The MP's Complaints Service
| Published date | 01 January 1990 |
| Author | Richard Rowlings |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01789.x |
| Date | 01 January 1990 |
The
MP’s
Complaints
Service
Richard Rawlings*
Over the last year,
[XI,
your Member
of
Parliament, has tried to help thousands
of
people with
their problems, who have either been to see him at his surgeries, come to the House
of
Commons,
written
or
telephoned him. Local Conservative Party Pamphlet,
1986.
Quite a claim and, we observe, hyperbole. Even
so,
it
is estimated that in
1986
Members
of the House of Commons received some six million letters, of which constituents sent
more than half.’ Also, despite the strength of the British Parliamentary tradition, as a
complaints service ‘constituency casework’ has been virtually ignored by political scientists
and lawyers alike.’ This study has as its aim to identify and assess various
of
the
techniques MPs use and the potential of a service which has expanded rapidly in recent times.
1.
Introduction
We treat with seven Members, three Conservative, three Labour and one Alliance, and
the cases they processed in a three-month period
at
the turn of the year
1986.
By
‘constituency casework’
is
meant those occasions when people seek help personally, or
for acquaintances
or
the 10cality.~ While frequently scorned, this aspect of the Member’s
job accounts for most constituency conta~ts.~
John Mackintosh once remarked that the Member’s complaints service has no set place
in the administrative structure of the co~ntry.~ How right he was! Members intervene at
all stages of decision-making, not just to have a decision reversed. Attempts are made
to sway a matter under consideration. MPs are called on to expedite matters, to press
for a decision or push a person to the head of a queue. They are sought out for information
and advice or to lend weight to an application still to be made. The shorthand term
‘complaint’ covers many sins, and not only sins. In this way it is MPs who are the real
ombudsmen.
The research was fashioned with this and working practice in mind. The primary source,
private correspondence, is contained in Members’ casefiles. This is the main way by which
MPs press cases and by which constituents approach.6 The files also yielded sundry notes
of meetings and telephone calls. Generally they were kept to a high standard but, where
appropriate, they were checked against surgery lists and logs of telephone calls. Old files
were used
to
check the influence of the research on the research context’ and to situate
individual cases within working practice.
*Law Department, London School of Economics and Political Science.
1
2 Letter-Writing Bureau,
The MPs Mail Bag
(1986).
Much of the available information derives from attempts to relate the service to voting patterns, for example
B. Cain,
J.
Ferejohn and
M.
Fiorina,
The Personal Vote
(1987). Other studies are of single
Labour
Members: F. Morrell,
From the Electors
of
Brisrol
(1975); Munroe, ‘The Member of Parliament as
Representative: The View from the Constituency’ (1977) 25
Pol.
Stud. 577.
As distinct from legislative lobbyists and items in the postbag like social invitations and expressions of
opinion.
See for example, Marsh, ‘Representational Changes’ in
P.
Norton (ed.),
Parliament
in
the
1980s
(1985).
Mackintosh, ‘The Changing Role of the MP’ in
J.
Mackintosh
(ed.),
People and Parliament
(1978), p. 77.
See Norton,
‘
“Dear Minister
. . .
”
The Importance of MP-to-Minister Correspondence’ (1982) 35 Parl.
Aff. 59.
In
this study the 1007 cases taken up yielded almost 7000 pieces of correspondence.
A useful introduction is
R.
Burgess,
In
rhe Field
(1984), chapter
4.
3
4
5
6
7
The
Modem
Law
Review
53:
1
January
1990
0026-7961
22
Jan.
19901
The
MP’s
Complaints
Service
(I)
Many cases Members press are on behalf of clients they never see. It is different where
the matter is raised at surgery. Six MPs allowed access there. Office staff are an essential
ingredient.
As
with the term ‘ombudsman’, reference to ‘the MP’s welfare role’ implies
that the individual, not the agency, does the work. Members fix the priority which an
office assigns to the welfare role and the extent to which it is devolved to
staff.
The choice
varies and, if in the light of limited resources, the MP’s involvement is high, it is never
solitary.
So,
for half the case-sample period and after, observation of office workings
was carried out at Westminster and, where appropriate, in constituencies. Staff as well
as Members were interviewed, formally and informally; occasionally, accounts differed.
If the basic components of the MP’s job are shared
-
Parliament, constituency, party
and
so
on
-
they are reckoned ‘to produce an amazing variety of patterns, almost like
a kaleidoscope’.8 John Biffen MP states forcibly: ‘there is no such thing as an average
Member. We have
. .
.
650
people who adopt completely different approaches to work.’9
The theme can be pursued
in
this single aspect of the job. Members
of
all parties are
recognised to be under increased pressure to appear as ‘a good constituency MP’. Certain
understandings about the handling of cases can be identified but much scope remains for
individual style and creativity, or lack of it.
Today the narrow focus on representatives’ lives in the legislature is under review.I0
When visiting ‘at home’ in the constituency the usual measures of the ‘typicality’ of
Parliamentarians, like seniority and size of majority, cannot suffice. One theme of the
essay is the way in which local influences bear on the specific task in hand. The seven
Members are self-selected.
Supply of the service is partly cyclical, increasing as elections approach and Members
shift priority away from Westminster. Naturally, the pressure is more intense in marginals.
To catch the flavour, the study was timed towards the end of Parliament. One Member
was about to invest in a mobile home as surgery, another about to go on daily walkabouts
and a third to establish a local ‘hot-line’. Already things were honing up. Plans were being
laid and existing casework checked to see it was in good order. Staff groaned at the flood
of cases in prospect.
The cast is a busy one and facilities at Westminister are poor.I2 The design of the
research was tailored accordingly. The case-sample is an extended snap-shot. Casefiles
active
in
the three month
period
were logged, then cases trawled where, within the timespan,
the constituent was sent a reply which was expressed as final. Three months later, as close
to the General Election as practical, the initial take of cases was re-examined and those
active in the interim discarded. The
1096
cases left formed the case-sample. The selection
is skewed a little.
A
dispute could resurface, even though the constituent went to ground
for three months. The files of several ‘loyal’ correspondents ticked over steadily. The
paradigm example of trench warfare is of council tenants who were demanding of a hard-
pressed housing authority a four-bedroomed house with garden. Every
so
often a request
would be lobbed over and a reply lobbed back, enclosing the previous one.
It has been observed that poor people tend to bump repeatedly into legal obstacles.I3
Some casefiles contained several requests, distinct in legal terms, stretching back several
8
9
10
11
12
13
L.
Radice,
E.
Valiance and V. Willis,
Member
of
Parliament
(1987), p. 45.
Quoted,
ibid.
R. Fenno,
Home Sfyle
(1978), is the pioneering work.
For
an
introduction
to
the literature see R. Rawlings,
Grievance Procedure and Administrative Justice
(1987). pp. 77-88.
Via a process of personal contact and persuasion which did not always bring results. There is no woman
nor fourth-party representative for example, nor a minister
-
on which see
Gregory,
‘Executive Power
and Constituency Representation in United Kingdom Politics’ (1980) 28 Pol. Stud.
63.
Reasons why the service is not researched are discussed by Rawlings,
op.
cir.,
n.
10,
of
which one is
the problem of obtaining access.
Katz, ‘Class, Caste and Counsel for the Poor’ (1985)
2
Am.
Bar Foun. Research
J.
251.
23
To continue reading
Request your trial