Hl 181 The Conduct Of Lord Hanningfield

Lord Hanningfield's case arose after the Daily Mirror published, in December 2013, articles about Lord Hanningfield spending short periods of time on the parliamentary estate in July 2013 whilst claiming the daily allowance of £300. Following the articles a complaint was made to the Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner for Standards undertook an investigation which focused on 11 sitting days in July 2013 when Lord Hanningfield was on the Parliamentary estate for fewer than 40 minutes and claimed £300 for each day. The Commissioner found that Lord Hanningfield did not undertake parliamentary work on the days in question and was in breach of the Code of Conduct. The Sub-committee considered the case and recommended that Lord Hanningfield be required to repay the £3,300 he wrongly claimed and that he be suspended from the service of the House until the end of the current Parliament. Lord Hanningfield appealed but the Committee did not uphold the appeal and maintained the original recommendation to pay the £3,300 and be suspended from service of the House

The focus of this report is Baroness Uddin's use of the Members' Reimbursement Scheme from May 2005 onwards, regarding her designation of three successive properties - in Frinton on Sea, Maidstone and Wapping, London - as her main residence. The last of these, designated on 1 January 2010, has been Lady Uddin's family home since 1993. The Sub-committee on Lords' Conduct found that Lady Uddin's interpretation of "main residence" was unreasonable. The designation of the Frinton and Maidstone properties was a deliberate misrepresentation of her position and the travel claims were made with the intention of substantiating her designation of her main residences. In total, the Sub-committee calculated that she wrongly claimed £125,349.10 over the period in question. Lady Uddin appealed to the full Committee against the Sub-committee's findings and recommendations. The Committee upholds the finding on the sum wrongly claimed, and recommends that she makes a personal statement of apology to the House and is then suspended from the House for three years or until she has repaid the sum wrongly claimed, whichever is the later.

Is it necessary and just that parliamentarians are immune from legal action? If so, to what extent is such immunity justified and which purpose does it serve? These questions touch the very core of constitutional law. This book contains a comprehensive study of parliamentary immunity in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands.

The Consulting Engineers is an ideal purchase for any engineer interested in the history of their industry. It will appeal to professional engineers, academics, students of engineering, historians and the wider public who are interested in the social and industrial history of Great Britain, and its influence throughout the world.