Modernisation Without a Gender and Diversity Sensitivity Focus is not Modernisation: An Agenda for the New Modernisation Committee

This blog was also published by Centenary Action

Motion 5

That—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Modernisation Committee, to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon;

Just a few of weeks after winning the 2024 General Election, the new Labour Government’s Motion to establish a Modernisation Committee passed unamended and without a division. It will, as Lucy Powell, Leader of the House (LoH) stated, ‘look at reforms to make Parliament more effective’ and bring a ‘more strategic lens to these matters and, where necessary, address the pace of change’. It is a ‘clearing house, drawing on all the good work of other Committees’ and ‘of course the House of Commons Commission.’

It was unfortunate - to say the least - that the accompanying debate was dominated by Maiden Speeches. Too many contributions followed the ritual of newly elected MPs being nice about the previous MP, saying something complimentary or funny about their constituency, and saying something about themselves. Much less was said about the substance of the debate. More was spoken of – and critically so – regarding the Committee’s size, party composition, and MP/Committee Chair/lay membership, not least by the Shadow Leader of the House and MPs from smaller parties. These, and other concerns relating to MPs’ outside employment (second jobs) and parliamentary standards were outlined prior to the election - for example by the Constitution Unit – and in subsequent commentary, e.g. Hansard Society. We do not return to these here. 

Instead, we are centrally concerned about what the Committee might do re: reforming the House’s ‘culture, procedures and working practices’, in Powell’s words. We very much welcome the LoH’s commitment to modernize ‘in the round’ and bring the House ‘up to date’. We acknowledge too that she referenced post-97 reforms – including, changes to sitting hours and recess dates - that we agree have ‘helped to make Parliament a more inclusive and family-friendly place of work’. Powell also spoke of proxy voting, first introduced on a temporary basis in February 2019 for MPs on babyleave and made permanent in Sept 2020, and extended to other MPs during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

What were the key issues - seemingly both non-gendered and explicitly gendered - raised by MPs in the debate? Some broader issues, not actively framed in gendered terms included the now veteran SNP MP, Kirsty Blackman who suggested Covid-era recommendations of more hybrid proceedings should be reconsidered (The Remotely Representative House) alongside newbie Gordon McKee who referenced technology. Fellow 2024 MP Eillie Chowns had the most to say. She wanted reforms to make MPs more productive in ‘sitting, speaking and voting’, i.e., addressing space to be found so that all MPs can have ‘somewhere to sit’ in the Chamber, and to do away with prayer cards for booking seats (Childs 2016, 64); time limits to maximize speaking opportunities; an end to ‘bobbing’ up and down to get the Speaker’s attention; ‘positive’ rather than ‘deferential’ or ‘braying’ style of politics; and arguably most radical of all, ‘electronic voting’ which, were this to result in the removal of the division lobbies, provide for the physical enlargement of the Chamber, such that all MPs could have seats (Childs 2015, 37).

In respect of explicitly gender-sensitive reforms raised in the debate, Wendy Chamberlin called attention to the limited capacity of the parliamentary nursery and greater ‘support’ for new members with family responsibilities. Stella Creasy stressed the importance of a ‘safe’ workplace, one that no longer engenders ‘divorce, drink’, and/or inappropriate behaviour. On family-friendliness, she wanted the Commons to learn from international best practice, and drew explicit attention to the 2022 Kigali Declaration on Gender Sensitive Parliaments (GSP) that obliges the UK Parliament to undertake ‘10 acts for the next 10 years’, including a second GSP Assessment.[1]

There are, then, no lack of reform ideas, produced in House[2] and outside.[3] We all have our favourites, which include but are by no means limited to: a House Business Committee, with more advance business timetabling; a voting ‘division hour’, with or without electronic voting; the normalization and expansion of hybrid participation (The Remotely Representative House); formal constituency Fridays, achieved by abolishing sitting Fridays and conference weeks (The Good Parliament Recommendation 27); ‘committee weeks’ to support site visits and public engagement and media coverage; and ruling out single sex/gender committees (The Good Parliament Recommendation 30). And this is all without commenting on how party’s select diverse candidates for political office… and the necessity of fielding the ‘parents in parliament survey’ for this new session.

Rather than ‘cherry pick’ our top three or four reforms, we make the procedural case that the new Modernization Committee should formally commit to subject each and all of its future proposals to a gender and diversity sensitive test. As it operates as a ‘task and finish committee’, and with Chairs from other Committees guested onto it (the LoH name checked, the Procedure, Privileges, Standards, and Administration Committees), only such a commitment will ensure that reforms to Commons’ working practices and culture are inclusive in their effects; do not inadvertently render some Members less able to participate and hence less effective representatives; and/or have unintended consequences on others who work on the parliamentary estate, whether MPs’ or House staff. 

It is right to make such a commitment now. The meaning of modernization is highly contested. In the parliamentary debate, both the Leader of the House, and Jim Shannon MP, drew attention to preserving the House’s traditions and customs.[4] Yet, some reforms if they are to modernize how the House works, cannot but affect, if not overturn, some of these. Some MPs claims about the House’s established ways of working are demonstrably preferences - and nothing more. And history tells us that the Committees and bodies identified by the LoH as key actors have frequently acted as sites not of reform but of resistance to GSP. 

If there can be no doubt that there is much, much more to be done to make the Commons ‘truly representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective in all its functions’,[5] as the 2016 The Good Parliament Report, the UK GSP Audit 2018, and 2022 WEC Equality in the Heart of Democracy laid out...

References

[1] The UK GSP Audit 2018...

[2] Procedure Committee publications...

[3] Constitution Unit blogs...

[4] Commentary on modernisation...

[5] http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/democracy_en.pdf