Written evidence submitted by Professor Sarah Childs and Dr Jessica C. Smith [GSP0012]

0. Introduction

The ideal of Gender Sensitive Parliaments (GSP) has become an international democratic norm or standard. What a GSP would look like has been clearly articulated in a number of reports, and adopted as a model to aim for by many institutions.[1] However, it remains in most parliaments an aspiration rather than a reality.

In 2020 International Organizations including the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), and UN Women have all published revised and/or Covid-19 specific GSP documents. The world’s parliaments do not want for information about what constitutes a GSP or how to achieve GSP status. There are standards, frameworks, guidelines, primers and checklists a plenty.

Gender Sensitive Parliaments do not just happen: they require much – and importantly sustained – individual and institutional political and administrative will, with associated transformation in formal rules and processes, informal ways of working, organizational capacity and resourcing.

The 2021 WEC GSP inquiry is a welcome opportunity to measure progress towards achieving this ideal in House of Commons practices, processes, and norms and culture. The UK House of Commons has shown itself to be open to change, particularly between 2016-18 in respect of GSP/DSP, and in 2020 as a consequence of the pandemic, it demonstrated that it was more than capable of quickly adapting to new circumstances. Rather than merely reacting to events, however, it is critical for the House to not only determine which of the recent contingent reforms should be maintained, but also to establish a clear GSP/DSP agenda for this Parliament.

A critical review of the various approaches to GSP provides for a revised definition:

A GSP values and prioritises gender equality as a social, economic and political objective and reorients and transforms a parliament’s institutional culture, processes and practices, and outputs towards these objectives.[2]

This GSP definition works with 4 dimensions (see Box 1 below).[3]

The Good Parliament Report advanced a Diversity Sensitive Parliament (DSP) framework, recognizing that women are not the only groups under-represented in the House of Commons.

It is for WEC in this inquiry to determine whether the House of Commons should shift from a GSP to a DSP; if it decides to stick to GSP it should subscribe to an intersectional definition of GSP.

Box 1

The Four Dimensions of a Gender-Sensitive Parliament

1. How successfully have changes proposed in the past been implemented to make the House of Commons more gender sensitive?

There are 3 Steps that a parliament embarking on GSP/DSP change should take:

1. A GSP/DSP audit or review. The House of Commons IPU-facilitated GSP Audit was undertaken in 2018 and was first reviewed by WEC in 2019.
2. Evaluation of current Gender (in)Sensitivities. An audit or review forms the basis for the identification of necessary reforms and the development of a GSP action plan.
3. Institutionalization. This involves determining the ‘Big P’ and ‘Small P’ politics of GSP/DSP change; identifying administrative and political actors responsible for, and who will lead on the work in, the action plan; and identifying, and if necessary augmenting, institutional and political capacity to meet GSP/DSP standards. Institutionalization questions include:
1. How do parliaments need to be organized to achieve GSP/DSP?
2. What changes to rules and practices might need to be undertaken?
3. Are appropriate resources in place – how might resources need to be better distributed or augmented?
4. How do we ensure that advances secured in ‘crisis’ parliaments are not swiftly forgotten when Covid-19 is less urgent or hopefully over?

The success rate of The Good Parliament’s Report recommendations - 18 of 43 – has been higher than might have been expected. The following actors, processes and dynamics of reform that account for its impact include:

