Skip to main content

Constituency office issues

There will be a debate about how MPs operate during this election. Because both of the candidates that can win have been MP for the same seat it is possible to compare how they operate.

I, for example, ran a weekly advice bureau in the same place every Saturday (apart from bank holidays).  That took 1/2 hours and I saw at a peak 35 people or groups of people.  When people visit the bureau they normally come either on their own or with someone.  It was normally 20-25 groups.   That enables identifying what their issue was about and potentially enough to resolve it.

More complex issues then were given an appointment on Fridays (note that is is a Friday when my labour opponent planned to go to Bristol to promote  her book).

I also used my own finances to ensure that there was a specialist welfare rights advisor.  My office was good at handling such issues, but some require specialist support.  Although I myself have a lot of experience in this area it was a good idea to provide this.   Labour complain that I use my own money to help constituents, but they have funding from the Trade Unions that they could use to do this if they wanted.

Additionally we had some lawyers come in once a week who provided an initial legal consultation.

Hence we had an office which was open 6 days a week.

We did not refuse to deal with things because they fell within the responsibilities of councillors we simply got on with the job.

I did do more than many MPs because I also assisted at times with injustice cases.  For example as a result of paperwork I prepared personally for a criminal appeal (on a Friday in the office) a man in Acocks Green was released from prison.

Constituency casework is an important part of an MPs role because that is how you find out what is going wrong.   It is not sufficient to rely on statistics from government departments.

I have already been attacked by Labour in this election for using funding from the ACA in the 2005-2010 parliament to get funding for additional services for constituents (in an entirely legitimate manner). I explained how that worked in 2009 and did a detailed explanation in 2010 when the source of funds featured in the media.

If the electorate place their trust in me again then I would expect to work in a similar manner.  I personally think it is better to have a bureau in the same place and at the same time each week because then people know where to go.

My labour opponent has a complicated advice bureau rota which you can see on her website here

If I am asked to do the job again I will be interested in the views of people about whether I should keep the structure much the same or have a complicated moving around system. My view is that as long as it is on a good bus route there is no real merit in moving around and it does make things harder for constituents.

One person's comment on facebook


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…