Another extremely important part of the role of an M.P. is to redress grievances of the M.P.‘s constituency. They are expected to meet with local pressure groups and businesses, visit local schools and hospitals etc. Therefore they should know the problems within their constituency for real. These M.P.‘s also hold surgeries where their constituents can air their problems. In addition M.P.‘s have to answer mail from their constituents, this mail load is much more than in previous years, thus adding more work onto their already bulging schedule. As well as this M.P.‘s can answer a constituent’s grievance by speaking to, or writing a letter to a civil servant, by speaking to, or writing a letter to a minister, by writing to government agency or department no behalf of a constituent, by meeting with a local councilor. If the constituent’s problem is unsatisfactorily answered from a minister the M.P. can report the matter to parliamentary ombudsman who will investigate the matter further. However many M.P.‘s complain that they have insufficient resources given to them from the executive, thus undermining their role as redresser of grievances, as if they had better resources then they would be able to carry out this function much better.
M.P.‘s also are supposed to scrutinize the executive, although some critics would contend that executive dominance prevents them from doing this role effectively. The majority of M.P.‘s belong to the governing party, thus presenting a conflict of interest for members of the governing party as they are supposed to scrutinize and support their government at the same time. M.P.‘s use different mechanisms for scrutinizing the government. These are debates, question time, standing and select committees and the liaison committees. Debates will force the government to explain and defend its policies and allow M.P.‘s to express dissenting views, this happened in the debate over the war in Iraq. The outcome of debates are generally predictable, as voting at the end of debates is usually whipped. Question time also forces the government to explain its policies, and M.P.‘s can catch ministers off guard with supplementary questions. However its been dismissed as a stage managed farce due to the use of planted questions that allow for the government to exploit this mechanism of scrutiny and dominate M.P.‘s. Select committees also help to scrutinize the government as they enhance their critical capacity by making them more specialized. This specialized knowledge allows for select committees to have a deterrence value, help M.P.‘s to influence government policy, and give M.P.‘s more information about government policy. This shows that select committees are not being completely dominated by the executive, as they are carrying out their role quite effectively. Yet, many critics would argue that their role as scrutinizers is being undermined by the executive as they don’t have enough resources, they have an amateurish approach, they lack power, they have limited linkage to the floor and the face that they have limited influence. In addition to these faults, M.P.‘s in select committees also face interference from the whip, which picks the M.P.‘s whom will sit on these committees. This shows just how executive domination can prevent an M.P.‘s from carrying out his work effectively as the whip will pick a tame hand-picked bunch who will obey all they he wants them to do. Thus undermining the scrutiny role an M.P. must carry out. Also Norton argues that M.P.‘s on select committees are far too overworked to be able to carry out their select committee work properly. The executive takes advantage of this fact and is able to undergo less rigorous scrutinizing. The last mechanism for scrutinizing the government is the liaison committee. These committees scrutinize the Prime Minister in great detail. Nevertheless, only chairmen of the different select committees are on the liaison committee, so the executive cannot be questioned by all of the M.P.‘s. Thus undermining mps role of scrutiny through executive domination.
M.P.'s also carry out a number of functions in relation to their legislative role. They can draft, initiate, debate, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills. However executive domination is ever present, and profusely undermines M.P.'s ability to carry out their legislative role effectively. The drafting of Bills is mostly drafted by the government, showing executive domination. But M.P.'s can draft their own Private Members Bills, and recently M.P.'s have been able to see more bills in draft form, showing that government do not always dominate M.P.'s. However these Private Members Bills often fail due to lack of government support, lack of time, and because of the hostile tactics often used against them such as filibustering. Again showing how government domination can effectively undermine M.P.'s roles.
The initiation of Bills is also dominated by the government as the majority of bills are sponsored by the executive, and again Private Members Bills often fail at this stage due to the faults as before. M.P.'s can debate bills in the 2nd and 3rd reading, yet M.P.'s are very loyal to their party and often stick to their party lines when voting on bills. This shows that executive domination will stop M.P.'s from carrying out their role as debaters effectively. On the other hand, M.P.'s do sometimes have back bench revolts where they express their disagreement with the executives bills. An example of a back bench revolts was during the debates over top-up fees and foundation hospitals. As a result showing that the executive dominance does not always lead to M.P.'s carrying out their role ineffectively. M.P.'s also scrutinize and amend bills in Standing Committees, but the effectiveness of these have been undermined by their partisanship, their limited expertise, limited information and limited time. Most of these problems are caused by the executive as they will not employ M.P.'s that are more experienced, therefore undermining their effectiveness. Voting on bills is largely controlled by the whip. M.P.'s have often been called lobby fodder as they simply vote on what they whip tells them. If these ms don’t vote how they are told to the whip implies a number of sanctions to use against them, ranging from a stiff telling of to withdrawal of the whip. This displays how M.P.'s can be dominated by the executive, and how it can lead them to become ineffective at the role. In spite of this M.P.'s o sometimes have back bench revolts which portray that executive dominance does not always lead to ineffective jobs being done.
M.P.'s legitimize the actions of government when they support the governing party during debates and votes on bills. However party loyalty and whip pressure often means that M.P.'s feel compelled to legitimize the actions and policies of the government. M.P.'s belonging to the governing party are under a lot of pressure to support the government at all times. As a consequence M.P.'s allow the government to dominate them, thus reducing the effectiveness of their roles.
A great number of M.P.'s ultimately aspire to becoming members of the government. For this fact M.P.'s allow themselves to be dominated in the hope of being recognized as secure to get a job later on in the government. The executive can dominate these M.P.'s and threaten them with a loss of promotion prospects if they do not comply with what they want them to do.
To conclude Austin Mitchell argues that the role of an M.P. is not one but many. This huge workload allows M.P.'s to be dominated and forced to not carry out all of their roles as effectively as they could be done if they had more resources, more time and less government interference. It could be argued that the executive does not always dominate, however the illustrations above show that largely they do dominate and effectively undermine the M.P.'s roles.