Laura Sandys quits: What Westminster can learn from business to keep top talent We have, of course, had a female Prime Minister - but Westminster remains a seriously unfriendly place for women, in terms of being able to juggle work with family responsibilities. Indeed, Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Tory MP for Totnes, goes so as far as to say: "We need to detoxify this role. It's both the aggressive atmosphere within Parliament and party politics, and the indiscriminate, relentless hostility to MPs. It actually got me thinking at the time: why does Westminster's timetable have to be so geared to the owls, rather than the larks? The house doesn't sit till 2.30pm on Monday, and is then there till 10.30pm. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, it's 11.30am - 7.30pm, Thursdays is 9.30am - 5.30pm, and Friday's what we used to call "Poet's Day" (work out the acronym for yourself, or here if you're really stuck), when MPs disappear at 3pm to return to their constituencies. But when there's an important vote, it goes much later. I can't imagine running a typical work week like this in business; and it would put many talented people (who had other commitments outside of office life) off working for me. Show me the women who can slot that unpredictability into their lives, as mothers of young children or even teenagers. And surely those are the women we want to see in Parliament, who understand first-hand the implications of legislation on real people's lives...? Of course, for any female MP, the question is: do I base my family in London and uproot them to the constituency at weekends, or never see them in the week and leave them with a nanny/ au pair/ househusband? But this is 2013. Surely it's time for senior politicians to stop paying lip service to equality and find practical ways to accommodate the (albeit currently depressingly small) number of women who want to do this most demanding of jobs - not usually, from those I've spoken to, for the glory, but from the genuine desire to "make a difference." Personally, I'm very proud that my own MP, Amber Rudd, has championed the cause for increased visibility of "women in senior decision making positions." But Amber only took the decision to enter Parliament when her children were almost school-leaving age - which makes an MP's life comparitively "easier," from a juggling perspective. In reality, you simply don't hear - or see - children in Westminster, except as gaggles of schoolchildren on trips. The Scottish parliament has a crèche; the House of Commons does not offer one. But going beyond checking your child at the crèche: is there actually any reason why mothers shouldn't be allowed to take a baby or a toddler into the voting chamber? This latest female resignation comes the week after a charming series of photos (above) of Licia Ronzulli, the Italian MEP, almost time-lapsed as she cradled her daughter on her lap over a period of years in Strasbourg. First a babe in arms, she's then seen raising her hand with Mummy's, as Ronzulli casts her series of votes. What a role model for that child to grow up with. Why not here...? Is it fear of derision from older male colleagues? Fear of having to be the first mother to flee the voting chamber with a squalling infant, rather as embarrassed parents are forced to do during the hush of family weddings...? Or is it the sheer "toxicity" of that atmosphere which Dr Wollaston alludes to...? This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Both sides - all parties, actually - need to get together and figure out a way to make Parliament not just more women-friendly, but more family-friendly generally. Or it's surely going to be another thousand years before we have another female Prime Minister.