perhaps "kicks in" was the wrong term - I don't have a transcript of the news, and have not researched exactly what criteria makes one eligible, but certainly they mentioned the possibility of prison as being one reason for getting legal aid considered (so I don't think they were implying it was automatic, even if what I wrote suggests it).
Unfortunately the tax payer looks likely to be stung for the costs of top legal teams.
As for being able to pay and whether going to prison is justification, then (a) yes, I agree on them probably being able to pay, though don't know if it would be easy, or (if they were not an MP) that there would be as much public interest as to whether someone else could apply, on the grounds that to pay for their costs, the family home would probably need to be sold....
But (b) while I personally don't think that the possible sentence should make a difference, I am slightly pleased that those facing the most serious penalties are safeguarded from being unable to get suitable legal representation.
It was probably given close scrutiny when the guidelines on granting legal aid were last reviewed.
I feel for you, honestly, atlantis, that you are penalised because of earnings, and don't make any claim that this is fair. Indeed when Clive Anderson and various legal people discussed this some while ago on R4, there was a wide mix of views, so I think it is fair to say some in the legal profession hate the system as it is at present, too.