1. MPs have consistently refused to act on my reports, on the grounds that a "strict rule" or "protocol" of the House of Commons forbids them to act on matters raised by the constituent of another.
2. Shadow Cabinet Secretaries and members of parliamentary committees have cited that rule as a formidable obstacle to action: an insuperable barrier to good and honourable conduct, to being an effective MP, to justice, to upholding the law and defending fundamental values, principles and human rights (including freedom of thought), and to defending vital structures (the judiciary, law enforcement, the NHS, democracy, etc.) with whose husbandry the nation has charged them.
3. There is no such rule; there is a convention or custom but it is not a "strict rule".
(i). No sanction can be levied against an MP who acts in a case involving someone who is not his constituent.
(ii). House of Commons Briefing Paper No.02028 treats that Convention. It states: "The conventions dealing with these matters are not the subject of formal parliamentary rules, and Erskine May and the Standing orders are silent on the point"
(iii). On page 5, the Paper cites examples of cases in which the question has been considered, including, on 04 March, 2004, when Mr Ivan Henderson of Harwich raised the matter on a point of order. The Speaker said:
"unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member... it is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them."

Purpose of the Custom and why its Invocation Has Been an Attack on its Spirit

4. That Custom must have been developed to prevent unseemly and unproductive situations where MPs might effectively launch raids or invasions on or of the constituencies of others, purely to further their or their party's own narrow interests, with no real benefit to anyone else (including the constituents, whose interests would ultimately be damaged by such conduct) and to the detriment of the system of governance. In such cases, it is right to uphold the Custom.
(i). Since the custom exists to ensure the stability and effectiveness of the system, its use to frustrate the system must outrage the spirit of the custom, that means the custom itself.
(a). It will be apparent that, when a constituent's MP refuses to act on such matters and when shadow secretaries of state, members of relevant committees of the House of Commons and other MPs invoke this custom as grounds not to act, it is not an honourable thing they do: they do outrage the Custom and endanger the parliamentary system of democracy by which Parliament holds government and certain authorities to account and ensures the proper functioning and safety of the country.
5. I have pointed out to members of relevant parliamentary committees, opposition leaders and shadow secretaries of state that, if sincere, they have not understood the Custom correctly and would commit errors of some moment. For example: can a Shadow Secretary of State for Justice be effective, if he ignores serious misconduct by the judiciary or unlawful detention of a person, for many years, by the Secretary of State for Justice, because it is reported to him by a person who is not his constituent?
(i). Some of those MPs, for example: Sir Keir Starmer and Shadow Secretaries of State, spoke in the House of Commons, on behalf of people who were not their constituents, even as they cited that Custom as grounds to ignore the matters I reported to them.
6. In the bottom paragraph, on page 6, the Briefing Paper quotes Edmund Marshall: "When a particular MP is engaged in a campaign on an issue of general importance, an individual citizen living in another constituency may wish to write a letter of support to that MP; but it is always courteous to contact the local MP at the same time, soliciting his own support for the same cause."
(i). Until the General Elections of 2024 were announced, the MPs to whom I wrote all qualified as MPs "engaged in a campaign on an issue of general importance": relevant shadow secretaries, representatives of their party on pertinent matters, members of relevant parliamentary committees, etc., etc.
(ii). When the General Elections were announced, considering democracy itself imperilled, I was obliged to write to each member of the House of Commons.
7. I asked each MP:
(i). why, where the local MP had refused to act, they would consider the Custom a deterrent to upholding the law, defending the constitution, holding the Government to account and protecting the public interest. None answered that question,
(ii). to describe the likely negative consequence(s) of acting on those matters and to explain why they are to be dreaded more than the effects of not holding the judiciary to account, not upholding the law, not defending the constitution, not strengthening vital structures and not advancing the public interest. None did.
8. I explained that many of these issues affect the entire country: such misconduct by the judiciary in the High Court, other national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, by the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other organisations cannot be imagined to be personal or local problems.
9. I approached my local MP (a member of the Labour Party) and Sir Keir Starmer, regarding that Convention. I asked them to waive the Convention in these and related matters:
(i). Sir Keir ignored that request.
(ii). My MP said, even if she gave such assurances, they would be ignored. She did not waive the Custom and then warn me it would have no effect; she refused to waive the Custom and offered the excuse that MPs would ignore such a waiver.