Stella Creasey forbidden from bringing her baby to Parliament

[ArabellaScott]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59396801

'"I've had a baby, I haven't given up my brain or capacity to do things and our politics and our policy making will be better by having more mums at the table," she added.'

Interesting to think how politics and daily life might be changed were it to be more mother (and child) friendly.

Not RTFT but first few posts indicate gone into a thread about work bf etc.

I read the article when it was published and I was surprised as I was sure the rules were changed to allow it. It was in news a lot at the time.

This was then explained.

'The rule book, which was issued by the speaker and deputy speakers and applies to the chamber of the House of Commons and Westminster Hall, was updated in September'

And she didn't know. I certainly haven't seen it in news etc.

So imo the big questions are-

How was this change decided?
Who suggested it?
Was it consulted on with MPs?
Who agreed it?
Was it highlighted along with other changes to all MPs. Rules updated note changes to xyz?

Just from article my guess is changed quietly not brought to attention of MPs. Press didn't notice afaik so given loads of news progressive etc when allowed, keeping the reversal quiet is deliberate.

Fact one person she asked said can bf but not have all time and another person said no also indicates was not common knowledge even among those who work there. Again indicates quietly changed in background.

Sorry if been raised and discussed!

@lazylinguist

This shouldn’t happen. There should be a mechanism to allow MPs to take a proper maternity leave just as every other worker can.

^ Oh but also this. I didn't know they couldn't!

Yeh they can't for things like going into parliament as an elected person only they can do certain duties for their constituents

@HKI83vcWA

I’m kind of confused. Up to last week it seemed being an MP was just a part time endeavour for dozens of MPs, which should make it compatible with parenting. So long as you don’t actually have a second job. No idea if SC does. In any case I didn’t realise there was an on-site Creche - don’t think SC mentioned that on BBC R4 WH this morning - there really is no need for the baby to be in the chamber. However I agree with the OP that the set-up in Parliament needs to be improved to be suitable for mothers of young children as well as old men with second jobs. But I think SC has been a little disingenuous - though maybe it was the only way to get us all talking about it.

It's compatible with taking a consultancy job that involves long lunches, but not with parenting, given that MPs have to do work both in their constituency and in Westminster and much of this won't be in normal working hours. SC is in a better position than most because her constituency is in London. In the past MPs have relied on wives to deal with domestic matters.

Of course women can still share child care with a partner, but there is a limit to how much can be shared when you are breast feeding. Creches aren't usually set up to take babies this small. There is a big difference between a baby this age and one just a few weeks older.

You could look at all that and think 'well that's her choice, she knew what she was getting into'. The problem is that women therefore choose not be MPs.

Lots of NZ Mp's take their babies into the chamber. Check out the video of our speaker here: trevorfeedingababy

It seems to be occasional, and small babies, not rampaging toddlers. Jacinda took her daughter with her when she was young - but with other people to look after her. Thankfully, our press agreed not to photograph or film her breastfeeding but she certainly did discretely at events.

It's a non issue here.

I wonder what hours the creche at parliament is open -- would it cover late night votes for example?

No she shouldn't be taking a baby into the HOC. She should deal with it like the rest of us plebs do. But then, SC just oozes self-entitlement, IMO.
Also, she has no interest whatsoever in protecting women's spaces in other situations. So she's a hypocrite as well.

In other parliaments in other countries it's not uncommon for women to breastfeed in the house. I remember Ruth Richardson doing it in NZ in 1983.

Stella Creasy is in a difficult position. She has no maternity rights but also is not allowed to have any maternity cover. So she's dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't.

@MaMaLa321

No she shouldn't be taking a baby into the HOC. She should deal with it like the rest of us plebs do. But then, SC just oozes self-entitlement, IMO. Also, she has no interest whatsoever in protecting women's spaces in other situations. So she's a hypocrite as well.

In the U.K. other mothers aren’t expected to continue working when they have a 3 month old baby.

Have we confirmation that the Parliamentary creche takes babies that young, and on an ad hoc basis? I've only skimmed so apologies if I have missed.

@slug

In other parliaments in other countries it's not uncommon for women to breastfeed in the house. I remember Ruth Richardson doing it in NZ in 1983.

