Pregnant British MP forced to delay birthing to vote on Brexit: 19th century rules still rule Parliament today!
I distinctly remember lugging around a PD150 camera kit with the tripod (quite a heavy bit of equipment) to shoot my stories while being eight and a half months pregnant — till my doctor banned it!
I did not stop — I just got my friends and family to help carry it instead.
A luxury that the Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq, could not avail of recently when the British Parliament voted on the historic withdrawal deal of PM Theresa May on January 16. She went against the advice of her doctors and took the risk of postponing her cesarean to vote on the night, and thus was wheeled in.
The dilemmas of a full-time working mum are enormous. She spends more than half of her life feeling guilty over having to choose her professional commitments over parent-teacher meetings, sports days, school pick-ups and so on — but the risk Ms Siddiq took was another level altogether.
She had gestational diabetes — so did I during my first pregnancy, therefore, I know what the risks are. The delivery date is extremely important — yet, Ms Siddiq made the brave decision to give a voice to her constituency because in the so-called 21st-century, the British Parliament has no provision for proxy voting, even if the voting intention of the MP is known. The MPs are either present in person or marked absent when it comes to voting on any matter in Parliament.
It is a 19thcentury practice when Parliament was dominated by men.
It baffled me. It was quite similar to what I felt while covering Savita Halappanavar’s case — who died on October 28, 2012. Doctors in Galway refused to abort Savita’s foetus despite her septic miscarriage because abortion was illegal in Ireland.
Expressing his displeasure at the situation now, MP of Southall and Ealing, Virendra Sharma, told me, “The deplorable scenes over the past two days cannot be allowed to be repeated. The sight of a heavily pregnant woman, unable to walk, being wheeled through Parliament to vote, having delayed her caesarean section is shameful for us all. The time has come for us to modernise Parliament to introduce some system for those who are unwell and unable to vote, to have proxy voting or some way to vote remotely.”
The Speaker of the House, John Bercow, also remarked that his “preference” would have been a proxy vote for Ms Siddiq — but it was not in his power to grant it.
Ms Siddiq’s predicament has reignited the issue of proxy voting — a matter that has been up for debate for a long time but has not reached a resolution yet. MPs who are unable to be present in person to vote in Parliament, like new mums, acquire a poor voting record, then leading to a maligned reputation. Even male MPs have suffered the predicament when in emergency situations. Despite this, centuries have passed with the old rule intact.
The general debate on proxy voting was scheduled for July 5, 2018, but most of the time that was allocated for the debate was taken up by statements. The leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsmen, who was responsible to move the debate, said in response to my questions, “I am committed to ensuring that this government does all it can to allow new parents to spend that vital time with their babies. Proxy voting is a priority for me, and I have been working with members across the House to introduce reform. I am determined to ensure that these changes are brought forward as soon as possible. On the particular case of Tulip Siddiq, of course, we would facilitate necessary voting arrangements — if requested by the Labour party.”
As of now, the alternate voting arrangement available for any MP who is unable to vote is that of ‘pairing’ — this means MPs of two different parties having the opposite view on a matter agree to ‘pair’ with each other — cancelling out their votes. Other than a moral responsibility, there is no other deterrent if one of the MP votes, despite the agreement.
It happened recently — and since then, MPs lost their trust in the system of 'pairing'.
The office of National Statistics data in Britain claims that between 1996 and 2017, “the employment rate of mothers in England has increased by 11.8 per cent points to 73.7 per cent. However, mothers aged between 16 and 49 are still less likely to be in employment than women without dependent children of same age.”
Those in employment have to face discrimination a lot of the time. The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and Equality Human Rights Commission said in its study, “Around one in nine mothers (11 per cent) reported that they were either dismissed or made compulsorily redundant — where others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their job. If scaled up to the general population this could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year.”
Very frequently, the cost of childcare is so high that going back to work is not worth it.
The irony is that these women are looking at their women MPs for redressal. Women who pretty much share their fate.