Osborne's revenge on Labour will turn sour They say the idea that any inquiry, no matter who chairs it, can be done and dusted by Christmas is risible. If it is led by a judge, it will drag on endlessly and cost a fortune - the Leveson inquiry has chalked up costs of around £3 million so far, with around a quarter of the money going to barrister Robert Jay. Both the costs and the delay would infuriate the public. Yet if an MP such as Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, is put in charge, there will not only be accusations of a whitewash but, almost certainly, a major clash between Parliament and the courts - both English and European. Yesterday, Lady Vadera insisted she had done nothing improper, and pinning anything on her or Mr Balls is likely to prove hard indeed. Indeed, the price of trying could be felt not just by Mr Osborne, but politicians of all parties. Today, MPs will vote on whether to have a judge-led inquiry or one run by MPs. Word is that it was Mr Tyrie who went to Mr Osborne suggesting a select committee inquiry. "Everyone is wondering what the implications will be," said one Westminster insider. Virtually nobody thinks it's a good idea apart from Tyrie and Osborne - and Osborne doesn't understand Parliament. Over by Christmas? That's what they said about the First World War. One of the things that is worrying astute parliamentarians is a report published two weeks ago by the Constitution Society on the powers of select committees - or rather, their lack of them. The report makes it clear that if anyone flouts a committee by refusing to turn up or answer questions, there is precious little MPs can do. They cannot imprison people - the last time they did was in the 1870s, and that was only for a few days - and they cannot fine them (the last fine imposed was in 1666). "Parliament's powers are like the emperor's new clothes," says constitutional lawyer Richard Gordon QC, one of the report's authors. If witnesses were forced on oath to give evidence to MPs that they felt infringed their right to a fair hearing, they could appeal to the courts, not least under European law and the European Convention on Human Rights. There is the spectre of judges in the law courts in the Strand sitting watching DVDs of select committee hearings, to see if someone has been treated fairly. It is worth noting that the launch of the report was attended by MPs, including Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, and by senior Commons clerks. The past two years have seen a major upsurge in Parliament's determination to hold to account ministers, civil servants, newspaper proprietors, the police and now bankers. Yet the more assertive MPs are, the sooner witnesses are going to demand that they have legal representation. Even parliamentary privilege isn't worth much. Remember David Chaytor, one of the sinners in the MPs" expenses scandal? He tried to use it to stop himself going to jail, but failed. Giving judgment, the Supreme Court stated that "the extent of parliamentary privilege is ultimately a matter for the court." The president of the court, Lord Phillips, also pointed out that the courts "are not bound by any views expressed by select committees, the Speaker or the Commons itself." This is before we consider the politics of the affair. If the inquiry is run by MPs, Labour will almost certainly refuse to sign up to a unanimous report. Worse, from the Tories" point of view, they are likely to stand accused of helping their "friends" in the City by refusing to go for an independent, judge-led inquiry. Either way, Mr Osborne's political vendetta could provoke a terrible backlash.