The disenfranchisement of Jo Swinson shows how parliament fails to respect MPs with children

Despite some improvements, parliamentary practices including unpredictable hours and lack of maternity leave continue to result in a ‘motherhood gap’

The problem that occurred with Jo Swinson will reoccur unless we take the opportunity to acknowledge the weakness of the current system (PA)

On the centenary of some women gaining the right to vote, parliament should be showing global leadership and be on the forefront of progressive, family-friendly working policies.

But on Tuesday evening, among the Brexit chaos, Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson and her constituents were disenfranchised.

Swinson is on maternity leave and under current arrangements was informally “paired” with an opposition MP to ensure that while she is caring for her baby and cannot vote, neither can the opposition MP. However, as we saw this week, these informal pairing agreements can fall apart.

Despite some improvements, parliamentary practices including unpredictable hours and lack of maternity leave continue to result in a “motherhood gap”: 45 per cent of women MPs do not have children compared with only 28 per cent of male members. There are now more than 200 women on all sides of the commons and many of them are younger women who are having babies. A total of 17 babies have been born to women MPs since 2010 and more babies are expected this year.

It is clear that there are still too many obstacles for women, not just in getting into parliament, but also in having a voice once they are there. Caring for children can become extremely problematic due to long working hours, with no absolute limit on the time of debates and votes during the working evening. Maternity and paternity rights are not upheld. In effect, parliament still operates under archaic practices that do not take into account the fact that politicians are also parents and carers.

This needs to change – Westminster needs to reflect the real world in which parenting is a valued role, and this applies to men as well as to women.

There are baby steps that would make all the difference. A formal and transparent system of proxy voting for maternity and paternity leave would guarantee the right of MPs’ constituents to have their voice and vote recorded in parliament, even when physically they have to be elsewhere.

We need to see an end to unfair practices that fail to consider the gendered division of child care and how it acts a major barrier to women’s involvement in political life, especially women from a lower socio-economic background.

The Centenary Action Group, a cross-party coalition of more than 100 campaigners and activists, as well as MPs, such as Harriet Harman and Maria Miller, are calling for a vote in the Commons relating to proxy voting for baby leave. The procedure committee has already drafted a motion that’s ready to be voted on. This is not a party-political demand. It is a practical step, a small procedural change that is easy to put in place and would make a difference. It is but one of numerous other steps required to make parliament fit for the 21st century.

There are more babies on the way in Westminster and many more important votes ahead. The problem that occurred with Jo Swinson will reoccur unless we take the opportunity to acknowledge the weakness of the current system and do something about it. One hundred years after some women got the right to vote, it’s beyond time to take a small but symbolically important step in steering the corridors of power towards becoming a family-friendly institution that reflects the real world.

Helen Pankhurst convened the Centenary Action Group, a cross-party coalition that campaigns for women’s right to take part in the decisions that affect their lives