... To think it’s absolutely fine if MPs don’t hold public surgeries?

[MakingM2]

Now that we know more, this seems to be the question.

I think I’ve written to my elected representatives twice in my entire life. Neither event was particularly helpful. The only time I’ve been to a public surgery is when I took the children to the library and found our MP sat in the middle of the children’s section having what appeared to be a very sensitive, private conversation with a constituent. It was very uncomfortable for everyone.

I can’t imagine anything that would require their actual presence, on demand by an unknown constituent, to be resolved.

I understand if MPs want to be accessible and meet voters, but...If they are meeting people they don’t know well, wouldn’t it be reasonable for them to use the interview cubicles with glass screens that various public buildings tend to have? They use them for staff doing work that might increase the likelihood of them becoming victims of violence so it seems very reasonable to me for them to be used for meetings with elected representatives.

Does anyone feel they must physically see their MP?

@QuentinBunbury

Coincidentally I was booked to watch Labour MP Jess Phillips at Cheltenham Literature Festival yesterday. It went ahead but she did spend time talking about this and I was very impressed she did because she was clearly very upset and shaken by Sir Amess murder. She said that regardless of risk assessments/advice she would never stop directly interacting with her constituents through surgeries and knocking on doors. She said we have gold standard democracy in this country because people can talk personally to their MPs and we should cherish that. She talked about how amazing it was that people can talk about their problems to their MP, even if that MP is the prime minister. So I get the impression that for her and lots of her colleagues the surgeries are a core part of their job and they don't want to lose them. It's changed my view actually, I think the answer is probably better security like you have at concerts etc, so bagchecks and security staff. Rather than no surgeries.

Totally agree!!

I think as soon as you start talking about Zoom you are risking excluding people who need their MPs help the most.
People who can't afford computers, older people who don't like using them etc.

Also, zoom is not a substitute for direct interaction. I think moving to zoom will reduce the benefit to constituents

@KingdomScrolls as you say, not much has changed. I have had some very iffy situations over the years.

I think MPs need to meet real people and hear their problems face to face. Not just doorstepping at election time.

Both my husband and I worked in and around Westminster in various roles for several years. We are both very strong labour supporters, but we met a lot of MPs from all parties who were just good, hard working people who were doing the job for their constituents. They are the ones we don't hear about until something like this happens.

It is disgraceful that someone can be murdered for just gojng about their job in the way they had done for years.

As much as we can all criticise the government, opposition etc, at the end of the day all parties are made up of people who have families and friends who love them. To those who knew Sir David Amess amd Jo Cox and all the others who have died their deaths are a very personal tragedy and MPs should be allowed to grieve the murder of one of their own. Especially when they live with the fear that they could be next.

Ours don't even doorstep at election time, not round here! Except, I think, the Communist Party once.

@Twizbe

I think it's really important for an MP to be out among their constituents. Being in the local library or other public building is part of it. That way they can see what the situation is on the ground. They can see what cuts to services actually look like.

I've met out MP a few times and we're lucky to have a really good one. Every election it's a huge struggle for me between wanting to vote for her, but not the party she belongs to.

What happened yesterday, just like what happened to Jo Cox was shocking and terrible. Security needs to be reviewed but must be a presence that would put people off coming to see their MP.

True, but they can be out and about in their constituency without announcing where they will be and when to the general public. That’s much safer and a slightly different issue.

I agree that I don’t think it’s good for democracy for a police officer or security bod to be present while MPs are doing casework. Some of those issues are, no doubt, very private and given recent revelations about the police...it might put genuine people off. That would definitely not be good.

@mountbattenbergcake

So are you saying they shouldn’t meet constituents at all or only behind a glass screen?

Just because you’re lucky enough not to have needed help doesn’t mean everyone else is similarly fortunate.

What a selfish, garbled post.

Thank you for your helpful contribution.

@Ericaceae

I'm a staffer. 99% of people email, phone or pop into the constituency office. Increasingly few people pop into surgeries these days, and the getting about bit is mostly done via visits, going to local events, etc. Constituency staffers aren't necessarily particularly well paid especially if they're in admin posts, your job isn't necessarily very secure, and it can be very stressful and upsetting. Yesterday was shocking and frightening. Security in offices was ramped up after Jo Cox's murder, and I've still had to call the Police multiple times about threatening or aggressive behaviour towards staff - some of it "in person", and it's been a 999 job. Every staffer I know has similar stories. It's about our safety too. I wish people would remember that when they're talking about politicians "hiding behind screens".

Thank you for the informative and sensitive post, Ericaceae. I am sorry that your role can be so stressful and upsetting.

I would like to thank you - and everyone involved with the democratic process - for your hard work, even when I don't agree with your policies or votes.

@Granllanog

MPs being available to their constituents is a fundamental part of democracy. It must continue but security needs to be reviewed, a compromise may have to be only using their main office with more security measures rather than ad hoc venues.

Their own office does seem definitely easier to control.