• The creation of a shared agenda. This was represented in the first instance by TGP and its later broad endorsement by MPs on the Reference Group and by the Commission.
• The establishment of The Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion. This took ownership of TGP’s ‘shopping bag of reforms’ and turned it into a set of priority reforms – an action plan. The Group ceased to meet in autumn 2018; the Commons has since suffered from a GSP/DSP institutional deficit. This was keenly and negatively felt during the pandemic period.
• Gendered parliamentarianism. This refers to women MPs working across parties, ‘as’ and ‘for’ women; it reflected the reality that there were more MPs from all parties in the post 2015 Commons who were gender conscious/feminist, and who experienced and were prepared to call out those aspects of the House’s culture and ways of working which projected a sense of a masculinized, exclusionary institution. Members of the Reference Group - which included the then Chair of WEC, Maria Miller and former whip, Anne Milton, liaised with wider groups of women MPs in the House (e.g. the Women’s PLP, chaired by Jess Phillips, ‘mother MPs’), and took evidence from other parliamentary actors, including party whips and the parliamentary press lobby. They also worked with the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman, and then Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, on proxy voting for babyleave.
• Male allies. The then Speaker played a critical role in establishing, Chairing, resourcing and advancing the Commons Reference Group’s agenda.
• Administrative support and resources. House officials and Clerks were closely involved in the design of a technically appropriate set of recommendations for TGP; clerks and officials later supported the work of the Commons Reference Group on a day-to-day basis.

2. What additional procedures and working arrangements should be changed. Suggestions can include, but need not be limited to: leave for Members who are parents and carers, proxy voting and virtual attendance?

Rather than provide a list of individual reforms, either substantive and/or procedural, I would suggest the following:

1. An internal, ‘quick and dirty’ update of TGP recommendations. This should note which are fully implemented and permanent; partially implemented and/or temporary or at risk; and which are as yet unaddressed. This update should also clarify where developments undertaken during hybridity have shown that reforms recommended in TGP are now more feasible.
2. A consolidation of the TGP, CPA, UN Women, IPU and Remotely Representative House’s recommendations/checklists/guidance, organized by the 4 dimensions of GSP and augmented by organizational and procedural reforms (referenced in these documents by the principle and practice of institutionalization). I would be happy to prepare this for WEC. This document would provide WEC with a revised set of reforms that could form the basis of any new GSP/DSP body’s action plan.
3. That WEC ask Mr Speaker to confirm whether, now that Covid-19 restrictions are being relaxed in Parliament, he is minded to establish a new Commons Reference Group, and/or what other institutional grouping or process he might support. (See Section 4, Table 1 below)
4. I also attach my submission to IPSA consultation on maternity leave as an appendix, which to my knowledge is not yet published (Appendix 1, below).

3. Which individuals or bodies are responsible for taking action?

The House of Commons is a highly complex organization; there is no one individual or body that is responsible for, or is positioned to act, on the many and varied reforms that are necessary to achieve a GSP/DSP at Westminster.

The success of gender and diversity sensitizing efforts since 2016 lay in large part with the explicit strategy of linking specific reforms with particular parliamentary individuals and bodies on both the administrative and political side of the House. This has been acknowledged by key actors – political and administrative - within and beyond the Commons. It is for this reason that the same approach for TGP in 2016 was taken in The Remotely Representative House in 2021.

In the development of (i) a new shared GSP/DSP agenda and, most importantly of all, (ii) the new action plan, this strategy should be continued. Individual reforms must be linked with the correct actor, whether administrative or political.

Over and above the specification of a reform alongside its responsible actor, fundamentally what matters is that there is a formal process that provides institutional leadership and accountability (political and administrative) over the various individuals and parliamentary actors, to ensure that reforms and the wider reform process are institutionalized, as outlined in the CPA 2020 GSP Guidelines, and as further discussed below.

In sum, there needs to be an institutional body – group of MPs and officials - and a permanent process through which they can effectively hold other parliamentary actors to account for the reforms the latter are responsible for. 

4. What and who should drive change on this issue?

The Good Parliament (TGP) Report was influenced by international parliamentary best practice and in a context within which it is widely acknowledge that parliamentary reports can easily be left on the metaphorical shelf. It was for this reason that much effort was oriented towards identifying the means by which the GSP/DSP agenda might be taken forward and implemented.

Informed by the Swedish Speakers Gender Advisory Group and having taken advice from the then Clerk and other senior Clerks of the House, it was agreed that the then Speaker would facilitate the creation of a new group of MPs. This became The Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion. Discussion was given to the creation of a new select committee or the creation of a subcommittee of an existing committee, but it was agreed at the time that neither of these were appropriate nor viable options.

