News

Expenses row threatens to engulf Government

Call for probe into whip advice to MP

By Campbell Gunn

THE Government was dragged into the MPs’ expenses row after Livingston MP Jim Devine claimed he had been advised by a Labour Party whip to claim expenses in the way he did.

Now there have been calls for an investigation into the allegation.

Mr Devine made the claim in a TV interview yesterday.

Last night, an SNP spokesperson claimed Jim Devine had left more questions for Labour to answer.

“He explicitly states it was a whip who advised him to claim his expenses in the way he did — a move which now sees him charged with theft,” he said.

“This takes the matter from an individual Labour parliamentarian, who still retains the Labour whip, into the heart of the UK Labour Government.

“Jim Devine has charges to answer, but it seems at least one Labour whip has key questions to answer as well.

Questions

“Gordon Brown can also no longer hide behind his claim of being angry.

“If he does not support an investigation into these claims, then it will only raise questions about how serious he is in tackling the Westminster expenses culture.”

Mr Devine, along with fellow Labour MPs Elliot Morley and David Chaytor, as well as Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, were charged on Friday by the Director of Public Prosecutions with theft, following a nine-month investigation.

The three Labour MPs are accused of illegally claiming almost £60,000 in expenses.

Mr Devine faces two charges of theft by false accounting, amounting to £8745.

The MPs were charged under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which means if found guilty they could face a maximum sentence of seven years in jail.

They will not be arrested, but will be issued with a summons to attend the City of Westminster magistrates court on March 11.

However, the MPs’ lawyers claim the three cannot be tried in court, as their cases are covered by Parliamentary privilege. 

Damaging

But Dr Ruth Fox of political research charity the Hansard Society, said the use of privilege would be deeply damaging. 

“If it is a defence against almost any action an MP takes in Parliament, in any relationship with their work, then I think that is going to be deeply damaging for the public. 

“They will see that it is putting MPs above the public, given them enhanced powers, making them essentially above the laws that they themselves make.” 

Labour MP Paul Flynn agreed.

“I’d appeal to my colleagues to ignore the lawyers’ argument and to go back to common sense, and see that no-one will respect any MP who uses this privilege to defend themselves,” he said.

MPs are entitled to payoffs of up to £65,000 when they leave Parliament at an election. Under proposed new rules members who refuse to hand over money demanded by Sir Thomas Legg’s audit of expenses will face having the money docked from any pay, allowances or grants due.

However, Mr Morley, Mr Devine and Mr Chaytor were not examined as part of the process because a police investigation was already under way — potentially making efforts to claw back cash more difficult.

The Sunday Post email jury discusses the expenses scandal here.

<<< News indexNext story >>>

© All copyright D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd., 2010