MPs' EXPENSES

Hats off to Keir Starmer, the U.K.'s Director of Public Prosecutions, and his decision to charge three MP's and one peer for false accounting. The criminal prosecutions, under s.17 of the Theft Act 1968, are the most prominent fall-out of the scandal about parliamentary expenses, which erupted a year or so ago.

Although all of the defendants are bravely saying that they will robustly defend the charges, I suspect that the reality will be different. The Metropolitan Police, to whom the allegations of criminal activity were first made, and Starmer's Crown Prosecution Service, who have a duty to weigh up both the robustness of any evidence the police provide and whether the prosecution is in the public interest, have had a long time to review the files. It is highly unlikely that they would mount high-profile prosecutions of this kind if they weren't very sure of their ground.

One interesting constitutional side-issue is the defendants' proposed defence of Parliamentary Privilege. This normally covers what MP's and peers say in Parliament and protects them from libel suits if they say something wrong or defamatory, the justification being that Parliament and democracy require people to be able to speak their minds freely. Extending that judicial convention to what otherwise would be ordinary criminal acts would go down like a lead balloon with the general public, and would be difficult for a judiciary confronted more and more by the rigours of the Human Rights Act. Particuarly since some of those allegedly criminal acts look to be so blatant. The charge sheet of former Minister Elliot Morley says that he claimed £16,000 of mortgage expenses from - ultimately - the taxpayer in respect of a property that did not have a mortgage. That's hard to justify under any regime. My advice is that if true, he should quickly plead guilty, and hope for a lenient sentence.

Walter Blotscher