Stephen Holden Bates (University of Birmingham, UK)
Stephen McKay (University of Lincoln, UK)
Mark Goodwin (Coventry University, UK)
The results of the elections for the UK House of Commons Select Committees are out[1]!
The 2010 Wright Reforms, designed to increase the standing of Parliament in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, are now a decade old. One of the main reforms introduced was to alter the method of selection for House of Commons Select Committees[2] from one of appointment by party managers to one of election by the whole House (in the case of chairships) and by party caucuses (in the case of membership). This reform has been hailed by many as one of the reasons why select committees have become an ever more prominent and prestigious part of Parliament. There is also evidence that the reform has been good for some aspects of gender equality within the committee system, particularly in terms of female MPs becoming committee chairs[3]. Below we consider the outcomes of the latest round of select committee elections and argue that, in terms of female representation, they are a case of simultaneously bedding down, treading water and taking two steps forward.
Bedding down…
The general picture that emerges from the elections is similar to that of previous rounds. The proportion of both female chairs (32.1%) and female members (35.4%) broadly mirrors that of the House of Commons as a whole (33.8%). Moreover, as can be seen from Figures 1 and 2 below, female chairs are distributed relatively evenly across committees with different levels of prestige and which cover policy areas that are often (stereotypically) coded feminine, neutral or masculine[4]. This welcome pattern of the dispersal of female chairs across a range of portfolios and different levels of prestige is one that has been emerging over the last decade and appears to be here to stay.
…Treading water…
If we look at chair candidacies, a more mixed story can be found. While 31.5% of candidates for all committees in the most recent round of elections were female, there were no female candidates for three of the five most prestigious committees: the Defence, the Foreign Affairs, and the Treasury Select Committees. Indeed, there has only been two female chair candidates for these three committees since 2010[5] compared with 48 male candidates. This may partly be a consequence of party matters. Since 2010, all three of these committees have been chaired by the Conservatives, which today has around a quarter of MPs who are female (compared with now over 50% for Labour). However, there is also evidence to suggest that it may be a consequence of long-standing gendered divisions of labour within the select committee system.
As can be seen from Figure 3 below, the distribution of female MPs across the select committees is not spread evenly; female MPs are over-represented comparative to their presence in the House of Commons on some committees and they are under-represented on others. Indeed, on one committee – International Trade – there are no female MPs at all.
The proportion of female MPs on a number of these committees correspond to what we would expect on the basis of our recently published work on the gendered divisions of labour within the select committee system in the journal Politics and Gender. For example, we found that the Health and Social Care and the Home Affairs Select Committees were consistently very strongly and strongly disproportionately female over time, and that the Defence and the Foreign Affairs Select Committees were very strongly disproportionately male. For these committees at least, these appear to be gendered patterns that have continued.
…And taking two steps forward
Taking the above into account, what is perhaps most notable from Figure 3 is the proportion of women on the Treasury Select Committee. This figure of 73% is a historic high for such a high-profile committee and, being categorised as strongly disproportionately male in our research, is not in line with our expectations at all. Notwithstanding the idea that gender parity across committees should be the aim, this is a positive development and, if it becomes institutionalised[6], raises interesting questions about the drivers behind such a change. For example, it is notable that all the non-Conservative MPs on the committee are female raising questions about the role parties play in challenging gendered parliamentary behaviour and outcomes. Similarly, we may ask whether the then Conservative MP and now Baroness, Nicky Morgan, who was the first (and remains the only) female chair of the committee during the last parliament, acted as a role model across party lines for this cohort of female members.
Another noteworthy but perhaps less obvious outcome of the election is that there are more female MPs than has most often been the case on those committees that deal with aspects of parliament itself – for example, the Procedure and the Backbench Business Committees – and whose membership can arguably often act as gatekeepers and guardians of parliamentary process.
Why might this matter and what else might need to be done?
Why might it matter if certain trends in the gendered divisions of labour within the select committee system appear to be persisting and some changing?
