I HAVE never been comfortable with the term “surgeries” when describing my weekly sessions with constituents; it seems to imply an expertise I do not possess.

Some colleagues refer to them as “constituency advice bureaux”, but that is even worse: I am simply not qualified to give advice.

Anyway, I hold two different types of surgery: one the second Saturday of each month jointly with town, district and county councillors, in the Leslie Erickson Hall at Stillwater Park in Ringwood at 10am. Anyone can come along on a first-come-first-served basis.

The second type of surgery is held weekly on a Friday at different locations and by appointment (arranged by emailing or calling my secretary at naillm@parliament.uk or 0207 2194886).

It is refreshing when someone takes the trouble to come along and simply give me a piece of their mind on the political issues of the day but mostly people come to see me about a personal problem.

These problems range across every aspect of life and local and national government, but I estimate that, however the problem presents, if you scratch the surface, it is family or relationship breakdown that is at the root of the problem.

It is the swiftest path to poverty; it has all sorts of knock-on effects in terms of disordered behaviour, crime and dependency and, ultimately, this “epidemic” is costing taxpayers billions of pounds.

There are aspects of policy that can have some long-term impact: housing, education, welfare reform.

But none of these can assist you in dealing with the “here and now” as you face its consequences in the surgery interview.

Perhaps the most depressing problem one is faced with is child access. Most separated couples appear to reach some workable arrangement, but others continue hostilities against each other using the children as their chief weapons of war.

Often enough one of the parents who is the victim of this unnatural warfare will end up in my surgery, either demanding my personal intervention or reform of the law to address their former partner’s behaviour. Of course, I have no power to intervene in what is a dispute that must ultimately be resolved by the family courts.

What I do have as a member of parliament is an ability to shape the law which those courts apply, but what is to be done? People can spend thousands of pounds on legal fees and comply with every requirement and ruling of the court, including mediation, but continually run up against the brick wall of the unreasonable behaviour of the other parent. The only remedy is another expensive return to court, for another ruling, for the cycle to repeat itself.

Of course, a court can break such a cycle if it chooses: the penalty of failing to comply with a court order can be imprisonment.

In reaching a decision, however, the court will have to hear both sides of the story – and there always are two sides – and it must always reach its decision in the best interest of the child.

I asked one constituent exactly what change in the law he was asking for. His reply was that it was for me, as the legislator, to find the answer.

Alas, politicians and statesmen have remedies to address all the great political questions, be it reducing the deficit, immigration, inflation or unemployment but, for the most part, there simply isn’t a lever for us to pull in our attempts to address the principal sources of human misery as they present themselves in our weekly surgeries.