Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer were today charged with theft by false accounting in the first prosecutions to result from the Westminster expenses scandal.
The MPs - Elliot Morley of Scunthorpe, David Chaytor of Bury North and Livingston’s Jim Devine - all denied the accusations, as did Lord Hanningfield, who faces charges relating to his claims for House of Lords allowances.
They will appear at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court - a few hundred yards from Parliament - on March 11th, less than a month before the expected start of the general election campaign.
If found guilty, they could face jail sentences of up to seven years.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was “very angry” about the alleged abuse of the parliamentary allowance system, and said that all three MPs had already been barred from standing as Labour candidates.
Lord Hanningfield was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative Party and stood down as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords and as leader of Essex County Council.
The peer said he was “extremely disappointed” to be charged and insisted all his expenses claims were made in good faith.
“I totally refute the charges and will vigorously defend myself against them.
I have never claimed more in expenses than I have spent in the course of my duties,” he said.
In a joint statement, the three Labour MPs said: “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.”
Mr Devine said he was “astonished and devastated” to be charged, and could easily explain the claims under question.
Other MPs had been required to repay larger sums as a result of Sir Thomas Legg’s audit, which yesterday demanded a total of £1.12 million to be repaid by more than 300 MPs and former MPs.
“If there’s a problem - and I don’t think there is one - why wasn’t I given the opportunity to pay it back?” asked Mr Devine.
Mr Morley is alleged to have dishonestly claimed a total of £30,428 more than he was entitled to in
second home expenses on a house in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, between 2004 and 2007 - including 18 months after the mortgage on the property was paid off.
Mr Chaytor faces charges that he claimed almost £13,000 in rent in 2005 and 2006 on a London flat which he owned, as well as £5,425 in 2007 and 2008 to rent a property in Lancashire owned by his mother. He is also alleged to have used false invoices to claim £1,950 for IT services in 2006.
Mr Devine is alleged to have claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.
And Lord Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting, relating to claims for overnight allowances from the House of Lords between 2006 and 2009, when records allegedly show he was in fact driven to his home near Chelmsford.
The charges were announced by Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer following a nine-month investigation triggered by the leak of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
Speaking at the London headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Starmer said six files prepared by Scotland Yard had been reviewed “very carefully by senior prosecuting lawyers in the
CPS, assisted where necessary by an external and highly experienced QC”.
Insufficient evidence had been found to press charges against former Labour chairman Lord Clarke of Hampstead. A further case - believed to involve Labour peer Baroness Uddin - is still under consideration.
Mr Starmer added: “Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege.
“We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court.”
The former chairman of the Westminster sleaze watchdog Committee on Standards in Public Life said that parliamentary privilege should provide no protection against fraud charges.
“Parliamentary privilege normally relates to statements made inside the House of Commons that might be subject to some form of civil prosecution. It doesn’t relate to claims they are making for expenses, where normal criminal law should apply,” Sir Alistair Graham told Sky News.
“Compare this with people who are facing court cases and criminal charges if they overclaim on social security benefits. I think expenses should be treated in exactly the same way. It is public money.”
Mr Brown told reporters during a visit to Exeter: “These are very serious criminal allegations.
“All criminal allegations have got to be investigated. It’s a matter now for the courts. We have got to get rid of that old politics, it cannot be part of the new system.
“That’s why I put forward proposals not just to reform the MPs’ expenses system but to reform the way that Parliament works and the link between Parliament and the people of this country.”
And a Conservative spokesman said: “The Conservative Party has led the way in dealing with the MPs’ expenses scandal. We were the first to publish the Right To Know form, the first to require the front bench to put their expenses online and the only party to have carried out a scrutiny of all our MPs’ expenses - leading to the paying back of over £250,000.”
Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokesman David Heath said: “There should be no question of MPs or peers charged with serious criminal offences sheltering behind parliamentary privilege.
“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.”
PA