Paul Waugh has blogged today about the question of how long MPs spend in the Commons. As one might expect of a blog which is rapidly moving up many people’s ‘must read’ lists, it’s a better piece than many of those written on the topic. He does give a few outings to the point that if an MP is absent from Parliament, that doesn’t mean they are not working:
A combination of generous holidays and reformed hours means that many MPs now have what is effectively a three day week (tho in some cases it is a two-and-a-half day week). This is Westminster’s dirty little secret that no one here wants to talk about…
The main culprit is New Labour’s creation of “constituency days”. This means that the House sits very rarely on a Friday and instead Members are supposed to be devoting themselves to their constituents.
Some MPs are incredibly hard-working but beyond the Friday surgery (which is often at tea time), and the odd school visit or fete, what do they really do with this day off from Parliament? Many of them spend time doing party work (as opposed to Parliamentary work), holding street stalls, canvassing and so on. Sadly, the only way of checking would be to follow them from morning til night around their constituency, keeping a distance like a plain-clothes copper.
Similarly, what do they do with their very generous holidays? … Again, every MP here will tell you that these are not really “holidays” and they are all working hard in their constituencies – but we have no real idea what they do with this time.
Leaving aside the slightly odd implication that canvassing and street stalls don’t count as proper ways for MPs to spend their time (isn’t an MP spending time meeting the public an essential part of their job?), what really strikes me about this is Paul Waugh’s honesty in admitting he doesn’t know what MPs actually get up to.
Actually, I think there are plenty of ways of finding out what MPs actually get up to without having to do the stalking act talked about in the piece. To give just one: the register of interests gives an immediate starting point for asking some MPs how much time they spend on some of their outside interests. And here’s another one: the Hansard Society has done a lot of research into the behaviour of MPs. None of them are a five minute research job, true; they would require a reasonable investment of investigative time by a media outlet.
So full marks for the honesty, but what does it say about all the collective output of all those journalists who have opined on this subject over the years if the net result is to say, “sorry, mate – we don’t know what’s going on”?
This state of affairs is a far more damning indictment of journalism than it is of Parliament.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liberal Democrat MP suspended from party after arrest
Replacement?
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
Reform own goals
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Chloe
Geoffrey Payne
Nick Baird
6 Comments
Well the good ones that I know spend a lot of time meeting with constituents, something which can easily take up several days rather than an afternoon, bare in mind there are on average 74,000 voters per constituency to hear the voice of the people you represent is no mean feat, and after all this is the whole purpose of representative government, to dismiss this as nothing is insulting.
I thought the same thing… Why isn’t it considered part of the MP’s job to meet constituents?
Still, the mad organisation of the parliamentary system can be blamed in part for the death of the Fuel Poverty Bill. His comments on Friday afternoons are relevant. 🙁
The ‘constituency Friday’ actually began in 1995, when John Major was Prime Minister. Agree with the main point.
I suppose the problem is that MPs really have two jobs:
Job One, Obligation to The People: To act as the country’s legislature representing the interests of their constituents.
Job Two, Obligation to the Party: Get themselves re-elected.
What do they do outside of parliament and on ‘holiday’? My best guess would be ‘party’ stuff – MPs have resources that give their party a significant advantage locally, but as Paul Waugh says: We don’t know one way or another.
David: good point.
Charlotte: I thikn “Job One” really splits into two – the part which is done by being in Parliament, but also the part which is done by being in their constituency.
I think if MPs were to spend all their time in Parliament, and not do any constituency events, meetings, surgeries, visiting local businesses etc people would complain more rather than say, “hoooray! they’re not taking any holiday”.
Short hours in the Commons ar, in part, a LibDem effect. The big party Whips became interested in more ‘constituency time’ when the LibDems began to threaten a lasger number of constituencies. Of course, in constituencies that appear ‘safe’, short hous simply mean more leisure or more time to pose as the Shadow Minister for Cornwall, etc.
Short hours, ineffective Committees and a mass of hastily drafted legislation add up to a legislative job skimped. I would prefer short hours, effective Committees and less but properly prepared and drafted legislation. That recipe is not on offer from the present government. In the mean time, our jerry-rigged House of Lords is doing its best to fill the gap.
In passing, one of the untaxed perks of Memebrs of both Houses is booze that is remakably cheap at the prices charged. I wonder if it will prove possible to set mminimum prices for alcohol above the House of Parliament prices; and whether minimum prices at or below those levels would have any effect on binge drinking?