them have an honest moral bone in their body, otherwise they wouldn't be in politics.
PS - Don't read the Sun or Mail, don't patronise people here.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 05/02/2010 12:50
Report abuse
tough on crime tough on the causes of crime
- B Woodburn, london, 05/02/2010 12:48
Report abuse
As somebody who has in the past, working for HM Revenue & Customs, dealt with the Fees Office and individual MPs I can confirm the abuse of secretarial allowance and the expenses system was pretty widespread back in the '80s but as Andrew points out it was the system, particularly the one that has been in place for the last decade or so, allowed them to do it.
Still the whole point is about morality and trust and nothing else. If our elected officials are seen to be milking the system and in some cases behaving dishonestly or fraudulently, particularly with regard to "flipping", let alone those who seem to have actually gone out of their way to prepare false documents then what message does that send out to us mere mortals rich or poor.
- Mark, South-East London, 05/02/2010 12:47
Report abuse
Andrew of St John's Wood - MPs made the rules and then bent them completely out of shape. If you can't see anything wrong with that, I suspect that you may be one of the dishonourable members yourself. Very few of our MPs seem to have any self-awareness whatsoever and only the most tenuous grasp on reality.
They have absolutely no problem in enacting retrospectively effective legislation when it applies to other people and makes them pay money which, at the time, the law said that they were perfectly entitled to keep for themselves. A taste of that same nasty medicine would do them, and the taxpayer, the power of good.
It's just a pity that the review into the expenses disgrace has cost more than will be paid back and, by anyone's standards, this shower of glorified office administrators have got off a good deal more lightly than others would in comparable situations.
- Anon, England, 05/02/2010 12:44
Report abuse
What about the flipping? This must be investigated as well.
- Roger, Devon, 05/02/2010 12:41
Report abuse
What about Baroness Udin?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 05/02/2010 12:34
Report abuse
I don't take the *mickey on my expenses though Andrew - I don't claim for expensive tellies, moat cleaning or repairs to my bell tower! I don't lie about which of my homes 
is my main one so I can profit financially - and incidentally how come every single MP who did that is not facing prosecution?
And it is over half - 389 (the number told to pay money back they weren't entitled to) is over half of 646 (the number of MPs).
You'd steal other people's money too if one of your mates told you it was okay. How proud you must be.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 05/02/2010 12:34
Report abuse
Kevin: "over half" - you may want to check your facts on that because that is just incorrect! I am not standing up for them because I don't need to. I am just sticking to the facts. Do you not claim for all your expenses in your job whilst doing that job? The MP's are no different. The problem is people dislike MP's anyway and this is a great stick to beat them with. If I was an MP and the system, as it did previously, allowed you to claim for everything then I would do the same. As for your status comment - oh perlease - go back to reading your Marxist books. Dear oh dear reading that comment was like going back 100 years in time and the hard done by "poor people" against the "wealthy toffs".
- Andrew, St. John's Wood, London, 05/02/2010 12:12
Report abuse
At least 200 MPs have nothing to repay. It’s’s a pity they are tarred with the same brush. They should also be named and exonerated.
- Frank, Bournemouth, England, 05/02/2010 12:03
Report abuse
There are far too many MPs in the house of Common thieves,they need to be culled to a reasonable amount...say 400 max,if you kicked all the fiddlers out that is more or less the figure you would be left with.
- Jacob, Kanterbury Kathedral in Kommunist Kent UKraine., 05/02/2010 11:34
Report abuse
And employing their relatives, what's become of that. I've studied politics for five years at undergrad and post grad level. I sent off 150 applications to do research for an MP, did I get a look in: you must be kidding. THey all employ their spoused, sons, daughters, or evern mothers. Tell me what other profession tolerates this behaviour
- Dom, London, 05/02/2010 11:29
Report abuse
I'm not sure how being anti-bent-MPs is being anti-UK. It wasn't a "tiny minority" of them caught on the fiddle, it was over half. The fact that only a few are being prosecuted is down to their status, not their honesty. Honestly, why do people stand up for them?
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 05/02/2010 11:02
Report abuse
Marianne - you are anti UK whatever the subject - not even sure why you read this website because you are always anti hence you left. When are the general public going to realise that it is a small minority of MP's that will be prosecuted if proved to acted fradulently. Instead of everyone believing all the ridiculous over the top headlines and every word the Daily Mail or The Sun writes it might be more advisable for the general public to look at the facts. As Clare Short said last night on Question Time; they should not be made to pay back retrospectively given that the majority of MP's were completely honest under the old system and didn't break any rules. Clare Short's example was her £1,500 phone bill over the previous 5 years - why should she have to pay that back?
- Andrew, St. John's Wood, London, 05/02/2010 10:41
Report abuse
The ES photograph of Big Ben falling over says it all:-)
- Tony, Herts, 05/02/2010 10:06
Report abuse
If there is any question AT ALL of their honesty, the people involved should be suspended immediately from Parliament pending investigation, as they would be in the REAL world. Enough of this Alice in Wonderland stupidity. This is a country they are misgoverning, not a nursery game,
- Peedoff Pensioner, London/UK, 05/02/2010 09:42
Report abuse
Anyone thinking of defrauding the UK tax system, take note: if MPs AREN'T faced with criminal charges, you'll be able to quote the precedent set by our "right honorables" forever!
- Marianne, SW France/London, 05/02/2010 09:41
Report abuse