Stella Creasy is in a difficult position. She has no maternity rights but also is not allowed to have any maternity cover. So she's dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't.

This isn’t true.

She has maternity rights - she can take six months off on full pay.

She had the option of maternity cover for the majority of her role (constituency case work and voting). She chose not to take up these options. She refused the funding offered to her to pay for cover.

I think if she speaks in the house she forgoes her proxy vote, which does seem like a stupid rule which should be changed.

The problem is that the maternity cover is only partial and thus inadequate. Her constituents would have nobody speaking for them or voting on their behalves because her cover wouldn't be allowed to do this, and because there are fuckwitted limitations on remote voting and alternatives.

Sorry, losing track of the issue here. Is it that she can't take the baby into the actual chamber, or is it she can't have the baby with her at all for work?

@ChattyLion

I think Stella Creasy’s doing a great job of drawing attention to how fucking hard it is to be a working mother to a young baby and I really appreciate that she’s doing that. Especially in an extremely high pressure job like hers. I really wish for her sake that she didn’t feel she had to make a personal stand in this way and that she could have relied on some better mat leave arrangements.

But I think she’s a clever operator and she knows what she’s doing. I appreciate that she didn’t actually have to do this and attract the flak that she will get for it. As she says, it’s too late for her personally to benefit from any changes made. I hope that her doing this may focus male MPs’ minds on the fact that many women will need better support in the workplace to remain working/in the workplace if they also to have a family.

Agree.

Seems to be some suggestion that women should just not be involved in politics at all, given that it's hard for them to care for a child while working. I don't think that's good enough.

many women will need better support in the workplace to remain working/in the workplace if they also to have a family.

Yes, this is what we need to be discussing. How can workplaces be improved? How can systems be adjusted to help women to take part in public life?

@Bordois

Sorry, losing track of the issue here. Is it that she can't take the baby into the actual chamber, or is it she can't have the baby with her at all for work?

It's just the chamber.

@ExceptionalAssurance

The problem is that the maternity cover is only partial and thus inadequate. Her constituents would have nobody speaking for them or voting on their behalves because her cover wouldn't be allowed to do this, and because there are fuckwitted limitations on remote voting and alternatives.

How do you cover that though? Do you have someone unelected going into parliament for 6 months? Do you have some sort of election for a temporary MP?

Remote access is obviously possible because they did it for months but I don't know if that covers it, not really maternity leave if you are sitting at your computer.

I don't think there is a perfect answer.

There isn't a perfect one, but there are certainly less shit ones. As you mentioned, remote access. Not foregoing your proxy if you speak in the House. These are easy wins thats there is no reason not to implement, even before we get into the apparently controversial issue of breastfed, very little babies below the age many childcare providers will take.

To me the issue is that they were allowed, that change got wide media attention.

That in September the rule was reversed and it sounds like it was changed very quietly indeed.

How this decision was made, by who, and seems to have been behind closed doors is what concerns me most.

@30whatacrock

She should find childcare like every other working woman has to. Ridiculous entitled women.

Agree with this

It seems extremely attention seeking.

And not helpful in any way for the standard mother. She is on full-pay, she could afford to pay for some childcare if she had to go into work.

@ExceptionalAssurance

There isn't a perfect one, but there are certainly less shit ones. As you mentioned, remote access. Not foregoing your proxy if you speak in the House. These are easy wins thats there is no reason not to implement, even before we get into the apparently controversial issue of breastfed, very little babies below the age many childcare providers will take.

Would they satisfy her? She wanted to stand up and speak so remote voting would be reasonable in my opinion but she still wouldn't be able to take the baby into the chamber.

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.

@ExceptionalAssurance

There isn't a perfect one, but there are certainly less shit ones. As you mentioned, remote access. Not foregoing your proxy if you speak in the House. These are easy wins thats there is no reason not to implement, even before we get into the apparently controversial issue of breastfed, very little babies below the age many childcare providers will take.

The HOC nursery does take children from 3 months though.

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.

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?

Wholeheartedly agree with all of that @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 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.

I feel like I'm shouting into the void!

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