Livingston Labour MP Jim Devine is one of three Members of Parliament to face charges under the Theft Act as a result of their Commons’ expenses claims, it emerged today.

Mr Devine, as well as fellow Labour MPs Elliot Morley and David Chaytor and Tory Peer Lord Hanningfield were told today they would be charged.

In a joint statement the MPs said they refuted any charges and would “defend our position robustly”.

Mr Devine has been under scrutiny over his expenses claims for several months and he has already been de-selected as the Labour candidate for Livingston for the forthcoming General Election.

He is accused of “dishonestly claiming” money for cleaning services and for stationery using false invoices.

The announcement of the charges against the MPs – the latest episode in what has become an extraordinary saga for the Houses of Parliament – was made outside the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service by Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer.

Mr Starmer said: “In four cases, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges and that it is in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned.

“Accordingly, summonses in these cases have been obtained from the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and will now be served on the individuals in question.”

Former minister Elliot Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, will be charged in relation to more than £16,000 of mortgage interest claims on a property in Winterton, Lincolnshire between 2004 to 2007.

The charges alleges he made claims “in excess of that to which he was entitled” and – for part of the period when “there was no longer a mortgage on that property”.

David Chaytor, MP for Bury North, is accused of “dishonestly claiming” £1,950 for IT services and further sums of £12,925 and £5,425 relating to rent on properties in London and Lancashire.

Paul White – the Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield – is accused of “dishonestly” submitting claims “for expenses to which he knew he was not entitled” – including overnight stays in London.
we should them all, thieving swines

Aye Keppoch, and now that the greedy, thieving MP's have been exposed, it's time to check up on the councils and see what they have been claiming.

One of the questions commonly asked during jury selection here in the States is, 'Are you a person who believes where there is smoke, there must be fire?' In other words, are you going to feel the defendant is guilty just because of the charges brought against him/her?

When you really sit and think about that, isn't it really a loaded question?

If sufficient evidence exists to allow the filing of a criminal charge, isn't it a bit difficult to be completely open-minded?

Yet these MPs say they will defend their position robustly? Who's the bigger fool, the prosecutor who brings the charges, or the juror who says they are impartial?