Points of Order

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the Leader of the House departs the Chamber, I wonder if he would respond to a point of order relating to what he said in business questions in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) about Scots law. I am sure that he did not mean it to come over the way that it did, but it did seem to some of us that Scots law—whether passed in the Parliament of Scotland or indeed in this House—and its rights and privileges were not being recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments. I am sure that he would want to correct the record on that point, critically in relation to public health.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I am not really impartial on the matter of Scots law. If the Lord President wishes to respond, he may do so.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be a joy to go back to Wellingborough. I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency before; if I come, I hope he will invite me to speak to his local Conservative association and thank it for all the good work that it does.

My hon. Friend is heroic, because he has saved hours of Government time and Backbench Business time. He has managed to advocate the advantages of levelling up in one question, albeit a slightly long one.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It may disappoint you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it will come as no surprise that I am no monarchist. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me today in congratulating the Countess of Dumbarton on the rejection of the appeal by The Mail on Sunday relating to the invasion of privacy, and will therefore set aside Government time to ensure that a judgment that cements the fact that The Mail on Sunday—which is owned by a member of the peerage—has broken the law, and that whether one is the Countess of Dumbarton or a citizen of that ancient, noble borough, the right to privacy and a private life is far more important than the money spent on clickbait in The Mail on Sunday.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am a monarchist. I think that monarchism is essential to our country, and I think that republicanism is a most unpleasant activity. However, I also think that freedom of speech is more important than privacy. I find it concerning that the rich and powerful can use the courts to protect their private lives when others cannot, and I would be deeply concerned about anything that undermined freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the great protectors of our national life and of our constitution.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I do hope that there are no Conservative Members who have taken donations from anybody at any time, because these are donations to political parties—to political campaigns. They do not go to individuals, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows. He did rather promise that he was not going to make a speech, but it was good of him to explain to me, in case my little lady brain had not got it the first time.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On donations to political parties, does she agree that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party’s utilising Scottish limited partnerships fundamentally exposes those on the Government Benches for what they are utilising to undermine democracy itself.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point and I hope he will be expanding on it further later.

With the reputation of Parliament at risk of being ripped apart thanks to the actions of this Government, particularly in the past two weeks, they must start to restore trust in our democracy. There is a way they can do that: they can back this Opposition motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am fully aware of what the two different and distinct committees are. What we want to do is ensure that we get the opportunity to back the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That is what we are looking forward to doing.

Just briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remind ourselves of the scale of this problem and issue when it comes to second jobs, The Sunday Times showed us that 138 MPs have had second jobs in the past year and that 12 earn at least an extra £100,000 a year from outside interests. Almost one in four Tory MPs spends at least 100 hours a year on second jobs and 25 MPs spend more than 416 hours a year.

We in the Scottish National party believe that our job as a Member of Parliament must be an exclusive commitment to our constituents. We also want to see all of Parliament included. That includes that rotten corrupt circus down that corridor there. The House of Lords has to be included in this. I welcome the valiant efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) to try to get the issue looked at again—his amendment was not selected—and all my other colleagues who have been trying to press this issue. It cannot and can never be right that someone can be rewarded with a place in the House of Lords for giving £3 million to the coffers of the Tory party. It is a measure that would make a tin-pot dictator in a banana republic blush, with the size and amount of sleaze and scandal.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that with the Government backpedalling on the previous notion of a new committee, we need to ensure that cross-party support for the present Committee also goes to the upper Chamber, where we stop appointing Members from the Opposition to an unelected, unaccountable House of Lords?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. We have a duty, an obligation and a responsibility to make sure we have the best possible standards in the unelected Chamber. It is the Prime Minister who appoints Members to the House of Lords. It is lists drawn up by party leaders that give those appointments an opportunity to be placed there. That has to stop. I know this House likes the place up there for some reason, watching people dressed up like Santa Claus prance around the place, but they are put there because they are donors, cronies or placemen. It is an appalling abuse, a corrupt House, and we should be looking at abolishing it, not putting more people in because they happen to give the Tory party £3 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). What gets me about this entire debate is that there are probably Members in here who would, as they say in some parts, go “total tonto” about me not wearing a tie, but who would not blink an eye at an unregistered £6 million in personal loans, or £28,000 of extracurricular activity in other Parliaments. It is not just about the Government Benches, I have to say. There are those on the Opposition Benches, for example, who are exposed for taking payment for non-parliamentary work while they were actually in their parliamentary offices. So it is about the entire House, not just the dodgy dealings of the Government.

