ABOUT 6.30pm on a Friday night, at either Audley or Bank Top Community Centre, the warning signs are clear - if not to me, to my staff.

I start getting, I am told, a little ratty; I might be a bit short with people; and look very sad indeed.

The symptoms of this condition are, however, easy to diagnose, and so is the cure - a large Mars Bar.

I tend to scoff it, rather than eat it in a gentlemanly way. But once down, life returns to normal.

Like a lot of people, once my blood sugar level goes, it really dives. And 6.30 on a Friday in town is always at the tail end of a busy day.

With my advice surgeries starting at 3.30pm, I'm looking forward to a break by 6.30.

I would not, I guess, be human if, at that time, and on an empty stomach, I said a silent prayer for no more constituency cases that evening.

But that is, I hope, about the beginning and end of my irritation with constituency work.

So when I heard Tony Banks, the "cheeky chappy" MP for West Ham complaining at the weekend that he found constituency work "intellectually numbing, tedious in the extreme" I simply could not understand why he'd been an MP for 22 years if a key element of the job got him down so much.

I was pretty unimpressed with what he said, and I've told him so. For he does no favours to the overwhelming majority of MPs of every party who really do take their constituency responsibilities seriously, and like me enjoy them as well.

The most disappointing aspect of Tony's comments was that constituency work was "mind numbing".

Of course, some of the cases I see are similar to those I've seen before, which is just as well, since constituents often want my (and my staff's) expertise as part of the help we can give.

But every call is different too.

One of the things I learnt years ago as a young barrister was never to make superficial assumptions about the strength of a case. (I well remember a case where I had told my client that on the evidence he was bound to be found guilty, and therefore should plead guilty to get a lower sentence.

He insisted on pleading not guilty. Under cross-examination, the prosecution case completely fell apart. He was innocent, and was found so.)

So one of the challenges with surgery cases is spotting the distinguishing features, and building the argument on that. Of course, there are some people who reckon they've suffered some huge injustice when they haven't.

But the reverse is more often the case, people who start apologising for seeking my help, when they really have been badly treated whether by a government or local authority, or (not infrequent these days) their insurance company.

It's never possible to win every case.

What's important in a democracy is that if people have an injustice, they know that it has really been examined.

And that's part of the real satisfaction - sorry Tony - I get from my constituency work.

If only you'd had a Mars Bar with you at those surgeries of yours.

The other satisfaction is of being able to draw general conclusions from what may appear to be otherwise disconnected cases. "ASBOs" - anti-social behaviour orders - and the whole raft of nuisance neighbour legislation - developed directly from disparate complaints in my advice surgeries in the early and mid 1990s.

There's a wider satisfaction about the constituency link - which is seeing the effect that rather abstract national policies have on the ground, with real people. I have just had the latest version of the "Changing Face of Blackburn with Darwen". This was first produced in the mid 1980s. Anyone who doubts that the borough, and the lives of people in it, have not got better, for most, in the intervening years should study these documents. Unemployment in the borough doubled and a half - from 5% to 12% between 1980 and 1985. (45% of Asian men were out of work by then - up from 8%, as mills and factories closed). Now, unemployment is down to 4.9%, with the number of people claiming jobless benefits down to 2.4% (2003), exactly the national average. Or compare what has happened to training of youngsters. 85% of school leavers now continue with training after 16; an astonishing increase from the 1980s.

So, Tony, you're wrong. If only you'd had a Mars Bar with you at those surgeries of yours.

ABOUT 6.30pm on a Friday night, at either Audley or Bank Top Community Centre, the warning signs are clear - if not to me, to my staff.

I start getting, I am told, a little ratty; I might be a bit short with people; and look very sad indeed.

The symptoms of this condition are, however, easy to diagnose, and so is the cure - a large Mars Bar.

I tend to scoff it, rather than eat it in a gentlemanly way. But once down, life returns to normal.

Like a lot of people, once my blood sugar level goes, it really dives. And 6.30 on a Friday in town is always at the tail end of a busy day.

With my advice surgeries starting at 3.30pm, I'm looking forward to a break by 6.30.

I would not, I guess, be human if, at that time, and on an empty stomach, I said a silent prayer for no more constituency cases that evening.

But that is, I hope, about the beginning and end of my irritation with constituency work.

So when I heard Tony Banks, the "cheeky chappy" MP for West Ham complaining at the weekend that he found constituency work "intellectually numbing, tedious in the extreme" I simply could not understand why he'd been an MP for 22 years if a key element of the job got him down so much.

I was pretty unimpressed with what he said, and I've told him so. For he does no favours to the overwhelming majority of MPs of every party who really do take their constituency responsibilities seriously, and like me enjoy them as well.

The most disappointing aspect of Tony's comments was that constituency work was "mind numbing".

Of course, some of the cases I see are similar to those I've seen before, which is just as well, since constituents often want my (and my staff's) expertise as part of the help we can give.

But every call is different too.

One of the things I learnt years ago as a young barrister was never to make superficial assumptions about the strength of a case. (I well remember a case where I had told my client that on the evidence he was bound to be found guilty, and therefore should plead guilty to get a lower sentence. He insisted on pleading not guilty. Under cross-examination, the prosecution case completely fell apart. He was innocent, and was found so.)

So one of the challenges with surgery cases is spotting the distinguishing features, and building the argument on that. Of course, there are some people who reckon they've suffered some huge injustice when they haven't.

But the reverse is more often the case, people who start apologising for seeking my help, when they really have been badly treated whether by a government or local authority, or (not infrequent these days) their insurance company.

It's never possible to win every case.

What's important in a democracy is that if people have an injustice, they know that it has really been examined.

And that's part of the real satisfaction - sorry Tony - I get from my constituency work.

If only you'd had a Mars Bar with you at those surgeries of yours.