Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

MPs invoke 1689 Bill to avoid prosecution

Nigel Morris
Sunday 03 January 2010 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Three labour MPs are arguing they cannot be prosecuted over expenses claims because they are protected by parliamentary privilege.

The trio – Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine – are being represented by a legal firm that has acted as solicitor to the Labour Party since 1990.

Their lawyers are understood to maintain that the Bill of Rights of 1689 makes them immune to prosecution. Police have forwarded files relating to the expenses claims of six MPs and peers to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Morley and Mr Chaytor both claimed thousands of pounds for "phantom" mortgages they had paid off. Mr Devine submitted invoices for electrical work worth £2,157 from a company with an allegedly false address and an invalid VAT number. Steel & Shamash, a London legal company, confirmed it had instructed two QCs to consider whether the MPs should be protected by parliamentary privilege.

"It is their opinion that there are substantial legal and constitutional arguments that this is, in fact, the case," a spokesman for Steel & Shamash told The Sunday Times. "Any possible future involvement of the prosecuting authorities in this instance raises serious constitutional issues that will affect not just our clients but the way parliament itself operates."

A total of 400 serving and former MPs were yesterday reported to be facing demands to pay back some of their claims. They range from a few pounds to about £90,000. The number is twice as high as previously calculated.

The party leaders have instructed their frontbenchers to comply with repayment demands from Sir Thomas Legg, the auditor who has been scrutinising their expenses claims over the last five years.

However, 80 current MPs are appealing against Sir Thomas's demands and their resistance ensures the controversy will drag on until the general election expected in May. Those who lose their appeals and refuse to comply with Sir Thomas risk having the money deducted from their salaries, allowances or pension payments.

But the Commons authorities face a headache in dealing with former MPs, with little sanction other than appealing to their better nature or the expensive option of suing for the cash.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in