Reform in the House of Commons by Jogerst Michael;

Author:Jogerst, Michael; [Jogerst, Michael]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University Press of Kentucky
Published: 2021-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

6

Defining the Role of a Member of Parliament

The preceding chapter highlighted the political realities of parliamentary reform: executive reluctance to strengthen legislative investigatory bodies, committee members’ frustrations with imposed limitations in conducting inquiries, Procedure Committee assumptions about the proper role and powers of select committees in a parliamentary system, and changing orientations of MPs toward their roles as legislators. The Procedure Committee’s report of 1978 was all the more pathbreaking because of what it expected of members of Parliament. For the proposed committee system to be successful, effective, or relevant, members’ attitudes about their jobs, about Parliament, and about committee service necessarily had to differ from the assumptions predicated in previous Procedure Committee reports.

The committee’s belief that the requisite attitudinal changes had indeed occurred, that MPs were in some ways different from those of, say, twenty years before, was supported by various behavioral evidence. Committee members were aware of the unprecedented backbench dissent and rebellion in the 1960s and 1970s. They noted the increased calls for more staff and better resources, particularly by, but not limited to, recent entrants. They monitored the attempts of the then current committees to pursue broader, policy-related inquiries. And they took evidence from clerks, academics, and MPs who charged that while Parliament had apparently abdicated its constitutional role of accountability in recent years, members were seeking to “claw back” this power they had lost.

The Procedure Committee’s report raised high expectations for the proposed departmentally related select committees. The new committees were to monitor, scrutinize, and influence government policies and their administration. They were to be the “eyes and ears” of the House in its relation with government departments. Furthermore, the select committees were expected to be able to respond quickly to current problems as well as maintain long-term oversight of expenditure programs of their respective departments. The result, Procedure Committee members hoped, would entail greater participation and influence in the parliamentary process by backbenchers, increased accountability of the Executive to the legislature, better information access to members of Parliament, and of course a reassertion of the House’s role in policy formation and evaluation. To achieve these desired aims, the onus of responsibility would fall to the members of the new committees. Although the necessary institutional structures were created, they would remain relatively ineffectual without a corresponding interest, dedication, and will among their members. For the new system to be successful, the backbenchers seeking places on the committees would need to possess attitudes commensurate with those expected and anticipated in the Procedure Committee’s report.

Awareness of the attitudes of legislators toward their roles in the legislature and their motivations and goals in the assembly assist one in deciphering how and why these members may react to or interpret various political phenomena. In this case, for example, knowing an MP’s attitude about his or her role in the House, the emphasis placed on specialization, policy making, scrutinizing the Executive, and party loyalty provides a useful profile of the “type” of MP he or she best fits. Does one

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.