Stella Creasey forbidden from bringing her baby to Parliament

From the Times' article

For one thing, the House of Commons has a nursery, and it’s subsidised. MPs are entitled to seven months’ maternity leave on full pay, as well as £30,000 to cover six months’ extra staffing costs for their constituency work. And you can arrange for another MP to cast your vote by proxy for the time that you’re away

There’s just one point where regular workers have the advantage over MPs: they’re entitled to a full year of leave, though not on full wage

I had 1 month off before returning full time. 6 months is still generous given the other elements in Creasey's package.

The Speaker is apparently being lobbied by other female MPs to not agree to change the rules.

That Sarah Ditum articulates everything I think about this! Thanks for sharing @KimikosNightmare

Nonsense. Creasey has a maternity cover package which very few other women could dream of.

Most other women don’t have a duty to work when they have a very small baby. It’s not comparable.

Nonsense. Creasey has a maternity cover package which very few other women could dream of.

Here's Sarah Ditum's take on this.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dc3a28a0-4ef2-11ec-9bc6-5abf98655bc4?shareToken=6d229a7f1e19528dcc0e6f34e97a1f60

The job she does is not a neat 9 to 5 where a temp can cover it. She knew that when she took it on. Her baby doesn't have to be clamped to her permanently.

And women are under represented in Parliament because of this.

This is what I mean when I talk about sex based rights - accommodations, services and rights, without which women are at a disadvantage compared to men.

I know SC doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all things related to sex and gender, but that is irrelevant. Rights and equality aren’t just for people in your tribe.

Creasey has an income and IPSA provides facilities which give her the options of childcare which many, many working mothers can only dream of.

The job she does is not a neat 9 to 5 where a temp can cover it. She knew that when she took it on. Her baby doesn't have to be clamped to her permanently.

Sorry, 3 of the the last 4 male prime ministers!

I wouldn't have dreamt of taking them out at night and interrupting their routine.

Even just having older children can force you to give up things like sticking to a routine religiously.

[quote madisonbridges]@LobsterNapkin
Yes, I just don't see why it would be issue to have a tiny baby there in the first three months, when they need to nurse often.

Except that she was still taking her baby into the chamber when it was 7 months old. So not a tiny baby and no problem leaving her in the creche.[/quote]
So maybe there should be more flexibility for very small babies.

3 of the the last 4 prime ministers have had new babies during their term of office, and Boris Johnson is about to have his second. There is no way to stop pregnancy, child birth and the post partum period being more of a burden for women, and I don’t think an elected politician will ever be able to take full leave from work in the way that other people can.

However, this kind of flexibility can make things easier.

The goal is to enable women to participate in democracy on as equal terms as possible.

That's a result of babies spending the last year and a half at home, though, rather than going out like normal.

Whilst it is true that coming out of lockdowns has contributed to the rise it is beside the point. Lots of winter bugs around, coughs, colds, flue. A busy place like the HOC is no place for a baby. And I don't think it's normal to be carting babies around at night. I was blessed with good sleepers, DD1 slept 7-7 from eight weeks and DD2 from 12 weeks. Having a routine helped them develop their own routine and everyone benefits. I wouldn't have dreamt of taking them out at night and interrupting their routine.

@LobsterNapkin
Yes, I just don't see why it would be issue to have a tiny baby there in the first three months, when they need to nurse often.

Except that she was still taking her baby into the chamber when it was 7 months old. So not a tiny baby and no problem leaving her in the creche.

She is making a point, ok. However, most average people could not bring their children to work?

I think babies that age are best not exposed to the risk of infection from a busy workplace with many people coming and going. They should be settling into a routine and tucked up at home. No one is thinking about the welfare of the baby here in all this.

There is a surge in RSV, just this week one of the A&E sisters was telling me that the paediatric ward at my hospital is full and babies are being transferred to other hospitals out of the area wherever there is space.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv-symptoms-transmission-prevention-treatment/respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv-symptoms-transmission-prevention-treatment

Oh just saw update-

Apparently leader of house even didn't know about rule change in September.

That's just so iffy. I would love to know who suggested change and how/ who signed off. ( My money on JRM being involved).

Speaker has ordered review.

inews.co.uk/news/politics/stella-creasy-baby-house-of-commons-rules-children-in-chamber-1316405

I feel like I'm shouting into the void!

Never mind I thought current discussion was likely to be of most interest!

[quote Elegaic]@ExceptionalAssurance

Its not a direct choice like that though is it - leave or representation.

Yes, there are some duties which MPs can't get cover for - speaking in the chamber and voting. But they can get cover for the majority of their duties which do not involve attending parliament. MPs vary in how much they speak in parliament but its only a small part of their work.

So Stella could take leave with cover for the majority of her role, whilst still continuing to cover the parliamentary element herself. That parliamentary bit of the role could definitely be better supported with changing the rules on proxies and remote access etc.

But there is a still a lot of leave and cover available that she hasn't taken up. Whilst still there being a bit of her role that can't actually be covered by anyone else.

It's a complicated situation but not unique or equivalent to having 'no maternity leave'.[/quote]
I didn't say it was no maternity leave, though. I said it was partial cover, which it indisputably is, and thus inadequate. And yes, it is a choice between taking maternity leave and her constituents being able to have full representation, because it isn't full representation if your MP is unable to speak for you in the chamber. There really isn't any way around this.

@ExceptionalAssurance

Its not a direct choice like that though is it - leave or representation.

Yes, there are some duties which MPs can't get cover for - speaking in the chamber and voting. But they can get cover for the majority of their duties which do not involve attending parliament. MPs vary in how much they speak in parliament but its only a small part of their work.

So Stella could take leave with cover for the majority of her role, whilst still continuing to cover the parliamentary element herself. That parliamentary bit of the role could definitely be better supported with changing the rules on proxies and remote access etc.

But there is a still a lot of leave and cover available that she hasn't taken up. Whilst still there being a bit of her role that can't actually be covered by anyone else.

It's a complicated situation but not unique or equivalent to having 'no maternity leave'.

Wholeheartedly agree with all of that @Elegaic

An MP having to choose between her constituents getting someone to speak for them in the chamber if needed and taking maternity leave is emphatically a problem that does exist. By no stretch of the imagination could that be described as imaginary.

Re eligibility for the nursery, I couldn't find anything about age or whether they offer ad hoc when I looked on their website. Is there a link?

It seems to me that there are ways that the situation for MPs on maternity could be improved - as you say not losing your proxy if attending a debate, or allowing remote attendance. But to frame the situation as 'no maternity rights' or 'no maternity cover' is really disingenuous. There is cover available for the bulk of her work as a backbench MP, but SC has refused to take it up.

Speaking in the house is only really a small part of an MP's role, especially for a backbench MP. It really would be fine for her to just not speak in debates for a bit. She could still contact ministers etc to represent constituents' concerns, or her staff could (if she had taken up the offer of cover). She can still meet with other MPs remotely if needed.

I think there are enough genuine problems with maternity rights and the workplace without creating ones which don't exist.

I wonder how long her speech was? Most speeches seem to be a few minutes so it isn't like leaving a baby for hours but I don't know how long her speech was.