At the start of the 21st century, MPs faced increasing demands on their time and skills, both at Westminster and in the constituency, and higher public and regulatory expectations and levels of scrutiny. In this 2000 report, expert contributors reviewed the practicalities of an MP’s life and made proposals for reform.
In his introduction to the report, Greg Power, the then-Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government Programme, said:
“The workload of the MP is greater at the beginning of the 21st century than at any time in the hisotry of the House of Commons. Public expectations of our elected representatives have also grown. Yet this increased pressure has not been matched by concomitant improvements to facilities, hours or procedures. In order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Parliament, and its Members, tangible reform is required. The alternative is a growing disparity between expectation and reality, which can only lead to a further erosion of support for Parliament.”
In this innovative report, expert contributors reviewed the practicalities of an MP’s life - including working and sitting hours, procedures, training, staffing and stress - and put forward practical reform proposals.
Table of contents
- Reinventing the member of Parliament: A rational approach to the MP’s work Anne Campbell MP
- Learning to be a Member of Parliament: The induction process Michael Rush and Philip Giddings
- Party politics vs. people politics: Balancing Westminster and constituency Greg Power
- Stress and the Politician Dr Ashley Weinberg
- Caught in the middle: Training MPs in dispute resolution Bernadette Coleman, Stephen Coleman, Ernesto Spinelli and Freddie Strasser
*NB: The quality of the electronic version of this report, available to download top right, is poor**
Banner image: ‘The Father of the House of Commons joins the Yeoman Usher’, by UK Parliament
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The recent rearrangement of responsibilities for the government’s handling of EU-related affairs raises questions about future parliamentary scrutiny of these issues. In some respects pre-2016 institutional arrangements are restored, but the post-Brexit landscape presents new scrutiny challenges which thus far MPs have not confronted.
What information and evidence does Parliament need to enable it to oversee government law-making? Is Parliament currently provided with sufficient information and, if not, how can this be improved?
A recent House of Lords debate on a ‘made negative’ Statutory Instrument highlights Peers’ greater appetite and ability to secure such debates compared to MPs. Data on debate lengths suggests parliamentarians are more likely to give more meaningful scrutiny to SIs they wish to debate than those on which they are obliged to spend time by current procedures.
What Covid Regulations will the House of Commons debate on 14 December, and how? Amid backbench unrest, the occasion will be shaped by the interplay between delegated legislation scrutiny, parliamentary procedures, and raw politics. The outcome could have profound consequences for both public health policy and the Prime Minister’s position.
Statutory Instruments (SIs) have been a key tool in the government’s response to shortages of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers. These SIs showcase the usefulness of this type of law-making but also highlight again some of the longstanding problems with its parliamentary scrutiny.
Delegated legislation may not be glamorous but it is essential to how our democracy works. Time to treat it accordingly.