Boris Johnson faced a tough grilling from an SNP MP over the controversial remarks of Number 10 adviser Andrew Sabisky who resigned last week after his views were uncovered online.
Johnson distanced himself from his former aide when Martin Docherty-Hughes criticised the remarks and Johnson's delay in addressing the issue.
Andrew Sabisky quit as a Downing Street aide following reports that he had suggested forcing contraception on working-class people to prevent a "permanent underclass".
He also came under fire for saying black people have IQs "close to the typical boundary for mild mental retardation", as well as for remarks he made about women which were uncovered by The National.
READ: Andrew Sabisky's vile Reddit posts about women and sex
Business Minister Kwasi Kwarteng, speaking after Sabisky's past remarks emerged, labelled them "offensive" and "racist".
Sabisky later tweeted his resignation, saying he did not want to be a "distraction" to the Government.
Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire), speaking about his brother Graham, who was born with cerebral palsy, criticised the delay in Sabisky being removed from his role as a Number 10 adviser.
"Graham was born with cerebral palsy, unable to talk, walk or feed himself. He brought joy and love to all who knew him," said Docherty-Hughes.
"Last week one of the Prime Minister's advisers resigned when a basic check of their internet history revealed that they had promoted eugenicist policies – the sort that would have ended my brother – Graham Docherty's – life before it began.
READ MORE: Andrew Sabisky made vile claims about women and sex on Reddit
"So, can I ask the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to advise the House and every disabled person in this island why Andrew Sabisky remained at the heart of his Government and was not removed from their position immediately when their abhorrent views became apparent?"
Johnson responded: "Let's be absolutely clear that I certainly don't share those views and nor are they the views of anybody in this Government and that individual no longer works for the Government."
Labour's Stephen Doughty said he had written to the cabinet secretary, the Prime Minister and minister for the Cabinet Office asking a series of questions about the nature of Sabisky's appointment and his vetting, but had yet to receive a reply.
Doughty called on the Government to "respond urgently to those concerns which I think are in the national interest and the interests of the House to know".
READ MORE: Downing Street refuse to clarify Boris Johnson's views on eugenics
Raising a point of order in the Commons, the MP for Cardiff South and Penarth said: "The Prime Minister today laid a written statement about the security and defence review and it's been alleged to me that Sabisky was employed to specifically advise on that review.
"The Prime Minister seemed to suggest we were going to have an oral statement on that soon to come. Could he tell me, has he had any notice of when the Prime Minister intends to come and answer questions including who is advising on this very important review?"
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle replied: "I certainly know that [Doughty] will not give up that easily. So I'm sure that on the benches that will have been heard and my advice will be, get some replies quickly."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel