What Is an MP Actually For?

MPs are seen as the highest political authority in their area, yet we hold almost no formal power there. Devolution could shrink the role further, unless we ask a harder question about what it is for.

I really enjoyed Steve Richards’ podcast in which he talked about Andy Burnham’s plan to devolve power. He hosted former minister John Denham, who provided interesting analysis on the need to involve MPs in the process of devolution. I wholeheartedly agree. Speaking as an MP, it is amazing how little power we actually have in our local areas.

Influence, but no power

MPs obviously have influence. We can speak to ministers, hold private conversations, and run campaigns. In theory, we also have power through voting on or amending legislation, but that is heavily curtailed by the whips. But it has amazed me how little formal power we get within the local system of our constituencies.

We are often viewed by voters as being the highest political authority in a given area, but this is only partially true. Yes, we operate in Westminster, at least for half of the week, but it is definitely not the case that we have the most power.

Actually, we have effectively no executive power and no resources of our own that we can deploy towards an objective or any good cause. Compare this to local county councillors in Warwickshire, who are given a budget that they can put towards projects to help their community, and it starts to make you wonder about the role and status of an MP.

When I asked about this upon being elected, namely why MPs couldn’t be given some kind of discretionary budget themselves, I was looked at by newly elected colleagues and those with more experience as if I’d gone mad!

No obligation, no job description

Regarding John Denham’s idea, it should be noted that at present, no part of the state, whether local government, the NHS or the police, is formally required to consult me or even to meet me.

Now obviously they do, because in reality the power of an MP lies in the authority of the title. People know that you can cause problems for them, speak about them in Parliament or to ministers directly, which is a form of power. But there is no formal requirement for MPs to be involved in anything in their own area.

Indeed, listeners to the podcast may not know that there is no job description for an MP (we quite literally make it up as we go along based upon convention and how we want to do it ourselves). We are not obliged to attend Parliament, except to take the oath if we want to receive a salary, be able to speak in debates and vote. Similarly, we are under no obligation ever to visit our constituencies. What a preposterous system it is. I live in my constituency, so I visit it for half of every week by definition!

The mayoral squeeze

Which brings me to one of my significant concerns about local government reorganisation, even before the rise of Andy Burnham to the premiership.

John Denham is talking about the role of MPs after local government reorganisation takes effect. The creation of powerful metro mayors presiding over a combined authority of unitary councils risks diminishing the role of an MP.

I am deeply concerned that MPs are already largely overlooked when it comes to the allocation of resources. For example, in the West Midlands, because there is a West Midlands Combined Authority with a Mayor, central government often assumes that projects for the WMCA are for the whole West Midlands. And yet many local authority areas like mine are not even in the WMCA.

So, in a world in which there are combined authorities across the whole country, formed of unitary authorities which by definition will have more resource, more clout, and more strategic nous, what role is there for MPs?

This is an issue that I have raised this directly with the Secretary of State in the House of Commons.

Time for a debate about the role

This raises the wider question for me about the role of an MP, which I will be writing about more in future and taking forward through my own channels. I think there needs to be a major debate.

What we cannot have is a situation where the blame is, as ever, placed upon Westminster and MPs, and a new echelon of genuinely powerful politicians is created, strategic authority mayors, usurping or diluting the already limited power that MPs have.

Either we are to be relegated to being glorified social workers (I say this with immense respect to highly trained and professional social workers, who help people in such a vital way) focused only on local campaigns, over which we have no control, for which there is no legal obligation to consult us, but yet for which we will be held accountable and expected to resolve problems. Or we are left to be truly national politicians, with far greater power and responsibilities at the national level.

The sharp difference between these two facets of the role really indicates that the role is in great need of radical reform. At the very least, we should start asking the question: what is the role of an MP?