The constituency tightrope

by Michael Brown - former MP and now political columnist for the Independent.  
 From The House magazine 4 February 2002.

Michael Brown says the recent case of Rose Addis throws into sharp relief some of the problems faced by MPs in dealing with constituency casework

The recent controversy sparked by the events surrounding the 94-year-old, Rose Addis, a patient in the accident and emergency department of the Whittington hospital, raises wider questions for Members of Parliament across the political spectrum. The case itself provoked a storm during Prime Minister’s questions leading to a good old-fashioned political rumpus.

But the case recalled, for me, the daily nightmare for every Member of Parliament when it comes to representing their constituents. Of course, few cases are quite like those of Mrs Addis whose daughter had the luxury of the Leader of the Opposition as her parliamentary representative. Iain Duncan Smith had decided to raise her case during question time not only because of the intense publicity which had already occurred in the press but because this local case illustrated, graphically, a wider political issue he wished to raise about the state of the National Health Service. Mrs Addis’s family had already discussed the matter with Mr Duncan Smith and given their permission for the issue to be raised in Parliament.

There has been much harrumphing about the wisdom of such a case being given so much political publicity but we must never forget that one of the primary duties of all MPs is to represent aggrieved constituents in Parliament. Behind every approach to an MP from a constituent there is, however, another - often murky - side. The presumption of most MPs, understandably, is that their constituent has a genuine case and is contacting them because they are in trouble and hope that the MP can seek redress. In the past, MPs were approached when all other avenues appeared to have failed. The MP was seen as the final long stop. As my years in Parliament progressed, I could not help arriving at the conclusion that the MP was becoming more and more the first port of call when constituents had a problem.

In my early days, few of my constituents troubled me by telephone. Quite a few wrote, but the majority came to the ubiquitous surgery. Here, I would be confronted with the terrible decision of weighing up the seriousness and believability of the constituent. At first (encouraged by the flimsy 486 majority by which I had arrived in the Commons), the desire to satisfy every single aggrieved constituent meant that I would take up every case -usually in writing - presuming, automatically, that an injustice had been done.

How many times, however, did I receive back perfectly polite but entirely plausible explanations for what had taken place? Having “the other side of the story” at my disposal I could then see that all was not always as the constituent had explained to me during the surgery. A letter back setting out the reasons why the authorities had taken the action they had was sometimes quietly accepted. Often one would not hear from the constituent again - until out canvassing during an election campaign when I would be assailed with “I came to you but you did nothing when I was in trouble”. But sometimes, constituents would persist. An angry response that I had been fobbed off by the authorities and that matters would be reported to the local newspaper then posed a further dilemma. I would probably return to the authority concerned challenging “their side of the story”.

And here is the most difficult dilemma for MPs - which is not always appreciated by the outside world. Those local health authorities, councils, job centres and benefit offices that are on the receiving end of the MP’s complaints are also staffed by constituents (also with votes). One constituent’s grievance becomes, potentially, another constituent’s annoyance that the MP is unwilling to understand the problems of the local public services or the local staff who work within such services.

The temptation to accept “the other side of the story” is strong. Usually MPs know the local officials well and are anxious to maintain good personal relations. But occasionally the persistent constituent - sometimes difficult to distinguish among the obsessive, manic green ink brigade - has a genuine grievance which goes unremedied, even after a visit to the MP.

Two recent cases should give all MPs - especially those close to government - pause for thought. The recent quashing of Stephen Downing’s murder conviction in Bakewell and the case of Major Perry who beat the Ministry of Defence over the matter of army invalidity pensions. Matthew Parris, Mr Downing’s former MP, recalls how he drew a blank but the Downing family refused to give up or go away. Similarly, after years of classic Whitehall resistance, the MoD finally conceded Major Perry’s argument.

These two cases should serve as a reminder to MPs that just “getting the other side of the story” is not always enough.

Michael Brown is political columnist for the Independent.   From The House magazine 4 February 2002.

Other House Magazine articles are available on-line at www.epolitix.com