It may matter because, although not straightforward, gendered patterns in the descriptive representation of female committee members probably has (continuing) ramifications for the substantive representation of women in certain policy areas. For example, it is almost certainly a very good thing for women – and, by extension, society more generally – that female MPs are no longer in the minority on the Treasury Select Committee. This is perhaps especially the case in a (post-)COVID-19 environment. We know that austerity has had – and continues to have – gendered effects in the UK and the architects of it are already talking about retrenchment and reducing public sector debt in the aftermath of the current crisis. Therefore, it is most likely to the benefit of women that we have the current makeup of the Treasury Select Committee: due to the majority status of female members, the committee will probably be more interested in scrutinising the gendered dimensions of any changes to public spending and taxes than were its predecessors.
Moreover, it is almost certainly a bad thing for women – and perhaps also democracy – that there are no female MPs on the International Trade Select Committee. Indeed, given the extent to which trade deals are critical to successful post-Brexit international relations, the exclusion of women from the committee holding government to account on this policy area suggests sub-optimal outcomes.
It may also matter in terms of those committees which focus on parliament itself because, depending in part on the motivations of the members themselves of course, the increase in female memberships raises the possibility of making it easier to change the culture of Parliament away from a gender regime underpinned by a particular and traditional form of masculinity. The former Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, Maria Miller, is now a member of the Procedure Committee for example.
And it may matter for the effectiveness of select committees and the scrutiny and accountability work they undertake because research suggests that diverse groups tend to outperform homogenous groups.
Our research in Politics and Gender showed that gendered patterns across select committee membership are not systematically disrupted because of increases in female MPs. We, therefore, cannot simply just wait for a cohort effect and put our efforts solely into getting more women elected to the House of Commons. Neither can we rely solely on existing reforms because, however positive in some regards (and as shown above), there is at least some circumstantial evidence to suggest that they are often in tension with powerful informal institutions that sustain gendered power imbalances.
We therefore believe Parliament should turn to some of the unimplemented recommendations of The Good Parliament report by Sarah Childs that concern committee composition and chairing:
- Recommendation 15: Introduce sex/gender quotas for the election of select committee chairs prior to the [next] general election if, by [one year prior], the percentage of women chairs is less than 40 percent;
- Recommendation 30: Prohibit single-sex/gender select committees, and encourage political parties to be mindful of wider representativeness in the election of members to committees.
Implementing Recommendation 15, the responsibility of the Commons Reference Group on Representation and Inclusion, would ensure that women’s leadership positions as Committee Chairs would move considerably closer to parity and may help disrupt at least some of the persistent gendered membership patterns highlighted above. Implementing Recommendation 30, directed to the Procedure Committee, would prevent all-female or all-male committees, such as has been seen with the composition of the current International Trade Select Committee.
An earlier, slightly different version of this blog was first published on Democratic Audit.
The authors would like to express thanks to Sarah Childs for her comments and suggestions as this blog has developed.
Notes
[1] Well, nearly. While the chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has been decided, the membership has not because of a row about the committee’s composition. This situation has echoes of the 1980s when the Thatcher government did not re-convene the committee for a number of parliamentary sessions due to the general election results in Scotland. Moreover, the Liaison Committee is yet to convene because of a row about its chair and, due to the recent re-shuffle of the Shadow Cabinet, there will also be two chair by-elections in the near future.
[2] In the ‘deviant case’ of the UK House of Commons, there is a split between the legislative function of parliamentary committees, undertaken by Public Bill Committees, and the oversight function, undertaken by Select Committees. Membership of the former continues to be decided by party managers.
[3] It is a moot point whether the reforms have been good for other aspects of equality.
[4] For how we define prestige and gender categories and how we then categorise the committees, please see pages 8 and 9 of our article.
[5] Both candidates were standing for chair of the Treasury Select Committees
[6] This is not a foregone conclusion. Our research has shown both that there is a high turnover of select committee members and that the proportion of female members in the select committee system tends to decline over a parliament.
Stephen Holden Bates is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham with research interests in parliamentary power and parliamentary committees.
Steve McKay is Professor of Social Research at the University of Lincoln with research interests in social policy and quantitative methodologies.
Mark Goodwin is a Lecturer in Politics at Coventry University with research interests in the UK Parliament, select committees and British public policy.