There has been much mention about the former Member for North Shropshire, but perhaps we should have seen this coming, given that when they were sacked from the Government in 2014 they were, in a quote from Martin Williams of openDemocracy, “ringing round” for a second job. Luckily, the companies that they were ringing round saw it for what it was and said, “No thanks very much. We don’t have anything on the books at the moment.”

Then there are the other Members. I have informed them that I will name them, but an MP with a major financial interest in a company that sells insurance to pay for care services seeks via an amendment to the health and social care levy—to quote the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) themselves in public—to

“create incentives for investment into some kind of modern insurance scheme.”

No wonder the former Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life clearly stated that

“The rules of procedure would clearly require him—

the Member for Yeovil—

“to explain what his interest is in this matter.”

So yes, I think that would be a breach of the code, particularly where he is seeking with an amendment to influence Government policy. He is clearly duty bound, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, to declare any interest he has in the matter. Perhaps he has. Again, as I have said, I have informed the Member. Again, I am grateful to Caroline Molloy of openDemocracy for that exposé of the nefarious workings of this place.

If we look north to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, we find another Conservative Member, a regional MSP, who states in the paper this week that being an MSP, or an MP actually should be a part-time job. Extraordinary! That MSP even goes on to say that they think the Lords is not in need of reform—I will come to that in a minute. I tend to agree with an acquaintance of mine who stated that that was like saying—and we must understand the electoral methods of a PR Parliament—“I never made the tiniest effort to win a seat without saying ‘I never made the tiniest effort in trying to win a seat’.” That is basically what that Member was saying. I am sure that even new Scottish Ministers in the upper Chamber do not fail to recognise that their not being elected by the electorate at the last Scottish Parliament and then being thrown into the House of Lords is an absolute affront to the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is really political patronage.

I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is in the Chamber, has not been selected because it gets to the nub of the privilege of being an unelected and unaccountable Member of the House of warmers—that is a parliamentary term, as I am sure Hansard will point out. I am also disappointed with the shadow Leader of the House for not agreeing that that would be a way forward to end cash for honours.

I notice we have had some consensus on this side about opposing the Government’s change or creation of a new Committee in the House. I wish we could come to some consensus and stop appointing members to an unelected, unaccountable Chamber. That way we might get quicker reform of it, especially the utilisation of Scottish limited partnerships to fund political parties, which actually fill it with their own grandees and appointees.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to get rid of the stench of corruption, or perceived corruption even, of cash for honours: the three party leaders who appoint to the House of Lords could simply say that they will not put in the Lords those who have donated over a certain sum of money over a certain period of time—perhaps £50,000 over five years?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further. I would get rid of it. Just abolish it. What is the point of an unelected, unaccountable Chamber? We could have an elected one, or an enhanced Chamber of the House of Commons, where we can tell Ministers that they have to come to a Committee meeting because the House demands they come to it and will drag them to it. That is more or less what the Scottish Parliament does. We have a unicameral Chamber that has profound powers and can drag people to a parliamentary Committee, under oath, I would think. That is surely what this House should be asking for if you are a democrat and believe in democracy. Get rid of that lot.

As a Scot representing a Scottish constituency I also find it an affront that members of the English episcopy have more to say over the affairs of my constituents than I do on many occasions. It is a real pity. Although I am going to support the Opposition motion, it is disappointing that we cannot come to some consensus about the nefarious ability of big donors to utilise the unelected Chamber to change policy and change issues that impact my constituents across Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven—people who need to work two, three or four jobs just to keep their heads above water.

What about members of staff working in this very House who travel miles from across the south of England to work in low-paid jobs to work with Members and to make sure they have a a decent day’s work, while they all have two jobs paying them millions of pounds? What does that say to people in this place who work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water? It is a parcel of rogues in a nation and in a Parliament. Quite frankly, the time for this obfuscation and saying that we will just tooter aboot while the place crumbles about is done. Get done with it. Stop it. No more second jobs. Get rid of the House of Lords. And that way we can actually look our constituents in the eye.

Committee on Standards

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid the hon. Lady has not troubled to read the amendment, which does not overturn the report of the Standards Committee. The amendment asks whether there should be a form of appeal and sets up a Committee to consider how the standards process is working. As I said, there have been problems with the process.

On the examination, or non-examination, of witnesses, paragraphs (6) to (10) of Standing Order No. 150 allow the commissioner to appoint an investigatory panel to assist in establishing the facts relevant to an investigation. The Standards Committee is also able to request that the commissioner appoints such a panel. Under these provisions, the commissioner chairs the committee with two assessors, who advise the commissioner but have no responsibility for the findings. One would be a legal assessor and the other a senior Member of the House who would advise on parliamentary matters and be appointed by you, Mr Speaker. The commissioner would determine the procedures and could appoint counsel to assist the panel.

