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.

Childhood Cancer Outcomes

Debate between Emma Lewell and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend first.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I know he has spoken movingly before in this Chamber about his son Max. He is right that, for those who are lucky enough to recover from cancer, there is always an after-effect; it remains with them for life and there should be more support. I give way to my other hon. Friend.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. Her constituents should be very proud of their MP and how she has illustrated and put forward the case on behalf of one of her constituents. She has referred to others having big hearts, but I think she has a heart the size of an elephant, if that is possible.

Estimates suggest that around 75% of children diagnosed with cancer survive. However, that statistic has not seen an increase in many years. Does the hon. Lady agree that the 25% who do not survive must never be accepted as a statistic, but must be fought for with more funding and greater research resources, exactly as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has said, and that those must be put in place as a matter of form and not just granted for one or two years? I know that the Minister will respond in a positive fashion, and I commend the hon. Lady on what she is doing.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very kind intervention. He has pre-empted what I will talk about later in my speech.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), in responding to the debate last year, said that GPs had access to training and that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

“guidelines are trying to support GPs”.—[Official Report, 26 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 656.]

However, having access to training is not the same as mandated training, and NICE guidelines are for all cancers. It is widely known that many signs and symptoms of childhood cancer are the same as those for many common childhood illnesses, and that the types of cancer diagnosed in children are different from those seen in adults. In short, those guidelines are not enough.

The Under-Secretary of State also said that, despite some progress in treatment for childhood cancers, for

“conditions, such as rhabdomyosarcoma, that is not yet the case. Research is crucial to how we deal with it in the long term.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 658.]

Yet no breakdown is available for how much funding is directly linked to childhood cancer research, let alone RMS. What we do know is that funding for research of all cancers has dropped from £132 million in 2018-19 to £101 million in 2021-22, and that Great Ormond Street hospital has found that, on average, only 2p of every £1 spent each year on cancer research goes towards dedicated research projects for childhood cancers.

So here we are, over a year later, and it appears that nothing has improved. The Government’s change in approach to their cancer plan has not been welcome either. In February 2022, the Government launched their call for evidence for a standalone 10-year cancer plan for England, which was intended to be a new vision for how we will lead the world in cancer care. Yet in January this year, they announced that cancer would be incorporated into a new major conditions strategy, effectively scrapping the dedicated 10-year cancer plan. As Cancer Research UK said:

“by bundling in cancer alongside other conditions via a short-term strategy, ministers will fail to give cancer the due care and attention it requires… Cancer isn’t a single disease…in medicine it’s one of the hardest problems to solve and scientific discovery takes time… Ultimately, beating cancer requires a long-term approach.”

The Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group and Young Lives vs Cancer rightly note that this strategy will not give sufficient attention to children with cancer, and are asking the Government to commit to a children and young people’s 10-year cancer plan addressing diagnosis, treatment, patient experience, research, psychosocial support and living beyond cancer. The Royal College of Radiologists, which represents specialist paediatric radiologists and clinical oncologists, has said that after years of under-investment, the workforce is stretched and shortages are causing backlog and delay.

Access to paediatric radiologists already depends on postcode. In the north-east, there are 0.2 consultants per 100,000 people, compared with 0.7 per 100,000 in London. It takes seven years to train in this specialty, and as a percentage of specialists are due to retire, I am not sure that the Government’s workforce plan will sufficiently address the shortfall in those paediatric specialties. International comparisons show that the countries with the biggest improvements in cancer survival are those with long-term, adequately funded cancer plans. Every single parent who has lived in this painful cancer bubble knows what works, too: proper training, early diagnosis, research and access to treatment.

Children in the Care System: Sibling Contact

Debate between Emma Lewell and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me time tonight to speak on behalf of the thousands of children in care who are separated from their siblings and the thousands of care experienced adults who had to, and still do, endure this pain.