The new group established by the Speaker, The Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion was so named, to signal explicitly that it was a House body. Its membership comprised a small number of Members, male and female, from across the House. Crucially, it was resourced by the Speaker’s Office and provided with administrative and clerkly support. Ultimately it was chaired by Mr Speaker, although this was not the original design.

The Reference Group was critical for the implementation of many of the TGP’s recommendations that were addressed in 2016-18. It was highly unfortunate for the continuation of GSP/DSP change, that the combination of Brexit politics and the fallout from the House’s sexual harassment and bullying revelations meant that the Group stopped meeting in the Autumn of 2018.

Its prolonged absence means that the House of Commons currently lacks political and institutional leadership on GSP/DSP. Whilst there is some ongoing albeit largely discrete efforts, there is no organized and dedicated parliamentary body currently taking responsibility for gender and diversity sensitizing the House.

Faced with a GSP/DSP institutional deficit, WEC should urgently recommend the creation of a new body. Options include: 

1. The re-establishment of the Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion
2. The creation of a House Diversity Sensitivity Committee
3. The creation of a Women’s Caucus
4. The creation of a WEC Subcommittee

Table 1 below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of four possibilities. The first three options would require administrative and clerkly resources akin to other House/DS Committees. All should be supported by a designated gender expert. Any new MPs group might also consider including representatives of staff to reflect issues, such as sexual harassment and institutional infrastructure and culture, that cut across the MP/staff divide.

Table 1

Options for a new GSP/DSP Parliamentary Body

5. How should our Buildings and facilities be changed to support a gender sensitive House of Commons and the opportunities presented by the Restoration & Renewal Programme?

Particular TGP recommendations relating to R&R (Recommendations 33-35 assigned to the Procedure Committee, and 36-39 assigned to any new ‘new R&R body) should be reconsidered as part of the ‘consolidation’ of the various GSP/DSP reports noted above in Section 2 (II).

R&R as process and in terms of outcomes must be fully in line with the principles and practices of GSP/DSP. GSP/DSP should be central to all considerations and decisions by the R&R body. Put baldly, the restored and renovated Parliament cannot be permitted to be anything other than a GSP/DSP.

There are serious concerns about the diversity of the eight parliamentary members of the Sponsor Body: there are currently no female MPs on the Sponsor Body and only one female Peer. Key decisions have and continue to be taken without dedicated input from any woman elected to Parliament.

The Sponsor body should moreover consult on a regular and formal basis with any new GSP/DSP parliamentary group (see Section 4 above). The new GSP/DSP body should produce an annual report judging the GSP/DSP of R&R work. Where no new GSP/DSP body is created then the R&R body must consult with WEC who will take on the annual evaluations.

All decant provisions - physical buildings, furniture, procedures, practices and emergent culture - should also be subject to a GSP/DSP audit. These should take place on an annual basis and must involve external GSP/DSP experts working with the new GSP/DSP group. All associated recommendations should be formally considered by the Sponsor body.

6. How can a more inclusive culture be adopted in the House of Commons?

As stated above, GSP/DSP do not just happen; similarly, GSP/DSP cultures cannot be just hoped for.

There has been considerable academic debate about the drivers of institutional change, including within parliaments; whether these are external and dramatic, or internal and incremental. There is increasingly agreement that both are in play; those seeking to change institutions need not merely wait for a large-scale event such as a financial crisis or a pandemic, nor conclude that small changes over time cannot add up to transformative change. Academic analysis has also explored the two-way relationships between formal and informal rule change. Reflecting on the experiences - successes and failures – of TGP’s individual recommendations, alongside observations of the hybrid House leads me to the conclusion that in the House of Commons, because its traditions, practices and cultures are so strong (e.g. executive/legislative relations and adversarial party politics), formal rule change is frequently necessary to bring about GSP/DSP. As new rules are implemented, new behaviour is required, and overtime new norms should emerge. Such an approach supports the aforementioned 3-Step approach to gender sensitizing a parliament, and the institutionalization of GSP processes and capacities noted above.

