IT is a damning indictment that it is easier for me as an MP to get snuff from House of Commons doorkeepers than it is to get answers on the Tories’ rape clause.

Unfortunately, the utter lunacy of Westminster parliamentary conventions was highlighted to me this week when I sought – on more than one occasion – to get some actual work done for the people we’re meant to represent in London.

The first brick wall to common sense was hit on Monday afternoon when I tried to deploy a rarely used Standing Order in the House of Commons to apply for an emergency debate on the proposed rape clause and two child policy for tax credits. 

As it stands, and due to the feckless actions of Tory Ministers, a vulnerable woman whose child was born as a result of rape will now be expected to prove this to nurses, doctors and social workers – even though the Government hasn’t given these 660,000 public sector workers and training on the policy itself or specific sexual violence awareness training.

In applying for an emergency debate, I had to write to the Speaker and first give notice of my desire to apply for an emergency debate.  In doing so, I had to set out the gravity of the situation and the reasons why this required an emergency debate. 

After waiting about through an urgent question on whether the former Chancellor George Osborne should have five outside jobs as well as being an MP, I got three minutes to make my pitch in the Chamber.  I had already been working behind the scenes on Monday to secure the support of Labour MPs, particularly Sarah Champion and Jess Phillips, who made sure there were enough people on the benches to support the debate if it was allowed - procedures mean forty MPs have to be present to literally stand up to show support for the debate.

Unfortunately, and to much frustration all around, the Speaker ruled against my emergency debate application citing an arcane motion of prayer to annul the Government’s legislation, which I’d already tabled the week before.  What the Speaker failed to mention was that such a motion of prayer hadn’t been sucessful in the House of Commons since 1979. 

We’re hurtling towards utter chaos in just a couple of weeks when the Tories pernicious two child policy and medieval rape clause comes into force, thereby compelling women who have been a victim of sexual violence to prove this, simply in order to claim child tax credits.

What’s even more galling is that, with the debate having been rejected, business in the House of Commons collapsed early the following day, allowing MPs to clock off and leave the estate three hours early.  Those three hours – which incidentally is how long you get for an emergency debate – could have been used to haul Ministers into the Chamber to answer for their cruel and flawed policy.  Much needed scrutiny didn't happen, and is unlikely to happen before the policy will come into effect on the 6th of April, halfway through the Easter Recess.  This is of no comfort to those who may be affected or to those who will need to implement the policy.

The second example of Westminster’s daft processes was on Friday when I had a Private Members’ Bill on the order paper for debate.  This is the second time I've attempted to have the Bill debated; I dutifully made my way back to London in order to present my draft legislation for second reading.  My Bill aims to bring in stricter regulations on the testing and advertising of infant formula milks.  It’s been welcomed by health professionals, campaigners, parents and even some in the formula industry itself. 

Unfortunately, because of the arcane procedures in the House of Commons which allows MPs to talk for as long as they like, the Bill was talked out and will not make any progress.  A small group of male Tory MPs consider Fridays their own private playground to filibuster Bills and prevent perfectly sensible proposals from going ahead. During this Parliament, this has included Mhairi Black's Bill on Benefit Sanctions and John Nicolson's Turing Bill. 

Contrast this to the Scottish Parliament – a proper Parliament – which has a strong precedent of allowing private bills worthy consideration and an opportunity to make it into law.

I long for the day when there’s no need for Scottish MPs to be in Westminster but I wish they would ditch the snuff and get on with the work of allowing constituents views to be represented.