Babies barred from house of commons... WTAF

[AdamRyan]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61987339

Unbelievable that MPs who are mums can not take their babies into the HoC and therefore not be able to vote or participate in debates.

MPs don't get maternity leave either.

This seems like its going to be a significant hindrance to getting more female representation and also like we are going backwards in terms of women's participation in public life

Not ever, just for long enough to vote or speak in a debate?

It's a workplace, you don't take your baby into work. What we need is proper maternity leave for mps and/or the ability to take part in debates and vote remotely.

From the Government website
'Pairing is an arrangement between political parties, where two MPs—one who would vote Aye and one who would vote No—agree not to vote in a division. These arrangements are registered with the whips.

If the tellers from both sides agree, an MP who is within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster but not well enough to vote in person, may be ‘nodded through’. This means their name is added to the list of those voting even though they haven’t gone through the lobby in person.'
So arrangements can be made in some circumstances; just needs to be expanded for this situation.

I'm amazed at the number of posters on this thread who think nurseries which operate in workplaces are some kind of dumping ground where anyone can drop a new baby for a few hours rather than with number limits, age limits and an application process.

My understanding was that the HoC facility has always been referred to as a “crèche” and not as a “nursery” for good reason. Is that not correct?

@TooBigForMyBoots

i wouldn't be too sure about that!

I would think a combination of WFH (fine during covid), partners looking after the child, a nanny & the.on site crèche would cover it, without needing to take a baby into the HOc. But then I'm easily distracted by a cute baby!!

They have a crèche, Stella Creasey could easily have left her baby in there whilst she was voting.
Also Stella thinks that Transwomen are women and every time she stands up for women she is including Trans women in everything.

How many nurseries do you know which will just take a random baby for a few hours as a drop in, let alone one under their age limit?

Honestly do people really not understand how professional nurseries work?

Why on earth do we not have a modern parliament with proper maternity cover and remote access to voting instead of berating women (whoever and whatever they believe) for working around its antique processes?

The issue here is the working practices.

If someone has been elected to do a job, then why do you think someone else should take over that job? Presumably if they so chose to the fathers of those babies could take shared maternity leave to look after the baby? That’s real equality!

How many nurseries do you know which will just take a random baby for a few hours as a drop in, let alone one under their age limit?

This isn't your usual nursery is it.

Wasn't the problem with Stella Creasy that she was given an allowance to pay for someone to cover most of her duties, eg, dealing with constituents but she said that she felt they weren't being paid enough so she rejected the amount and the cover. She wanted them to be paid £82,000 pr and IPSA would only pay them £60,000pr. They refused to give the whole amount because they couldn't do the full duties of giving speeches, sitting on committees or voting.

But they can. They can take 6 months and appoint a proxy to vote.

Its a professional regulated and inspected nursery which has to operate on the same basis as other regulated nurseries. So no, they won't be able to take random drop ins, let alone aged below their licensing set up.

I'm gobsmacked at the number of posters in FWR who think its just fine that a workplace operates like a Victorian gentleman's club and the problem is with the woman and not the antique operating model which prevents her constituents having proper cover.

MP's can't "just appoint a proxy", they can only employ someone to do the day to day admin. That person cannot represent them in the chamber or cast votes ie they cannot fully cover the job. As PP have pointed out - not all MPs are allowed to apply for a proxy, let alone be sure to secure approval for one in time.

That leaves women MPs and their constituents at a disadvantage. Whatever anyone thinks of Creasey personally is not the issue here.

The issue is the outdated Westminster operating model which prevents women from covering their jobs properly whilst on mat leave.

The HOC crèche has very accommodating hours , open until 10.30pm on Mondays and 7.30pm on other days , so presumably set up to be available at the times when MPs are required to be in the House.

