Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 April 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on House of Commons (Effectiveness).
House of Commons (Effectiveness)
I am grateful to you, Mr. Fraser, for saying that we are talking about the effectiveness of the House. When judging that effectiveness, one of the top criteria is whether people outside the House think that we are applying the same standards in the House that they apply in their own lives. Ultimately, the money that we spend in the House—whether in subsidising food or whatever else—is provided by the taxpayer. That is important. Another issue is petitions, and the reforms aimed at giving more prominence to petitions. The people who use the facilities in 1 Parliament street submitted a petition—I declare an interest, as the lead signature of that petition is that of my researcher. The petition gathered a large number of signatures over a couple of days, and only now have we have received a response. However, I am not sure that the response does much for the reputation of the House and its effectiveness. It does not respond at all to the suggestion for providing alternative facilities in Derby Gate. All it does is express regret on behalf of the Commission for the fact that many staff will have an important facility taken away from them, and that there will be a loss of income to the refreshment department of £80,000 a year. As you can tell, Mr. Fraser, I feel strongly about this matter because in the end, the effectiveness of an organisation is judged not on its generality but on specific examples. I do not want to be a Member of a House that gets a reputation for spending money without proper accountability. The House would be more effective if there were a lot more accountability for the way in which we spend money, and if we gave more power and authority to the Finance and Services Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is the Chairman of something called the Administration Estimate Audit Committee. I wrote to him in that capacity on 11 March and I have no record of having received a substantive reply; I have certainly had an acknowledgement. I said in my letter:""As your Committee's terms of reference require it, inter alia, to encourage best financial practice, use of resources and governance in the House administration I hope you will intervene quickly to ensure that the proposed works"—" for the day nursery—""do not proceed without endorsement from the Finance and Services Committee."" It is not too late for that to be done. In any event, I should have thought it prudent now to defer any final decisions until the beginning of the new Parliament, when we shall know what the demand for those facilities is likely to be. Then we can have another look at the costs and the effectiveness on that issue.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c307-8WH
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Candidates Allowances Women House of Commons Pay Members Newspaper press Parliamentary scrutiny Parliament Media Young people Reform Select committees Politics
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:32:37 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637692
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637692
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637692