The Member against whom the complaint had been made would be entitled to be heard in person and would have the opportunity to call witnesses and examine other witnesses. At the conclusion of proceedings, the commissioner would report as usual. The legal assessor would report to the Standards Committee as to the extent to which the proceedings had been consistent with the principles of natural justice, which of course include the right to a fair trial under a proper and just process, and the Member assessor might report on the extent to which the proceedings had regard to the custom and practice of the House and its Members.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House started with a quote, and I am often reminded that what is false exists on the same judicial footing as what is right. I make no judgment about those who signed the amendment but, given that six of them have had allegations upheld against them by the Standards Committee in the last year, can he differentiate between how what was good enough for them is not good enough for the right hon. Member we are discussing?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The reason why this has come now is the volume of complaints that have come through and the more widespread feeling of unfairness, across all Benches, that has been brought to my attention and the attention of others. In simplistic, clichéd terms, this is the famous straw that has broken the long-suffering camel’s back.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

But I do not see any Opposition Members signing the amendment.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is the point I made earlier about the unfortunate state of affairs whereby this House does not work as a court of appeal, but, regrettably, becomes partisan, which reinforces the need to have an independent body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Dare I say that the right hon. Lady is modelling herself on the deaf adder and, charm I never so nicely, she is not hearing what I am saying? The new Committee could come to the same conclusion, but the point at issue is that we are discussing the process, the lack of appeal and the failures in the processes as they currently exist.

Let me come to the length and continuity of investigations. Across many standards cases we have seen huge differentials among the lengths of time taken for investigations. There appears to be no consistency. For example, the case of the Chair of the Standards Committee himself, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was completed within a week using the rectification procedure, after he had failed to declare something after two years. That is contrasted by the lengthy investigation into the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, which took just over two years from the start of the inquiry to the publication of the Committee’s report.

It is equally concerning—this is an important point for those who have been speaking up for the Committee—that the current processes do not ensure continuity of attendance at the Committee, with different Members present at the Standards Committee’s three formal meetings on the report. By the final meeting, only 50% of the membership had attended all three meetings, and four of the 11 members who attended that meeting had not attended the meeting in which the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was heard. Although we all understand the pressures on Select Committee members, that seems to be in sharp contrast to the expectations in a judicial process such as jury service, when people are meant to be there to listen to the evidence, and a good reason to look again at our processes.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Are the Government asserting, under that premise, that there will be a compulsion for Members to attend not only the proposed Committee but every other Select Committee?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The proposed Committee is very different from other Committees, but that will be a matter for the ad hoc Select Committee to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the Father of the House, who offers some realistic and sage advice about how we take forward processes and business such as this. It would be good if the Leader of the House was to listen to his very straightforward comments about what is going on today.

When I was first told about this, I thought it was some sort of joke. I thought, “They can’t possibly be serious.” I expected maybe to come to a debate that would be the usual suspects speaking on behalf of one of their pals—but not today. Today we have the full force of the Government whipping operation dragooning Conservative Members of Parliament through this House to overturn the decision of our Standards Committee and to introduce a new way of examining breaches of the rules in this House. It is an almost outrageous suggestion.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the Government’s approach: seeking to introduce mechanisms to neutralise court rulings of the Supreme Court, seeking to defy the European convention on human rights, seeking to reform the Electoral Commission, and now this. Does he, like me and I am sure many others on the Opposition Benches, agree with the litany of Giovanni Capoccia that this is a dire warning of the pillars of democracy being undermined by the Conservative and Unionist party for its own nefarious needs?

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, I do. I say to my hon. Friend and to this House: the public are watching this. The public are examining how we do this type of business, and, I say ever so gently to my Conservative colleagues over there, they are not liking what they are seeing. They are extremely concerned about the way that this House is going when it considers some of these issues.

What the public are observing is a shoddy attempt to turn back the clock to the worst excesses of 1990s Tory sleaze. What they see is the return of the days of brown envelopes and cash for questions—the absolute worst of sleaze and cronyism. What they see is the Conservatives trying to get one of their mates off the hook by ignoring independent due process, and rewriting the rules because they do not suit them, to close down an independent process and replace it with a Committee of this House with a Conservative majority and a Conservative Chair. Let us get rid of all independent process and just have them adjudicate on everything. Why do we not get the executive committee of the 1922 Committee to replace the whole of the judicial system across the UK? If a Conservative supporter is found guilty of any offence, why do we not get a committee set up to reconsider that verdict and have a look at it once again? That is the type of realm of possibility we are getting into with this.

