Competency requirements for MPs?

[Camberman]

This thread is for a mature consideration as to whether there should be competency requirements for MPs.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT suggesting that the current rules as to who may apply to be an MP be changed, amended or altered in any way, as this would impact on democratic processes.

Currently, persons are able to stand as an MP if they comply with the criteria found at the following parliament webpage - https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/

Extract from the above webpage:

Who can stand as an MP?​

To stand as a candidate in a UK Parliamentary General Election you need to be at least 18 years old and:

• a British citizen
• a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
• a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK

Who is disqualified from standing as an MP?​

Certain groups of people are not allowed to stand, these include:

• members of the police forces
• members of the armed forces
• civil servants and judges
• people who are subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order in England or Wales or a debt relief restrictions order
• people who have been adjudged bankrupt in Northern Ireland
• people who have had their estate sequestrated in Scotland

In my industry (health and safety) a competent person is defined as per the following HSE webpage - https://www.hse.gov.uk/involvement/...erson is someone,the particular help you need.

Extract from above:

A competent person
A competent person is someone who has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities that allow them to assist you properly. The level of competence required will depend on the complexity of the situation and the particular help you need.


What I am suggesting is that after being elected as an MP, that person must undertake some form of competency training (for example, tuition, examinations, structured training) in order to professionally and properly fulfil the role. To my mind there appear to be a number of current MPs who lack such competency and may not be able to serve their constituents adequately.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

What competency would you require?

It is easy, or at least relatively easy, to define competency for specific roles, e.g train driver but a lot less easy for such a wide ranging role as MP.

Also what happens if said elected MP fails to meet the standards, you are then saying to the electorate in that constituency that they can't have the MP they elected.

 

[nlogax]

What sort of training are you suggesting MPs take? Do you have examples of where it could have been usefully employed? I mean.. I agree with the basic premise but it's down to political parties to vet parliamentary candidates, not Parliament itself. Those parties will have their own programs and standards for the intake of prospective members. This is from the Conservatives own website for example, and we'll all have our own opinions as to whether the following text has meant anything at all over the last decade.

If you fulfill all the requirements you will be invited to book an Assessment Centre from a list of dates and locations. The cost of this will be £250. At the Assessment Centre, formally known as a PAB, we look specifically at the competencies, skills and abilities which are most prevalent in successful. Candidates and holders of Public Office. At its core, the Assessment Centre looks for you to demonstrate good judgement, a breadth of life experience, sound political conviction and integrity. From these stem various competencies that will be tested across the exercises presented to you at the Assessment Centre. You should seek to demonstrate such skills and competencies from a variety of different areas including your political, professional, personal and voluntary/charitable life. If you begin the process and your circumstances change or you decide it is not right for you at any point, you can withdraw your application and start again once you are ready

It's also evident that where Parliament does try to organise training or workshops for new MPs, not all of them feel obliged to take up such an offer.

Reform’s parliamentary party appears to have become even more divided as Nigel Farage has refused to take anti-bullying training, labelling it as “woke,” despite his fellow four MPs taking part.

New and returning MPs were invited to seminars outlining the rules on conduct, including harassment and sexual misconduct. Sanctions for breaching these rules can include being made to apologise and suspension from the Commons- which, if it is for more than ten days, can trigger a by-election.


Post-election parliamentary data shows that 637 MPs have been on the training, eight are on the waiting list and five have yet to attend.

This (again) demonstrates how toothless Parliament is when it comes to enforcing the behaviour of its members. Colour me surprised.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

To my mind there appear to be a number of current MPs who lack such competency and may not be able to serve their constituents adequately.

That may well be so. Other than simply not re-electing such persons at the next General Election, under what circumstances may a current MP instead be "recalled"? Does there have to have been some criminal conviction?

 

[jfollows]

Jared O’Mara appears to have been lacking in suitability and competence for the job, for example.
But I don’t agree with the proposal, you or I or Jared should be able stand and be elected and the filter is the electorate. Yes, if they’re no good it takes a time to get rid of them, and that’s especially bad for the constituents, but the alternatives are worse. We don’t need more reasons not to have MPs.

Nigel Farage probably doesn’t serve his constituents well, but they voted for him and can’t really act surprised on how this has turned out.

 

[Gloster]

My only suggestions are:

Raise the minimum age to something like 25 at close of nominations.
Require that for the previous three years the candidate has been resident within the United Kingdom and or been subject to the British tax regime or (preferably) both. There might be some exceptions to this, such as service or diplomatic personnel posted abroad, but it is intended to at least cut down the number of carpetbaggers.

