Indeed. The Father of the House states the essence of that case. The alternative case, as advocated by Professor Heald, is that there is still a body that has influence with respect to the provision of resources in establishing the strategy for the NAO, and that that body could be used to influence. The Father of the House rightly makes the argument against that and I suspect that the Committee will be satisfied by that, but it is helpful to put it on the record and for him to put the counter-argument.
As hon. Members have said, we are dealing with an important organisation. Other countries often look to what we do as an example of an effective means of scrutinising public expenditure. We must get it right, because it is important both in the UK and internationally. The concern is that the private sector corporate governance structure that we are putting place may not be appropriate for the very particular needs that exist in this area. I am not endorsing that line of argument, but it should be stated. I look forward to others addressing those concerns.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Gauke
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c939 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:36:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592030
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592030
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592030