HC Deb 22 February 2000 vol 344 cc1371-2
41. Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

What representations he has received on proposals to reform the Commission to make it more accountable to the House. [109660]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission)

We have received one formal representation directly on the matter from the Finance and Services Committee, together with a cogently argued letter from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). These views, as well as those expressed by the hon. Members who took part in the debates on 22 January and 2 February, are all being taken into account by the Commission in deciding how to move forward with improvements to the House's domestic administration and the provision of services to Members.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of the earlier exchanges, can he undertake that he and his colleagues in the Commission will examine one important issue in the context of the Braithwaite report—namely, the way in which the Commission itself is appointed and its accountability to the House?

Mr. Kirkwood

The way that the Commission is appointed is determined by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Section 1(2)(d) says that the Commission shall include three other members of the House of Commons appointed by the House". The Commission obviously has to submit to that statutory provision, but the method of producing the names that are confirmed by the House is a matter more for the usual channels than for the Commission.

If there were to be different ways of producing names for appointment by the House, they could be introduced by the usual channels—once memorably described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as the most polluted waterway in Britain. I do not need to give my hon. Friend any lessons about how the usual channels work.

Forward to