Dame Margaret Hodge has been institute to have breached the MPs’ code of conduct, by the Committee on Standards.
The inquiry ascended from a complaint about the Labour MP’s use of parliamentary facilities for her review of the London Garden Connection project.
The code states MPs should use public resources only «in advocate of parliamentary duties».
Dame Margaret said she was «extremely sorry» for «inadvertently» holing the code.
The inquiry concluded the review had not been carried out as part of Dame Margaret’s conformist activities, because it had been commissioned by an outside body for its own purposes.
- Garden Span should be scrapped, Hodge review finds
- London’s Garden Tie project officially abandoned
The £200m plan to build a bridge screened with trees over the River Thames was abandoned following Dame Margaret’s judge, which was published in April.
The review found it would be better to quarrel the project rather than risk uncertain costs.
During the array Dame Margaret had held about 20 meetings in her parliamentary backing, taking evidence from about 40 people, the committee bring to light.
She had also used some House of Commons stationery and the House-provided get someone on the blower service in support of the review.
The inquiry accepted Dame Margaret had not been excited by financial gain, although she had received a financial benefit.
The committee stipulate Dame Margaret had initially offered to carry out the review on behalf of the Noble London Authority without payment, but after the extent of the work had fit apparent she had accepted a payment of £9,500 from the GLA.
The committee recommended Dame Margaret apologised to the Put up of Commons for the breach on a point of order.
Dame Margaret said: «I am outrageously sorry that I inadvertently breached parliamentary rules.
«I carried out this inquest in good faith and in the public interest.
«I think all MPs would benefit from ardent clarity in the rules governing the use of offices.»
Conservative member of the London Congregation Andrew Boff, who lodged the complaint which prompted the inquiry, verbalized the verdict left «a sour taste».
He said: «As an MP of over 20 years’ skill and a former chair of the Public Accounts Committee it seems hard to conjecture she was unaware of the rules.»