'You can't leave your baby if you are breastfeeding'

How the hell do you think mums managed when ML was 3 months in total?! We expressed and fed before and after work, or did mixed feeding. It's actually far easier for an MP who can leave their 3 month old child in the on site crèche and has far more flexibility to pop in and bf than a doctor/ teacher/ million other types of worker would have. MPs are hardly tied to an office/ classroom/operating theatre/ shop floor in the way far more working mums are. MPs are popping in and out of the commons pretty flexibility most of the time. The ruling is about being in the chamber where there are very specific things going on like serious debates where it's ludicrous to think you can do a job properly while caring for a child.

Honestly: total non issue. And I say that as a pro bf working mum.

On their pay they can afford a nanny or childminder anyway.

C8H10N4O2 i think you misunderstood my post- I didn't mean parents just randomly pop their baby in the crèche for half an hour!
I meant they book their child in (like millions of other parents do, though often without the convenience of the childcare being on site)
It's the MP who can then pop in as they want to feed because they have way more flexibility than most jobs. They don't turn up at 7am and sit in the chamber all day!

Yes, for babies on their list.

Not for random drop ins and babies under age.

Why are you so resistant to modernising working practices so that there is no need for a woman to take a baby that age to work and therefore not indirect discrimination?

Forget that its Creasey and you have a beef with her - this is about all women and access to proper employment practices and maternity cover should not be conditional on "do I agree with them on issue X"

And at the point where a woman returns to full time work that might work but this is someone in the early weeks of a new baby who won't have a booked place and wasn't even old enough for nursery (from memory).

The point is this shouldn't even be necessary. The issue is that women MPs cannot neither appoint a proper maternity substitute nor vote and participate remotely if a key issue arises (in this case as issue being sponsored by Creasey).

Modernise the workplace, make it unnecessary to take a child that age to work.

So no, they won't be able to take random drop ins, let alone aged below their licensing set up.

I'm not sure what you mean by random drop ins. First of all, users have to be in a certain qualifying group which already limits how large the nursery's client base can be. Anyone using the facility would naturally need to be enrolled which would remove the randomness. But any responsible parent ir grandparent us going to check out the facility before using it, surely, so they'd fill out their details then. Most children will be booked in for the days required but they have evening sessions which can be booked as necessary to accommodate the unpredictable pattern of debates and votes. So they wouldn't be random clients but they might require some flexibility that other nurseries wouldn't offer.

I don’t think taking babies to work is the answer, I think ‘locum’ MPs are to enable maternity leave. I wouldn’t be allowed to take a baby into my place of work.

@C8H10N4O2 the babies in question were 3 months or older. The crèche takes babies from 3 months. The MPs chose not to use the proper, regulated onsite childcare.

By all means campaign for change.

I had my babies back in the day when ML was only 3 months and paternity leave and transferable leave nonexistent. I was quite militant about campaigning for improved conditions because frankly it was really hard work returning to the workplace with a 12 week old bf baby.

But what I didn't do was rock up at the office with my child strapped to me and expect to be taken seriously. I booked and paid for childcare and used my voice to support campaigns promoting better parental rights

The briefing from the HoC Library (link in my previous post) says that MPs can indeed apply to the Speaker for a proxy vote, to allow another MP to vote on their behalf. That’s distinct from the option of employing someone to take on some of the admin load.

There’s a lot of room to debate whether these arrangements (and the nursery) are enough, but many of the (perceived) difficulties here stem from the fact that MPs are elected office holders, not employees. How do people propose that a “locum” MP to cover maternity leave or a job-share MP would be elected? Would there be a bye-election?

Mine were also born in the days of sod all maternity leave (6 weeks, not on full pay) and the simple fact that this is still an issue 30 years later shows that sometimes just taking the baby in is the only way to get attention to the issue.

Perhaps if you and I had rocked up and demanded to work with a child strapped to us our daughters would not still be in the situation where being pregnant is the likeliest cause of them losing their jobs and where even when the go back to work they will pay a lifetime penalty for maternity.

And as subsequent PP pointed out - that applies to ministers, not all MPs.

Not for random drop ins and babies under age.

Why would they need random drop ins?

Pretty sure the crèche could accommodate most things anyway, pretty sure they won't be understaffed.