That may well be so. Other than simply not re-electing such persons at the next General Election, under what circumstances may a current MP instead be "recalled"? Does there have to have been some criminal conviction?

Recall under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 can be only for a conviction involving a custodial sentence, even if suspended (separately under the Representation of the People Act 1981 sentences of over one year will lead to the MP’s removal); a conviction for an electoral expenses offence; or suspension by the house for 10 sitting or 14 total days. There still has to a petition signed by one in ten of the constituency’s voters.

Personally, I would not do more than minor tinkering with this. Otherwise you will get those with the power to do so launching campaigns to get rid of MP’s that upset them.

 

[jfollows]

Why is a 25-year old more suitable to be an MP than an 18-year old?
I don’t think they are in general, and totally disagree with the suggestion.

 

[Gloster]

Why is a 25-year old more suitable to be an MP than an 18-year old?
I don’t think they are in general, and totally disagree with the suggestion.

To give them a bit of experience in life and, hopefully, learn a bit about compromise and moderation. It is partly because I think that the sort of people who would want to be an MP at 18 are just the sort of people you wouldn’t want in charge of anything.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem we have at present is that both main parties are full of people who've only ever known politics as a career. They study politics at university, go to a think tank for a year or two, then become a researcher, then become a councillor, then become a candidate in a no-hope constituency, and then become a candidate in a safe constituency and become an MP. They've never had a proper job.

Look at Wes Streeting as the perfect example. The guy's never had a proper job in his life. And boy doesn't it show. He's about as much use as a wet paper bag.

I'm not sure that competency tests and qualifications would solve this problem. If anything, it would make things worse IMO.

 

[jfollows]

To give them a bit of experience in life and, hopefully, learn a bit about compromise and moderation. It is partly because I think that the sort of people who would want to be an MP at 18 are just the sort of people you wouldn’t want in charge of anything.

We can agree to disagree, then.
I think the world would be a better place if a few more inexperienced 18-year olds were in charge than the old farts we actually have.
And, yes, I accept that I’m a better car driver at 63 than when I was 18, so your point is not totally without merit.

 

[Camberman]

Gloster said:

Raise the minimum age to something like 25 at close of nominations.

That would have the merit of at least giving the person some reasonable exposure to life experiences.

Tetchytyke said:

The problem we have at present is that both main parties are full of people who've only ever known politics as a career. They study politics at university, go to a think tank for a year or two, then become a researcher, then become a councillor, then become a candidate in a no-hope constituency, and then become a candidate in a safe constituency and become an MP. They've never had a proper job.

Exactly - they have never had a proper job.

 

[AlterEgo]

The competency of a candidate is decided by the electorate. Long may that be so, in a democracy.

 

[Harpo]

Parliament needs to be the broadest possible range of representatives of the population. Defined competencies would discriminate against that.

 

[gswindale]

Parliament needs to be the broadest possible range of representatives of the population. Defined competencies would discriminate against that.

Well I think we're failing there at the moment, and I think that is a basic problem with Political Parties as a whole.

Currently, only those interested in Politics will enter, so I do feel that there should be some way to make it more representative, but I haven't quite thought of a system yet.

If we take Jury Service for example, anybody (within reason) can be called up and has to attend (at least on Day 1 of their call up). This works quite well as there is no game playing by the participants as you don't know when/what you'll be asked to reach a verdict on.

Maybe something similar should be introduced for Parliament, so that at least some of the law makers are not actually in it for Personal Gain?

 

[coppercapped]

My only suggestions are:

Raise the minimum age to something like 25 at close of nominations.

The ancient Roman Republic had something similar, to be elected as a senator the candidate had to be at least 40 years old. In a world where the life expectancy at birth was only about 20 to 25 and less than half of those surviving to their mid-teens would reach ages of around 55 to 60 this made senators senior citizens.

However, the Roman Republic lasted for around 500 years, so they were obviously doing something right!

Require that for the previous three years the candidate has been resident within the United Kingdom and or been subject to the British tax regime or (preferably) both. There might be some exceptions to this, such as service or diplomatic personnel posted abroad, but it is intended to at least cut down the number of carpetbaggers.

Agree, except I would make it five years.