I do not care if this place seems as sleaze-ridden and crony-ridden as it wants to be. In fact, it does me good if people from Scotland are watching and observing this place descending into the midden that we know it can become. It serves my purpose to see it do that. But is that what the Conservatives want to do with this House—to so debase and degrade the way that we do things that the public will start to look on this place with nothing other than utter contempt?

Let us just remind ourselves about what the Standards Committee found. It found that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) broke multiple rules when he lobbied the Government on behalf of Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods. The Committee’s report said:

“No previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests.”

It quite rightly imposed the maximum sanction available to it. What the Conservatives now want to do is to overthrow that verdict of this independent Committee and to have the matter determined by a Committee with a Conservative Chair and a Conservative majority. That is natural justice Conservative-style for you. Can I say this to you, Mr Speaker? This Committee is supposed to have a Conservative Chair, four other Conservative members, three Labour members and one Scottish National party member, but the Scottish National party will not serve on any kangaroo court designed and determined by the Conservative party in order to do away with an independent process for looking at a breach of the rules.

God know what Kathryn Stone must be making of this. She has every right and every entitlement to walk right away from all this and have nothing further to do with this House that now attempts to change the rules midway through the process. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right. We were only told a couple of weeks ago that we could not change the rules retrospectively, but here we are in the middle of considering a standards report, and that is exactly what we are doing. What a way to do our business. What a shoddy return to the days of Tory sleaze. What a way to reduce this House into the absolute shambles that it is.

Today, Tory MPs are being instructed by their Whips to vote for this. We are doing this without any scrutiny or consideration of how these rules are rewritten. If the Leader of the House wants us to look at how we approach these things in future, he should bring forward a debate, not just 90 minutes where he took up half the time, because nobody has an opportunity to get in and say anything. Do it properly. Why are we doing this when we are considering a standards report? We will not take our place on this Committee; we will have nothing to do with it. I hope that Labour Members do not take their places on it either. If the Conservatives want to be the judge and jury and the arbitrator in all this, that is up to them. Get on and do it; we will have absolutely nothing to do with this process at all.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is very well timed, with my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary sitting next to me. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend takes this matter with the utmost seriousness. Some £600 million of taxpayers’ money is being committed to removing dangerous cladding. The Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend, are ensuring that the dangerous cladding is removed, and that houses and flats are being made safe for people. If I may say while he is sitting here, the number of times my right hon. Friend has raised this issue with other Ministers, and is pushing for it as hard as possible, can give the hon. Gentleman confidence.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has announced a temporary suspension of evening and weekend GP out-of-hours services in Vale of Leven Hospital in my constituency, giving the reason that GPs are affected by UK changes to pensions. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have highlighted the drastic problems posed to the NHS workforce by current pension tax policy. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is now time, before the Budget, for a statement on what action the Government are taking to tackle this issue, which has far-ranging consequences for the whole of the UK?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman very cleverly answers his own question when he says, “before the Budget”. These are matters for the Budget, but I think there is a lot of sympathy with what he is saying.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The death of any young person is tragic, and for it to happen through such horrendous and violent means is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided an extra £100 million in his spring statement yesterday for urgent action to be taken by police and crime commissioners—a specific intervention to help the situation now. The Government have an enormous range of different interventions to try to tackle the bigger problem of young people getting into gang membership and a life of crime, including £970 million of extra investment in the policing system next year, the serious violence strategy, and the establishment of a serious violence taskforce. We are also bringing through the Offensive Weapons Bill to make it harder for young people to get into a life of a crime, and we are investing significant sums in local community initiatives to try to get young people away from the attraction of joining gangs and carrying knives. The Government are committed to tackling the problem at every level.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Lyndsey Coleman of the Y Sort It youth group in West Dunbartonshire. Last night, she was a finalist in the Scottish youth worker of the year award while the Y Sort It management board won the youth participation award for the whole of Scotland. Does the Leader of the House not think that it is time for a debate in Government time to discuss the value of investing in community youth work across the entire United Kingdom?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating his constituent on their award; it is always great to hear about the success of youth workers. We recently had a debate in which all Members were able to congratulate the work done by community groups, volunteers and youth workers, but I will certainly take away his request for further such discussions.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our prison officers who face daily threats, intimidation and violence, and it is right that we do everything that we can to protect them. She will be aware that we now have over 4,300 more prison officers compared with two years ago, and that we are investing an extra £30 million in our prisons to improve the facilities in those with the most pressing problems. All of those things will contribute to making a safer workplace environment. She will be aware that we have Justice questions on 12 March, and I encourage her to raise her specific question then.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

