Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

It’s not Hodge who should be apologising over the Garden Bridge

Will Hurst

The MP carried out a superb interrogation of the failing project but the Committee on Standards has hauled her over the coals for trivialities, says Will Hurst

In his previous job as London mayor, Boris Johnson spent close to £50 million of public money on not building an extremely ill-conceived bridge, a sum equivalent to the total amount raised by the BBC’s Children in Need this year.

MP Margaret Hodge used her Parliamentary office to thoroughly and professionally research that episode on behalf of Johnson’s mayoral successor Sadiq Khan, spending the princely sum of £3 of taxpayers’ cash on Commons-headed stationery in doing so.

And yet somehow it is Hodge who has had to apologise to Parliament for her actions.

Perhaps Hodge should have conducted her six months of research in a nearby Starbucks

Thanks to a complaint by Tory member of the London Assembly Andrew Boff and a subsequent inquiry, Hodge has been found to have breached the MPs’ code of conduct by the Committee on Standards.

The code states that MPs should use public resources only ‘in support of parliamentary duties’ and Hodge was found to have wrongly used parliamentary facilities for her review of the London Garden Bridge project.

Hodge may have broken the rules but the committee’s conclusion that this amounts to a ‘serious breach’ and the idea that she – and not Johnson – should be apologising to the House of Commons and the public is both ludicrously petty and deeply unjust.

As one of the 40 or so people who gave evidence to Hodge in her Westminster office I can tell you that contrary to the findings of Kathryn Hudson, the standards commissioner who investigated her, I never assumed or was led to believe by Hodge that her work on the Garden Bridge was on behalf of the House of Commons.

She made it 100 per cent clear that the work had been commissioned by the London mayor, but I thought the work would be of benefit to both the Commons and City Hall, not least because Londoners’ £30 million contribution to the bridge had been matched by £30 million from central government. How naïve of me!

Perhaps she shouldn’t have spent £2.97 on 70 sheets of headed House of Commons paper. Perhaps, given that the GLA did not provide her with office space, she should have conducted her six months of excellent and thorough research in a nearby Starbucks. Surely though, it is Boris Johnson and not her who should be being hauled over the coals by the Parliamentary authorities.


Readers' comments (3)

  • When I read this I thought you were joking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The UK's greatest art form is now officially farce, in which the citizens are punchbags. With public bulwarks & stalwarts like Dame Margaret Hodge also in the line of fire - can it go any lower?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely the involvement of the 'great and the good' of the Westminster parliament (in the form of those pillars of the establishment, Boris Johnson and George Osborne) in the disreputable Garden Bridge saga more than justifies Margaret Hodge's meagre use of parliamentary resources in her investigation?
    Surely the House of Commons is grateful for her work in clarifying what went on, or is there perhaps an underlying current of resentment among some at Westminster at Margaret Hodge's diligent work in the past when she was chair of the Public Accounts Committee?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.