The relationships that adults deem to be the most important for children in care are not the same as those that are most important to children in care themselves. Government guidance acknowledges that maintaining contact with siblings is reported by children to be one of their highest priorities. Having that relationship ripped away causes them anguish on many levels. An Ofsted study showed that 86% of children in care thought it was important to keep siblings together and that three quarters thought councils should help children to keep in touch with their siblings. Yet shamefully, sibling contact levels in the care system remain woeful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has brought a very important issue to the House for consideration, and it affects my constituents as well. Does she agree with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which says:

“Sustained contact with siblings can promote emotional stability and wellbeing for children in care. Siblings share an identity, which can promote their self-esteem and provide emotional support while going through care proceedings”?

That is an opinion that should be lent weight, and we must do all we can to provide siblings with a legal right to contact where there has been no accusation of abuse or any other extenuating safety issue.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and those comments echo the legislative changes that I will propose later in my speech.

Recent research undertaken by the Centre for Social Justice suggests that more than 70% of looked-after children with a sibling in care are separated from that brother or sister, which is not surprising when the average number of sibling foster carers is one per local authority and some have none at all. For those being cared for in children’s homes, the number of children separated from their siblings is a staggering 95%. It is also worth noting that we do not know the true scale of that heartache, because the Government do not think it is important enough to record and gather data on how many siblings are not in contact with each other in the care system.

Considering that the Government’s misguided, ideological austerity agenda has led to them presiding over a record 78,150 children in care, a shortage of foster and residential placements and less overall capacity in the social care sector, it is likely that the real picture is far worse. It is against that backdrop that sibling contact is so important.

The groundbreaking Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but there is no parity of provision for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have exactly the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents.

Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds state that the only constant positive, reassuring and enduring relationship they have is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience together. No matter how horrific, those experiences are ones that only they will ever truly know about. Often for younger siblings their protector—the one and only person who has ever kept them safe—is their sibling. While it is not appropriate that an elder sibling should take on that role, it is a fact that they often do. Separating siblings in those circumstances can have consequences for placement stability and create an anxiety for both the younger and the elder sibling. If all they have both ever known is adults who cause them harm, those initial days in placement until they feel safe with their new carers are the most precarious. In that context, it is only right that sibling contact is given the same prominence as parental contact. It cannot be right that our primary legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who may have, or who have, caused them significant harm than it does to contact with their siblings, who are totally blameless.

I vividly remember and will have etched on my brain forever—although I wish I did not—the times when, as a practising social worker, I removed children from their family homes. A promise I gave to them, and to all the children I worked with, was that if I ever made it to this place I would not let them down, and that is what leads me to this debate tonight.

Removing children from home is one of the most traumatic and heartbreaking experiences. It can be emotional overload for professionals, let alone the family. There is often a police presence, violence, tears and utter confusion. Once calm and away from their home, you are left with children alone in your car, having to explain to them by some roadside that not only are they going to be living somewhere else for an open-ended period, but they are also going to be separated from their siblings. That is the most painful part of all: no matter how you explain the situation, children often feel that it is the end not only of their family relationships but of their relationship with their siblings. With each one of the children you drop off at their respective placements, you see a muted relief that they are safe, but a deep sadness that they are alone. The wheels of social services then spin into action. Solicitors for the parents and the courts demand contact as enshrined in legislation for parents. It is done with urgency, but in a resource-poor environment, what has to be done is often what is done first. Guidance that recognises the importance of maintaining contact with siblings takes a back seat and is deemed a lesser priority.

Of course, some children will see their siblings at their parental contact, but that will often be only three or four times a week for one hour. Sibling contact tends to be rare, and at times may be only monthly, for one hour. At the end of the care proceedings children may be reunited with their parents at home or placed for permanence with their siblings, but the complications that a lack of previous consistent contact can bring to those new arrangements may have implications for placement breakdowns and dire consequences for the wellbeing of the entire family.

I am sure the Minister will remind us that Government guidance recognises the importance of maintaining contact between siblings when they are in separate placements, but we all know that guidance is no substitute for a clear duty. If the Government really valued and understood sibling relationships, they would allow their voices to be heard loud and clear with the full force of primary legislation. By simply amending section 34 and schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to include siblings and half-siblings, they would ensure that upsetting, harmful and costly cases could be avoided.

