Procedure Committee

Debate between Emma Lewell and Jim Shannon

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee, following the publication of our second report of this Session, entitled “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”.

Before turning to our inquiry and report, I would first like to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee from across the House for their dedicated work on this timely report, as well as to Gavin and his team of Clerks, who guided us through this process, and to all who gave and submitted evidence. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part in the inquiry.

It is our view that this report comes at an important moment. With more than 300 new Members of Parliament elected in July 2024, many colleagues may be unfamiliar with the origins and evolution of proxy voting in the House. Our aim in conducting this review and publishing our report was, first and foremost, to assess the arrangements introduced in this Session, but in doing so we have sought to clarify the principles and underpinning of the scheme, assess its current operation and make recommendations for its future development.

As many Members are aware, proxy voting was first introduced in 2019 in response to greater calls for support for Members during parental absence. That landmark change was made in recognition of the reality that Members, like those we represent, face personal circumstances that may temporarily prevent them from attending their place of work. Since then, the scheme has expanded to cover long-term illness, serious injury and, more recently, additional provisions that have been brought forward relating to complications during pregnancy and fertility treatment.

These developments reflect a growing recognition that Members should not be forced to choose between their personal health and family responsibilities, and the performance of their solemn constitutional duties in this place. The Committee, like our predecessors before it, firmly believes that the arrangements in this space must continue to evolve to reflect the lived experience of Members of Parliament.

I turn to our inquiry. Late last year, the Leader of the House asked us to review the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury that were introduced at the start of this Parliament and are due to expire at the end of this Session. As part of our inquiry, we also considered the permanent provisions introduced in November 2024 for complications related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for fertility treatment. Because of the early point in the Parliament at which we conducted the inquiry, we received only limited evidence. Uptake of proxy votes remains relatively low, and that has limited the evidence base available to the Committee in our inquiry. However, the feedback that we received was constructive and thoughtful, and it has informed our recommendations.

We conducted a thorough assessment of the arrangements introduced in the present Session of Parliament. First, the Committee puts on the record its strong support for the continued evolution of proxy voting for pregnancy, childbirth and fertility-related absences. From the beginning, the arrangements in this space have rightly grown organically in response to evolving circumstances. This growth has, in our view, worked well, and continues to do so. We accordingly recommend that the arrangements introduced in November 2024 remain in place permanently. In our view, they are clearly defined and provide vital support to Members at a time when flexible support is most in need.

Secondly, on the question of long-term serious illness and injury, we sound a slightly more cautious note. Although the temporary arrangements have provided valuable support to Members across the House, we nevertheless heard concerns about the consistency, transparency and integrity of the scheme. We have also heard concerns that the scheme is not constructed broadly enough—I will touch on that later in my statement. On both points, however, we feel that there is at present insufficient evidence on which to base concrete recommendations for detailed changes to the scope or operation of the scheme. We have therefore taken the view that these issues must be taken in the round before any firm decision is made to put the provisions on a permanent footing.

We therefore recommend that the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury, which were introduced at the start of this Session, be extended to the end of this Parliament. That would provide continuity of support to Members, while providing sufficient evidence base for further work to be undertaken by this Committee.

In the conduct of this inquiry, the Committee also gave thought to the future of proxy voting. Our Report sets out what we consider to be the three guiding principles that underlie the scheme at present, which we believe should guide any future developments.

First, physical absence from the Parliamentary Estate must remain a core requirement. Proxy voting is intended for Members who are genuinely unable to be present. Although we recognise that exceptions may apply in cases of medical recovery or maternity leave, the principle must be upheld. We must avoid a situation where Members vote by proxy while actively participating in other business on the Estate.

Second, the integrity of the scheme is paramount. Proxy voting is a privilege that should be exercised cautiously. Members must exercise it cautiously and avoid any all conduct that could undermine public confidence in the system, thus upholding the highest levels of propriety.

Third, supplementary mechanisms that can achieve similar aims to proxy voting, such as pairing, slipping and nodding through, remain important. These informal arrangements have long supported Members who face short term or less severe absences, and they should continue to operate alongside proxy voting, offering flexibility and fairness to all Members.

Our Report also acknowledges that the current scheme does not cover every circumstance in which Members cannot be present on the Estate to vote in Divisions that they may find themselves in, and it notes the strength of feeling and frustration from some quarters on this matter. We also noted the increased focus on accessibility, health and wellbeing, which is rightly finding expression in this Parliament. We are following with interest the inquiries conducted by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee in this space.

