Professor Sarah Childs - Written evidence (RAR0031)

I am a Professor of Politics and Gender at the University of Bristol, with an academic career researching UK politics and the House of Commons dating from the mid-1990s. Key publications include: Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party: From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels (2012, with Webb); Women and British Party Politics (2008); and New Labour’s Women MPs (2004). In 2010 I was appointed as the Gender Special Advisor to the Speaker’s Conference (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/spconf/239/239i.pdf), and in 2014 I was the Advisor to the Women in Parliament APPG Report Improving Parliament (http://appgimprovingparliamentreport.co.uk/download/APPG-Women-In-Parliament-Report-2014.pdf).

I am currently resident in Westminster (since July 2015) undertaking a project that will deliver a report outlining reforms that would make the UK House of Commons a more Gender Sensitive Parliament (GSP). The concept of GSP derives from the Inter Parliamentary Union,[i] which defines such a Parliament as ‘truly representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective in its many functions’.[ii]  My project is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the University of Bristol, under the ESRC’s ‘Impact Acceleration Account’ scheme.[iii]

My independent work in Parliament is guided by (1) a cross-party Panel of MPs, male and female and (2) an Advisory Board constituted by Parliamentary Clerks and officials, and Chaired by Mr Speaker. I have spoken with a considerable number of MPs individually and collectively and hosted a number of meetings, conferences, and workshops over the last six months or so. I am currently interviewing MPs regarding Parliamentary work, family life and IPSA.

I am very much of the view, in line with the Hansard Society of which I am a long-standing member, that ‘Renewal and Restoration’ constitutes a ‘once-in- a-150-year opportunity’ to lay ‘out a new vision’ for the House of Commons.[iv] Having read Commons’ publications relating to R&R it is my considered opinion first, that both Houses should decant to an alternative location near to the Palace whilst repairs and restoration are undertaken. Secondly, the House should seize the opportunity to explore and trial alternative means by which parliamentary politics might be undertaken and that these experiences should inform the return to the Palace of Westminster. With this in mind, my proposals are presented here to illustrate the importance of the Committee favouring option 3C.

Winston Churchill’s quote  - ‘we shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us’ -  is widely acknowledged, and widely articulated to defend the House of Commons as it is currently constituted. The R&R process should be minded, in my view however, to reflect further on how the latter part of the quotation in practice also informs the former; that questions of what a restored Parliament – and the politics that occurs therein – could and should be like post-decant. In my view the aforementioned IPU standard of good Parliamentary infrastructure and culture should explicitly and centrally feed into this process so as to ensure a parliamentary infrastructure and culture that is inclusionary.[v]

The individual reforms outlined below are underpinned by an overarching commitment to experimentation that the R&R process permits. Most notably, the physical form of the new spaces in which parliamentary debates and scrutiny will take place during decant should be sufficiently flexible to trial new ways of doing politics – ways that might both enhance the effectiveness within the House and legitimacy of the House amongst the electorate. In sum, options should be kept open both in respect of decant but also, and correspondingly, for return. In all this, one should ask the question, what might and what should a UK Parliament in 2030 or 2050 be ‘like’ so as to sustain the IPU’s truly representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective House of Commons?

The Debating Chamber

Any debating chamber should - at the very minimum - provide seating for all members – to do otherwise is to deny members the ability to participate effectively and efficiently in the Chamber.[vi] At the very minimum the means to distinguish  ‘seats’ should be established  e.g. small ridges indicating ‘spaces’ could be part of re-upholstering. Chamber furniture should also be sufficiently flexible to provide for members who are in wheelchairs and or who have other needs. Members using wheelchairs should be able to sit with their party colleagues on the backbenches, and if appointed to the frontbenches to sit with the Cabinet and Government. There should be better audio/ communicative provision as to aide participation.

The advantage of a modular and flexible system of seating, over and above reasons of diversity and equality of participation by Members stated above, include (i) the provision of additional seating when and as wanted; (ii) variation in the layout of the seating specific to the needs of particular Chamber activities and events. For example, where the Chamber is likely to be attended by few members, it should be possible to rearrange the seating so that Members could sit in a physically closer arrangement – this might enhance debate; would provide for better TV coverage; and may counter public opinion that often the chamber is ‘empty’ when 30 or so Members are actually present. Alternatively where a more consensual style is preferred, seating might reflect a less adversarial layout.

The decant experiments implied above should, moreover, inform consideration of return. Extant debates over alternative configurations of seating are frequently based on subjective observation (have you watched how dull and sterile or staged the European Parliament is? some MPs assert).  Decant provides for current MPs to undertake their chamber duties according to a range of alternative seating options and to experience first how a variety of layouts are mediated by extant party political culture/norms. These experiences should formally feed into discussions for return.

The need to accommodate Members’ needs as well as adopting a more flexible and modular seating system will likely mean that the current Chamber is too small (see, Rogers and Walters, 1987, 12). This could be addressed either by (i) expanding the current Chamber into the division lobbies (with knock on effects relating to divisions, see below) or by considering the building of a new Chamber on the Palace estate, most likely the building of a glass extension/glassing over an existing courtyard (Rogers and Walters 2015, 372). This might well have the additional benefit of suggesting to the public of a commitment to the principles of a new, better institution, and one that is more transparent and accessible to a diversity of members and to the public. It also offers up the possibility of reconsidering what maximizes visitor experiences. It might be that the existing Chamber could still be retained for use on specific ceremonial occasions, and/or opened for more extensive public visits.