Recall under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 can be only for a conviction involving a custodial sentence, even if suspended (separately under the Representation of the People Act 1981 sentences of over one year will lead to the MP’s removal); a conviction for an electoral expenses offence; or suspension by the house for 10 sitting or 14 total days. There still has to a petition signed by one in ten of the constituency’s voters.

Personally, I would not do more than minor tinkering with this. Otherwise you will get those with the power to do so launching campaigns to get rid of MP’s that upset them.

Agreed.

 

[Harpo]

Raise the minimum age to something like 25 at close of nominations.

Why? Representation of younger people in the parliamentary playpit is massively important.

In recent years we had the splendid Mhairi Black repeatedly puncturing nonsensical Westminster norms that made Rees-Mogg look progressive including pointing out that clapping wasn’t acceptable in the house, but ‘braying like a donkey’ was.

 

[coppercapped]

Deleted.

 

[Thirteen]

Being a MP is not that attractive just because you have to deal with people's problems, commute to Westminster and I would argue the salary isn't great, you could earn more and have less stress.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Raise the minimum age to something like 25 at close of nominations.

Mhairi Black, one of the best MPs in Westminister in recent times in terms of sheer hard work for her constitutents, was only 20 when elected. I'd also point out that many older MPs are simply going through the motions.

 

[dangie]

…. and I would argue the salary isn't great, you could earn more and have less stress.

I would argue that most aren’t really qualified to do anything else which could earn them a decent salary. Many of the current crop of MP’s have only really got the job because they weren’t Conservative. The voters would have voted for anyone but the Tory candidate. Only time will tell if they will be any good or not.

 

[jfollows]

Being a MP is not that attractive just because you have to deal with people's problems, commute to Westminster and I would argue the salary isn't great, you could earn more and have less stress.

I wouldn’t do it for the salary, for sure.
Meaning that most people who do the job are in it for something else. To be “king of the world” perhaps.

 

[SynthD]

Sortition isn’t mainstream anywhere in the world, as far as I know. We have an unusual test in the loyalty to monarchy, which excludes Sinn Fein. Can we justify that? Parliament is sovereign, so the monarchs oath to the people’s representatives is more important than the other way around.

I didn’t know of the Conservative party’s assessment centre. I tried googling to see if Lee Anderson passed it, but couldn’t find out. If he did not take that test, if Farage still hasn’t taken the Parliamentary briefings, then the very few standards we have aren’t being upheld. As with other times new rules are suggested, I say enforce the current rules better.

There is a quote about Anderson starting “He has never moved more than five miles from where, in 1967, he was born.” There’s many details voters only learn if they seek them out.

 

[Magdalia]

Becoming an MP is a 2 stage process, it is necessary to get on the ballot paper and then to win the election.

For the major political parties getting on the ballot paper is done through a candidate selection procedure, is usually quite competitive, and success demonstrates some but not all competences.

Many candidates will be, or will have been, a local councillor, which has a lot of similarities with being an MP.

Age need not be a barrier. The youngest MP elected this year is Sam Carling (age 22) in Cambridgeshire North West. When elected he had been a Cambridge City Councillor for 2 years including holding an executive office.

 

[peri]

Add to the disqualification list: Anyone who has been privately educated.
Let's make that disqualification for the Civil service as well.
Plus anything public funded.
Reason: good at avoiding blame and little else.
Drink may have been taken.

 

[brad465]

For the major political parties getting on the ballot paper is done through a candidate selection procedure, is usually quite competitive, and success demonstrates some but not all competences.

It mainly demonstrates that you know how to find some good contacts and to game a system.

Add to the disqualification list: Anyone who has been privately educated.
Let's make that disqualification for the Civil service as well.
Plus anything public funded.
Reason: good at avoiding blame and little else.
Drink may have been taken.

For incumbent civil servants at least this is already the case.

I'd say anyone who has studied PPE at Oxford should be banned, that would have prevented plenty of trouble getting into power. More seriously, both pay and standards need increasing: higher pay attracts more competent individuals, while tougher standards ensures incompetents are dealt with effectively, which in turn encourages political parties to toughen up their selection processes to avoid embarrassment/damage having incompetent MP scandals causes. Introducing tougher standards at the same time also helps sell the higher pay to the public, who are otherwise strongly opposed to such a move.

 

[MP33]

It was a former CEO of one of the regulators, who said that rather than be paid the same rate as a permanent secretary, he asked for and received a far larger salary. The reason was that, he would appoint people, who would be paid less than him. The pay, at Civil Service rates, would not attract the high calibre candidates that he was looking for.