We hope that this Report, far from being the final word on proxy voting, starts the conversation anew—in a new Parliament with a new cohort of Members—about what proxy voting seeks to do for them and how the scheme can best be adapted to achieve that. To that end, our Report proposed that we conduct a further review of proxy voting later in the Parliament. That would allow us to gather more evidence, particularly as more and more Members use the scheme as the Parliament progresses, and to consider the findings of the inquiries being undertaken by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee.

The Procedure Committee is committed to ensuring that the procedures of the House of Commons remain responsive to the needs of its Members. Proxy voting is a vital part of that commitment, and we hope that our Report will assist the House in maintaining a fair and effective method for all Members to exercise their constitutional functions and vote in Divisions in the House. I therefore commend this Report to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chair and the Committee for their hard work in releasing this. I have a simple question. Some of us sitting here today could, in three months’ time, find ourselves seriously ill suddenly and unexpectedly. I presume that would need to be backed up by a letter from a consultant, a doctor or some medical person to ensure that the illness is serious enough that they cannot go and vote.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Member that these are brief questions.

[Jim Shannon]

The brief question is: has the Committee considered that?

Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings

Debate between Emma Lewell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the removal of asbestos from non-domestic buildings.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. Asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999, yet we still have one of the highest levels of deaths from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos in the world. Asbestos continues to be the leading cause of work-related deaths in the UK, with the latest figures showing it causes the death of over 5,000 people per year.

This year new data has come to light showing that in my constituency people are dying from asbestos at a higher rate than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. In the north-east, with our legacy of heavy industry, we are sadly no strangers to the harms from asbestos. My generation has grown up surrounded by families whose dads, granddads, uncles and loved ones have suffered horrendous deaths from exposure to asbestos. We now know that even some of their wives have died from inhaling the fibres that were left on their overalls after work.

My own dad was a welder in the shipyards. He once told me about a day in the 1990s when he was told to go and work below deck. When he got there, he could see asbestos floating among and around all the lads he was supposed to join working that day. I remember when I was a little girl and the council came to do some work on our house. My mam asked me to keep out of the way because asbestos was found in our walls.

Just today I spoke to a constituent who worked in a local comprehensive science lab in one of our schools in the 1980s. He told me that after the fume-cupboard mats were changed in six of the schools’ labs, asbestos was disturbed. Upon re-entering the room, he saw thick layers of it on top of the cupboards. He and his colleagues refused to go and work in there, but the school sent all the pupils back into the classrooms regardless.

This is not our history. It is our present, too, because increasing numbers of teachers, school workers, porters, cleaners, caretakers, nurses and military personnel continue to come forward to say that they were exposed to asbestos in their respective workplaces.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady. The stories she tells about her father in the shipyards resonate with me and my constituency. They used to say that the asbestos was almost like clouds of snow; I wonder how anybody could survive that. Between 1985 and 1994, 527 asbestos-related deaths took place, with men making up 88% of them. That suggests that asbestosis continues to be a significant health concern, particularly among the older generations who were exposed to asbestos in the workplace. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must act now and that consideration has to be given to the older generations, who might have been exposed to asbestos in their working days and are now suffering with illnesses as a result?

[Emma Lewell]

I thank the hon. Member for cleverly pre-empting some of what I am going to say in my speech. He is absolutely right, but we also see people coming forward now, so it not just a historical issue. It is something we need to deal with right now, before it gets worse.

I pray to God that I do not end up suffering from it one day, but if our homes and public buildings have led to people being exposed, it is not a stretch to say that I and those around me could also have been exposed and could end up unwell. We know that from the point of feeling unwell to diagnosis can take up to and above 30 years.

Recently, the Daily Mail, as part of its ongoing campaign, revealed an asbestos ticking time bomb in our supermarkets. I am not being alarmist when I say that the investigative work undertaken by journalist Steve Boggan makes it clear that asbestos is all around us, including in this building. Of course, we know that it becomes a risk only when it is disturbed, which is why successive Governments have maintained the policy that if it is left in a reasonable condition, it should not be disturbed. But that is a risky strategy that I would say is no longer valid, because as asbestos ages, it breaks down, which means the deadly fibres are released and then inhaled. Asbestos-related disease is not only in our past and present; it will be in our future if we do not act.