No. I think it's really important that MPs should be accessible to constituents in person. Some people have little or no access to computers and the Internet. Some have limited English or poor literacy skills. Some have no privacy at home, and might even fear an abusive partner or parent seeing their e-mails. Some just feel uncomfortable with discussing personal issues on the Internet. The people who most need to contact their MP are disproportionately likely to be in one or more of these categories. Also, it is good for democracy for MPs and constituents to have some personal contact with one another, so that constituents don't see MPs simply as 'those out-of-touch people in Westminster' or 'that evil non-human monster from the wrong party'; and so that MPs are less likely to become out-of-touch people in Westminster, who never have direct contact with most people's problems and concerns. If we abolish this contact because of the threats of violence, then we really are letting terrorists win (anyone who attacks or threatens an MP performing their duties is a terrorist, whether an IRA member, a white nationalist, an Islamist, or acting in a more idiosyncratic cause). However, MPs do need better security, if they are to continue in the country's democratic tradition.

It’s telling that no-one has said they personally want to see their MP. The discussion is about principles - the most important of which is surely they should be able to fulfil the duties of an MP while reducing the chances of themselves, or their staff, coming to harm.

Beefing up security at their offices with an screened interview room that does not provide the visitor with access to the rest of the building seems sensible, and preferable to an intrusive police presence, or zoom calls - gosh, I know I’m not alone in hating zoom.

None of that stops them getting out and about among their constituents at random times and in random places so their movements aren’t predictable.

I don’t see why any of that would make them distant or out of touch, and it would also protect their staff while making their constituency offices more visible as active parts of the community.

I hope our MP takes action along these lines and doesn’t simply carry on regardless or withdraw completely. It is clearly traumatic for entire communities when this happens.

And @Ericaceae ... and you should definitely be paid more for the work you do.

I think for some vulnerable people, a meeting with their MP is the best way for them to feel that they are being listened to.
A basic security check with a search for offensive weapons should surely be a minimum given that this has now happened twice in 5 years.

It’s telling that no-one has said they personally want to see their MP.

I do at times.

But people, who have the ability and resources to be able to post on Mumsnet, could mostly contact their MPs by e-mail or Zoom if they need to, even if it's not their preference. The people who most need to contact their MPs in person are unlikely to be on Mumsnet.

We don't yet know why the man killed Sir David Amess.

Perhaps knowing that will lead to decisions being made about security. Or not if it was a totally random act just to get publicity or some other spurious reason.

@MiddlesexGirl

I think for some vulnerable people, a meeting with their MP is the best way for them to feel that they are being listened to. A basic security check with a search for offensive weapons should surely be a minimum given that this has now happened twice in 5 years.

I agree on that.

Indeed, there have been three very serious attacks in 11 years. because in addition to the murders, Stephen Timms was stabbed and seriously injured in 2010 but fortunately recovered.

I met my MP a while ago, I felt I was being fobbed off by email. Interestingly when we did meet she agreed that the email replies coming from her office were not helpful and took up my issue with the relevant Government department.
As awful as the murder of Sir Amess is, I don't think it should be used as an excuse to separate MPs from their constituents.

The trouble with restricting meetings to constituency offices is that you would need a lot of constituency offices - especially in rural areas that cover huge geographical areas. It's much more convenient for the public to go to their local library, church, supermarket or whatever, particularly if they are elderly, disabled, or do not have their own transport. I imagine people many feel much more at ease in those environments too.

I came across my local MP doing a drop-in surgery in my local Tesco a couple of years ago while I was doing my weekly shop. At the time he was a high profile cabinet minister and I thought it was a good idea.

Security is obviously important though - for MPs and their staff. I don't know what the answer is.

I disagree with the poster who said that most MP's try to do very little. I've worked alongside MPs (not as a direct staffer) and have seen how much work both in parliament and in their constituencies they do undertake.

There is (or was) a poster on here who was married to an MP - I hope if she's reading she isn't feeling too distressed about security needs for her and her family

If anyone is interested I recommend Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the wrong politicians" for a great insight into the fragility of our political system.

My MP doesn't hold constituency surgeries. He spends his days making a fool of himself on Twitter. He is an arse.

I did work experience with my MP when I was studying politics A Level. As part of that I went to their surgery with them and chatted to those waiting to go in to talk to him. There were multiple people there, so if it’s always like that it seems there are enough people who do want to talk to their MP to make the surgeries worthwhile.

I wouldn't personally mind zoom or telephone or in some cases even an exchange of emails, but as others have mentioned there are a lot of reasons why some people prefer face to face, and definitely in private in some cases.

My MP also won't discuss certain issues and policy areas in writing, online, or on the phone but only face to face one on one in his constituency or Westminster office. Which meant those issues didn't get discussed during lockdown. Knowing that he's worried about being overheard, recorded, quoted etc. makes me more worried about it too when I would not have been even five years ago.

If you start doing this then the nutters win. It’s important for politicians to be available to meet the people they represent and communication is more effective face to face than online or written.

I see that my very unpleasant MP is already offering only virtual surgeries - once a week, for a maximum of 15 minutes.

@SecondRateFrog

I see that my very unpleasant MP is already offering only virtual surgeries - once a week, for a maximum of 15 minutes.

My even more unpleasant MP has used this as an excuse to do even less. No f2f at all. My mum's lovely MP who does everything to help has extended their F2F hours.