Proceeding contribution from Chris Mullin (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.
Legislative Process
I prefer the word ““publicly””. Whatever the current degree of enthusiasm for September sittings in the House, I am in no doubt that there is great enthusiasm for them among our constituents, many of whom firmly believe, despite our protestations to the contrary, that when the House is not sitting we are all sunning ourselves in the south of France. We all know that that is not true, but the best way to knock the myth firmly on the head is for the House to sit and for us to be seen to be doing the job for which we are primarily paid. I am aware that September traditionally provides us with an opportunity to carry out many engagements that we might not otherwise have time for during the rest of the year. However, I repeat that we are talking about only eight days in September. Moreover, the House sits for only a little over half the year. Assuming that we do not regard the remaining half of the year as holiday, we can surely adjust our constituency engagements to allow for sitting eight days in September. I have seen the answer supplied to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who speaks on behalf of the Commission, setting out the likely impact on the maintenance programme. All I would say is that it cannot be beyond the wit of those concerned to organise the works programme to fit in with September sittings, especially if they have plenty of notice. The amendment is part of a wider struggle against the erosion of the esteem in which Parliament is held. To some extent, we have only ourselves to blame for that erosion. It always puzzles me that we fight hard to get into this place, but having got here, many of us cannot wait to get home again. Last Thursday, we discussed the White Paper published by the Department for International Development, and the Opposition spokesman actually complained that the Government were holding the debate at a time when many hon. Members could not be present—that was a Thursday afternoon, for goodness sake. How can we expect the public to take Parliament seriously if we do not?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c351-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Debates Legislative process House of Commons Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Modernisation Reform Select committees Allocation of time motions European standing committees Standing committees Sub judice rule Standing orders Time limits on speeches
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:09:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357269
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357269
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357269