My constituency is best known by many for its shipping history, whether it be John Brown and Company of Clydebank or Denny of Dumbarton. Next week, for the 78th year in a row, my community, including my family and friends, will gather once again to commemorate those we lost in what was described by a Minister in an Adjournment debate three years ago as the “worst blitzkrieg” in the history of the second world war proportionally anywhere in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that it is now time that this House considered in a general debate in Government time the long-term economic and social consequences as well as the mental health consequences of aerial bombardment on the communities that suffered it across these islands? It is about time that we learned the lessons from it, given that the impact of it is felt by so many other communities across the world.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly serious issue and I pay tribute to him for all the work that he does in his community to commemorate the appalling bombardment. He is absolutely right to raise the fact that this is the reality for far too many people right across the world today with appalling consequences not just of physical injury and harm, but to mental health and the long-term effects of suffering from constant bombardment. I encourage him to go to the Backbench Business Committee and see whether there is an appetite for a cross-party debate on this subject so that we can consider together how we might better commemorate these appalling acts.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman should keep pursuing that debate. I am sure that Mr Speaker is listening carefully. He is right that retail crime is a blight on businesses across our high streets, and we need to do everything we can to resolve the matter. He may like to seize the opportunity to contribute his thoughts during the debate on serious violence next week.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It has been evident for some time that properties located next to whisky maturation sites are being affected by a stubborn black material. That is happening not only in West Dunbartonshire, but across the United Kingdom. In a recent survey conducted by my office, 85% of respondents in Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven highlighted the negative impact of “whisky black”. The issue has an impact on all our communities, so will the Leader of the House make time for all Members to discuss it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was unaware of that issue before the hon. Gentleman raised it, but he is right to do so. He may like to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 21 February so that he can look into it on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf.

Proxy Voting

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I will follow your advice to keep it brief, Mr Speaker. Indeed, this is not an obviously family-friendly time to have this short debate, although as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, many a new mother may be awake doing an evening feed.

I support the motion. I know that women all around the Chamber have been waiting for this moment, to receive the reassurance that when their time comes to give birth, they will not have to worry about coming in to vote or about pairing arrangements. There will also be women watching this debate who will at some time in the future follow in our footsteps and want to know that Parliament is a family-friendly place to work, and that it is possible to come here and be a parent—a good parent. I am often asked by women thinking of standing for Parliament, “Does it work?” I say emphatically, “Yes. It does work to be a Member of Parliament and a mother, it does work to be a Member of Parliament and a father.”

I say that, but my children are a little bit older—they are six, eight and 10. I cannot imagine what it would be like having a baby as a Member of Parliament and thinking that you might have to go in to vote. Of course, as others have said, we have the pairing system, and that has worked well for many people, but it is not foolproof. It does leave you with a level of uncertainty and it also means you cannot represent your constituents in the way you would like. The time has come to move on, and we have the proxy voting proposals that have been worked through carefully so that we can have this pilot.

I, too, feel that the proposals do not go far enough. I would like to see us doing more for dads beyond the two-week period. I have spoken to colleagues who have come in to vote in the weeks that their wives were giving birth, not knowing whether they would be able to get back in time for the birth. I remember when I was in the three weeks leading up to my due date asking my husband not to travel for work, because you never know when the baby will come.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Just as a point of information, we should be mindful that there will be women who will be married to, or have partners who are, women so the impact will be not only on fathers, but on mothers whose wife or partner is giving birth.

[Helen Whately]

I completely agree, and in fact I was trying to make sure I used broad enough language.

We must make sure that we are thinking of dads and, in future, two weeks may prove not to be long enough. We must also think in the future about people who are seriously ill or have caring responsibilities for someone who is seriously ill. That is very much for the future. Let us get on with what we can do now. I fully support the introduction of proxy voting now.

Business of the House

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of these green deals that enable our constituents to do their bit to help prevent climate change. On specific complaints, there is a process by which his constituent can complain. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about this, I can pick up the specific complaint directly with Ministers.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

As we speak, in India, an application for an independent medical examination of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, is being made in relation to accusations of torture nearly four months ago. Does the Leader of the House agree that, given the very important report by Redress, a notable charity, and the up and coming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April, it is now time for Government time to be given to debate the torture and ill-treatment of UK nationals abroad?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The UK Government, of course, take every step possible to ensure good treatment of UK nationals wherever they find themselves, and we strive very hard to ensure that our views are made clear to all those who would perpetrate such crimes against UK nationals. With regard to the specific individual mentioned, again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I can take the matter up with Home Office Ministers.