Finding the women
September 2002
The House of Commons is on the brink of the twentieth century. Not the twenty first. That would be too much for such a nineteenth century institution. But, if the Modernisation Select Committee's reform proposals are voted through this autumn, some of the chamber's procedures and practices will be advanced a hundred years.
If this happens, and it is by no certain that it will, the second biggest barrier to women's representation in this country – the hours most MPs work – will be removed. Hours which were designed to suit Victorian gentlemen who spent the morning in court and wandered over to the Commons in the early evening for a little debate and a lot of dinner. Though this long dead Member's workload was a fraction of those of the 541 men currently sitting in the House of Commons he does share one thing with them. The care of the young, sick and old in his family was, like theirs, mostly done by his females relatives.
In this respect, as the British Household Survey regularly confirms, things have not changed that much since the nineteenth century. Though men now do far more of the caring in the family than they ever did, women still bear the brunt of the burden. This is always difficult to combine with a job and even more difficult to combine with one that keeps you at work until 10:30 pm most week nights and out most weekends.
Though the "what about your family" question is rarely put to candidates these days it still haunts most women - and an increasing number of men - during the selection process. The answer, all too often, is withdrawal. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard a woman say: "I just cannot do this to my parent/child/ partner now. I will wait until they are better/older/at school/ back in work". By then, in our age-conscious society, it is often too late.
Members of Parliament have a higher-than-average divorce and death rate. They also attract a higher-than-average amount of vilification from the press. These are powerful disincentives on their own. Add to them to the amount of time and money it takes to get selected for, let alone elected to, a parliamentary seat and you begin to understand why, out of the 659 members of the House of Commons, only 118 are women. This, at 17.9% , is slightly less than it was in 1997 when Britain's female representation reached an all time high at 18.2% .
Low in the leagues
In international terms this high is pretty low. Britain is forty-fifth on the women's representation league table. Below Guyana, Laos and Rwanda and just above the Philippines and Botswana. Not a proud place for one of the world's oldest democracies. Without Labour's introduction of women-only short lists in 1993 the dubious honour of having the lowest number of female representatives in Europe could well be ours. Instead it goes to Greece only 10% of whose legislature is female. That compares badly with Germany's 31%, Spain's 28%, Austria's 27%, Belgium's 23% and Portugal's 19% . Next is Britain. At least we managed to beat France's 12% and Italy's 11% .
Despite the opprobrium heaped upon them at the time, all women short lists made a very real difference. Thirty five of the 101 Labour women elected in 1997 owe their parliamentary lives to them. Assertions that the women selected under the system would be less than good have been proved wrong with many going on to become ministers or junior members of the government. However, an industrial tribunal decision in 1996 brought all women short lists the system to an abrupt end. That is why, in spite of the fact that there had to be at least one woman on all short lists, in 2001 only four of the candidates selected in the forty-two seats with retiring Labour MPs were women. This helped to bring down the total number of Labour women elected in 2001 by five. It is also why none of the nineteen by-elections held since 1997 has returned a single Labour woman to Parliament.
Without the spur of all women short lists constituency parties, whatever their political affiliation, mainly choose men. Why? The reason, I believe, is Britain's combative political culture. Constituencies are looking for someone to champion them in this ruckus. Women, who tend to prefer consensual to confrontational methods of problem solving, simply do not fit the bill. This is confirmed by the fact that constituencies are more willing to select a woman if they feel that there is not a serious chance of her being elected. In 1992 about 1 out of every 4 women candidates was elected compared to male ratio of 1 out of every 2.
In the margins
As a result, many of the women in the House of Commons are in marginal seats. This is far more of a problem for the opposition parties where, in some cases, their female representation could be wiped out in a single by-election. Labour's total of 95 far outweighs the Conservative's 14, the Liberal Democrat's 5, the Scottish Nationalist's 1, Sinn Fein's 1, the Democratic Unionist's 1 and the Ulster Unionist's 1. Plaid Cymru does not feature as it has yet to send a woman to Westminster.
So, when the government decided that something had to be to done to increase women's representation, the opposition was prepared to be helpful. The result was the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act of February 2002. This gives political parties the freedom to introduce voluntary positive measures when selecting candidates. In other words, all women short lists can be used where parties want to use them. Labour intends to use them in at least half of the seats where the sitting MP is retiring and in almost all those with late retirements.
All women short lists sideline the stereotype. They also increase choice. All too often the obligatory woman was the only woman on a Labour shortlist. Now parties will be able to choose between five or six. They will also encourage more women to put themselves forward. In 2001, realising that their chances of success were slim to non-existent, women simply stopped contesting selections. Now they will be in with a real chance. Also, and most importantly, they will be judged on their abilities not their gender. That makes all that time, money and effort worthwhile.
No one likes all women short lists. But almost no one wants politics to continue as it is. Unrepresentative and irrelevant. If it does the already dangerous amount of public disengagement will increase. Politics is about people. More than half of the people in our country are women. We have to take steps to actively include them.
The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act was the first of these steps. The Modernisation Select Committee's proposals are the next. When these come before the House we will have to choose between nineteenth and twentieth century practices. I hope it is the latter. Then perhaps, before too long, we might find ourselves in the twenty first century - along with the rest of the country.
Barbara Follett MP
This article first appeared in 'The House' magazine – the Parliamentary weekly – on September 30, 2002 in No.1006 Vol.27