Appendix 1

1. Do you agree that a new MP Parental Leave Cover Fund should be created?

Yes.

As an academic researcher who has published widely on women’s political representation in the UK, advises the UK Parliament, the Women and Equalities Committee, political parties, the former Speaker , UN Women, the Commonwealth Parliamentarians Association, and as author of The Good Parliament report (2016), who worked directly with the House to introduce proxy voting for babyleave, I fully support the introduction of maternity leave to enable the new parent MP to fulfil their representational and birthing and caring duties.

Democracies cannot be considered fully democratic where women are under-represented; neither should there be a ‘motherhood gap’. We have only had data on parents in parliament since 2013, when myself and Prof. Rosie Campbell undertook the first survey. This found a significant gap between women and men MPs’ parental status. Making Parliament more gender sensitive was one means to reduce this gap. Between 2016-2020 a number of reforms benefiting the parent MP have been introduced. We updated the parent survey in 2017, finding that new cohorts (2010 and after) had similar rates of parenthood. The presence of younger cohorts of women in today’s House of Commons means that the institution has undeniably witnessed a step-change in its composition: there are now not only more elected women who are mothers than previously, there are also more women having babies whilst sitting as MPs. Seventeen have been born to women MPs since 2010.[4]

The following table outlines the key stages in the introduction of proxy voting for babyleave, introduced to allow MPs to be away from the House of Commons but retain their rights to vote in divisions. This move was conceived as critical for MPs to be able to balance their parliamentary and caring work. It was acknowledged that whilst necessary, proxy voting for MPs on babyleave would only deal with only aspect of MPs’ work.  I note that in Oct 2017 the I newspaper reported that IPSA had ‘given its support to proposals for 6 months paid maternity leave for MPs ‘in principle’. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/parental-leave-stella-creasy-mp-parliament-ipsa-maternity-a8976091.html~

Proxy Voting for Babyleave: Agenda for Reform

Do you have any comments about the proposed rules of eligibility for this funding?

Proxy voting for babyleave provided differential leave for the mother and father MP; for reasons of fairness – and for reasons of role modelling best practice to the UK - IPSA should consider equalizing provision for both the mother and father MP, where the father is the primary carer.

IPSA should ensure that whatever rules these should be sufficiently flexible to allow MPs to return to Parliament earlier than they might have initially intended, and/or to return in an responsive fashion, were events such that they felt that a temporary return might be warranted. In other words, avoid strict ‘keeping in touch’ days. 

Any new rules must also not undermine the provision and practice of baby leave proxy voting. This provides MPs with the means to represent their constituents in Parliament whilst they are caring for a new baby. In other words, any new maternity leave scheme should be compatible with this 2020 permanent change to the Standing Orders, rather than be regarded as its replacement. It should be for the individual MP to decide if they wish to use of the new ‘maternity leave’ scheme or whether they prefer the more informal system. I would politely suggest that some may wish to use both, consecutively, during the baby’s first few months/year, and that this should be permitted.

Is there anything else IPSA should take into account when deciding on its policy in this area?

Whatever IPSA ultimately produces, its rules and regulations should not disadvantage the parent MP in terms of risk of personal reputation. I include the following from The Good Parliament Report:

(i)                  Seek the equitable publication of costs incurred by MPs in respect of their children. That is, like the additional costs incurred for reasons of disability or additional security, these should be published at the aggregate and not individual level

The additional costs incurred by MPs with children are currently treated inequitably relative to the additional costs incurred by MPs with disabilities, and in relation to additional security costs.[i] This leaves MPs who make claims for legitimate children related costs being perceived as ‘expensive’ in the media, by political opponents, and amongst the public. This is one reason why some MPs do not claim their legitimate expenses; and it is why the least expensive MPs – often valorised by the press – are frequently older men either without children, or with grown up children. Whilst IPSA should of course confirm the legitimacy of all costs associated with MPs’ children, there is no public interest in this information being linked to individual Members. All the latter does is feed critical comment of the parent MP.