In one such case, five siblings had been in a placement together for five years. The fostering team agreed to move them to another authority with their carers, but then ripped the children’s worlds apart just before the move, advising them that they would be split up and that two of the siblings would go to a new placement. An advocacy service acting for the children took the case to court. The judge deemed that there was a case for judicial review, as article 8 of the European convention on human rights had been breached. The local authority eventually compensated the children, but they were never reunited, and spent the rest of their childhoods not only apart from each other but with zero contact. Two of the children never settled, and suffered immense feelings of loss not just for their siblings but for their former carers. How any Minister cannot grasp the opportunity to stop such utter destruction of children’s lives is staggering.

Throughout the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, the then Minister, now the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), said that the Government harboured concerns that the changes that I was proposing—along with a plethora of experts and organisations—would not provide the flexibility for a case-by-case consideration of contact, but of course they would. The welfare checklist and other safeguards to ensure that parental contact is in the child’s best interest would apply in the same way to siblings. The Minister also promised that the Government would look at the anomaly in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, which do not provide for contact with siblings who are not looked after. Three years on, however, no changes have been made.

In the year in which we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Children Act and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, amid continued criticism of the Government’s appalling record in respect of our most vulnerable children, the new Minister could prove that the Government care about children and are ready to break away from the damaging trajectory they have been on for the last 10 years. She could commit herself to enacting one small yet profoundly important and significant legislative change. I just hope that in her response to my speech she will not let me down, but, more importantly, I hope that she will not let down the thousands of children who are currently having zero contact with their siblings.

UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

Debate between Emma Lewell and Jim Shannon

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

My hon. Friend points to a worrying analogy, and I do of course agree.

Professor Alston’s statement confirms what many Labour Members have known for a very long time—that when it comes to welfare reform and this Government’s policy agenda overall,

“the evidence points to the conclusion that the driving force has not been economic but rather a commitment to achieving radical social re-engineering.”

It has long been embedded in Tory DNA that “there is no such thing as society”, and social experiments in rolling back the state always begin with those who need the state the most. That is why the legacy of every Tory Government is one of deep inequality.

Professor Alston rightly notes that nowhere can this social re-engineering be seen more clearly than in the roll-out of “universal discredit”, as he calls it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. The report highlighted the alarming rise in food bank use. In my constituency, the Trussell Trust food bank had a 20% increase in take-up over the Christmas period because of debts due to delays in first universal credit payments, leading to people being forced to choose between paying rent and feeding their children. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Minister—I am being respectful to him—must take steps to address the issues highlighted in the report? It cannot be ignored.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to those points later in my speech, but he is right; this cannot be ignored any longer.

In principle, universal credit seemed to make some sense. Consolidation of six benefits into one should have achieved the key tenets of simplifying payments and incentivising people into work. Crucially, however, it was never designed to get support to those who needed it in a timely and efficient manner. In reality, like all welfare reform measures from this Government, it was about creating a hostile environment and demonising and dehumanising benefit claimants. As Professor Alston notes, the Department

“is more concerned with making economic savings and sending messages about lifestyles”

than with responding to genuine needs.

The result has been an unrelenting onslaught of abject harm inflicted on more than 3 million people. The late-in-the-day news that the next phase of roll-out is being scaled back gives no comfort to the millions already suffering. Trussell Trust food bank figures show that in areas where universal credit has been implemented, food bank usage has increased by 52%. The fact that the Work and Pensions Secretary states that she “regrets” the growth in food banks will offer no comfort to the estimated 8.4 million people in the UK suffering from food insecurity, or to the volunteers and faith groups filling the gap left by the state and manning the nearly 2,000 food banks that we shamefully now have operating as a permanent part of the welfare state.

Nor will the Secretary of State’s regret give comfort to my constituents, such as one 18-year-old girl starting out in life who unexpectedly lost her job and who, despite statements made by the Government to the contrary, has not been eligible for housing cost assistance through universal credit. She narrowly escaped homelessness thanks to the intervention of our irreplaceable South Tyneside citizens advice bureau. The Secretary of State’s regret will also not help my constituent who suffers from mental health difficulties and was left with only £1.25 per day to live on after the Department made an error with her payments.

The five-week delay embedded in the system, which often turns out to be longer, was never going to achieve anything other than hardship, because one day going hungry and not being able to pay the bills is one day too many.