MPs charged over expenses claims may lose their 'golden goodbyes'

Former Minister Elliot Morley, backbencher Jim Devine and Bury North MP David Chaytor are likely to get the payments because they will still be "innocent until proven guilty" by the time of the General Election.

MPs are entitled to pay-offs of up to 65,000 when they leave Parliament at an election, depending on their age and length of service.

All three deny allegations of false accounting and have pledged to defend themselves "robustly".

Legal advisers to Speaker John Bercow are understood to have been examining whether the resettlement grants could be withheld or delayed while the court process is completed. They have yet to find a way, however, that satisfies "natural justice" as the men have not been convicted of any crime.

Under new rules expected to be passed over the next few days, members who refuse to hand over money demanded by Sir Thomas Legg's audit of expenses from 2004-08 by February 22 will face having the money docked from any pay, allowances or grants.

Scunthorpe MP Mr Morley, Livingston MP Mr Devine and Todmorden resident Mr Chaytor, who are all quitting at the election, 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.

Mr Morley, who was an Environment Minister under Tony Blair and chairman of a Commons select committee until the allegation, faces two charges of theft by false accounting. He is accused of "dishonestly" over-claiming 14,428 on his constituency home in Winterton between April 2004 and February 2006, and then claiming 16,000 on the same property between March 2006 and November 2007 when there was no longer a mortgage on it.

Mr Chaytor, who twice fought the Calder Valley seat for Labour before 1997, is accused of three charges including "dishonestly" claiming 1,950 for IT services by using false invoices and claiming 18,350 relating to rent on properties owned by him or his mother.

Mr Devine faces charges of using false invoices to claim 3,240 for cleaning services and 5,505 for stationery.

There is growing anger at Westminster at suggestions they could rely on the principle of parliamentary privilege to argue they are exempt from prosecution. "Lawmakers shouldn't be above the law and they should not be invoking 17th-century conventions in order to avoid paying their expenses," Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said yesterday.

Mr Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam, also called for political reform, saying Britain was being directed by a "rotten parliament".

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, effectively Mr Cameron's deputy, insisted MPs "should face prosecution in the courts".

"I am in no doubt about that," said the MP for Richmond, a former Tory leader. "The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, freedom of speech for members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat of an over-powerful monarch at the time.

"MPs did not have expenses at the time the Bill of Rights was assembled. It was never intended to protect the abuse of taxpayers' money.

"So for it to be cited in the defence and to be used to try to block the trials of members of parliament now is a disgusting and appalling misuse of parliamentary privilege. It is a debasement of our constitutional principles."

Home Secretary Alan Johnson, MP for West Hull and Hessle, said his parliamentary colleagues had not been proven guilty and were entitled to a fair trial. But he warned there should be no "special get out of jail card" of parliamentary privilege for MPs accused of crimes.

He added: "I do not believe that the Bill of Rights was meant to deal with this kind of issue."

Shadow business secretary Ken Clarke, a QC,said: "It strikes me as very fanciful that parliamentary privilege can be invoked."

The three MPs and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on March 11.