Division Lobbies

There is criticism that the current system of division voting is inefficient for both MPs and parliamentary staff. Consideration of ‘on estate remote voting’ either at (i) voting stations in various locations or (ii) from anywhere on the Parliamentary estate, would negate the need for the provision of division lobbies, maximise MPs time, and would not, in respect of the first case, undermine the interaction between MPs and ministers so valued by MPs. In decant, and by trailing both options, MPs could experience the reality of remote on estate voting; at present, considerable conjecture is advanced. [vii]

Committee Rooms and other Parliamentary Meeting Rooms

Here the principle of flexibility is again a very good one; to maximise efficiency in limited space, non-fixed furniture will ensure that the same space can be used for different purposes. Consideration should also be given to the layout, furniture and furnishings - at present Committee rooms in the Palace are imposing – often with very formal and fixed layouts, dark wood panelling, wallpaper and oil paintings. Whilst considerable effort has been given to greater diversity of pictures in PCH, current rules and practices in the Palace mitigate against this. The Palace contrasts greatly with the more contemporary business-like decor and feel of PCH’s rooms. Different meeting purposes may very well further benefit from the flexibility to rearrange furniture so as to make a space more intimate, less intimidating to those not used to attending and speaking in the House, e.g. atypical select committee witnesses. In short, rooms used for meetings with the public should be made welcoming. In addition, consideration should be given to access: many doors in Parliament are very heavy to open, and are difficult to negotiate with a physical disability/wheelchair. Signage is often poor too, directing the public to Central Lobby and the Committee floors for example.

The question of technology should also be explored during decant: video conferencing is a widespread practice in business, charity sector and the academy. Trials could be undertaken to explore participation in Committees by MPs and, or witnesses. Accordingly, return should ensure that the Palace has sufficient provision for MPs and visitors/witnesses technological needs, e.g. highest quality virtual participation; Wi-Fi; sufficient plugs for charging IPads, and laptops.

Passes

There is plenty of evidence that the current pass system leaves too many MPs (and staff) - especially young, female and BME ones - questioned about their status. This is due to the continual problem of passes flipping over and showing the non-photograph side; this requires the police and door keepers to ask people to show their passes. Parliamentary passes should therefore be double-sided with photographs and names on both sides. The colouring might also be improved so as to make the passes more readily distinct.

Social Spaces for MPs

The provision of ‘Lady’ Members rooms should be provided for in decant and maintained in a restored Parliament; ditto the male changing room. In respect of both the women’s and men’s rooms there should be a principle of equal provision, not least of furniture including baby changing and caring furniture. Women MPs should be asked their preference for the name of the rooms – perhaps these might be named after pioneering women MPs. There should also be consideration of a ‘cafe-like’ space in the Palace that provides a more relaxed environment, as the PCH atrium. This could be provided for by glazing over courtyard(s). Again these could be designed to be flexible spaces that can be used in different ways at different times, e.g. cafes, reception areas, bookable private MP meeting spaces. There should also be another survey of MPs and staff regarding the provision of hot food in the evenings in the Palace; with PCH closing earlier than the House sits, there is evidence that some MPs feel that they are not able to access the kinds of refreshment that suits.

In respect of both decant and return there should be consideration of a clear principle that underpins the zoning of the Palace in terms of access: the assumption should be that unless a case can be made for reasons of security or capacity that all staff should be permitted in all areas. Regarding capacity there should be reflection on enhancing this where it requires special treatment for MPs e.g. PCH atrium might have additional tables provided and or an electronic system of table booking created.

Spaces for Visitors

The establishment of the nursery for MPs and staff children was a welcome addition to UK Parliament. Consideration should now be given to a ‘drop in crèche’ for visitors to Parliament. These might be for social visitors but more importantly for witnesses to select committee inquiries and other public facing events. Whilst this may incur additional costs, such an institution would constitute an additional resource to support those visiting the House and should enable those currently unable to participate in Parliament to do so; if IKEA can manage this, so too should the Palace of Westminster.

Toilets

Provision should be planned for a future parity Parliament with equal numbers of women and men MPs and visitors; MPs and the public who have differing needs (some existing signs are rather dated too, e.g. ‘Toilets for disabled’ at the bottom of the stairs down to the Terrace canteen. There should also be some unisex/gender neutral toilets. Baby changing facilities should be separate facilities accessible to all parents/carers.

Sundries and Services

Given the existing hours and parliamentary calendar, the House should ensure that there is provision of a hairdressing salon in both decant and return. The House should also ensure in both situations either (a) a Kiosk or (b) a vending machine for essential sundries, e.g. Paracetamol, Lemsip, tights, and sanitary towels/tampons, and including some over the counter pharmacy provision. A study should also be undertaken into the provision of a GPs service on the estate.

22 January 2016