How many women does it take to make a difference?

Tuesday February 9,  House of Commons

• Professor Sarah Childs (Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol)
• Nadine Dorries MP
• Harriet Harman MP (Minister for Women & Equality)
• Linda Tarr-Whelan (former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women)
  

Chair: Matt Korris (Research Fellow, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society)

In Westminster last night the Hansard Society addressed issues of equality and women's rights by asking the question ‘How many women does it take to make a difference?'. The panel included Professor Sarah Childs (Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol), Nadine Dorries MP, Harriet Harman MP (Minister for Women & Equality) and Linda Tarr-Whelan (former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women). The speakers addressed the issue from a number of perspectives and viewpoints creating a debate which was serious, rational, informative and inspiring. International data and research was combined with candid insights into life in parliament and politics.

Linda Tarr-Whelan started the debate by proposing that a presence of 30% women results in different positive outcomes for business and politics. She emphasised that this figure shouldn't be a ceiling, but a floor. In the USA, she sees the same debate happening in different fields but it hasn't become a broad public debate yet. There are many talented, ambitious women in the pipeline but not enough openings and opportunities for them. She also argued that this is seen as an issue of gender when really it's an issue of balance and balanced leadership that leads to better outcomes. Linda said that research shows that companies which have 30% women make higher profits. The "30% solution makes for good business and smart politics". Finally, she announced the launch of a campaign to see 30% women's participation by 2020 - the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage in the USA.

Harriet Harman MP Started by stating that she and Linda Tarr-Whelan agreed totally on the issues being discussed . She continued by saying that the actions of women in the USA empowered women in the UK. She went on to say that men and women regard themselves as equal but they still lead different lives. There is still unequal division of labour in the home and unequal pay; women are the main carers for children and also for older relatives. These experiences inform and influence women. When Harriet Harman was first elected in 1982, there were only 3% women MPs in parliament and the agenda was very male. When Jo Richardson raised the topic of domestic violence and Harriet Harman asked about after-school care, these were not perceived as serious political issues. She believes that critical mass is important: the Labour Party has over ninety female MPs now and this has changed the agenda. She believes that quotas are effective. Labour used all-women shortlists and grew from ten to over ninety MPs at the same times as the Conservatives increased from thirteen to seventeen women MPs. Finally, she argued that women working together internationally was important, especially the foundation of the new UN Women's Agency. The woman in legislature in North Nigeria needs to think about the woman in the village in North Nigeria.

Nadine Dorries began by explaining that she had struggled to be at parliament over the last five years as a mother working away from home. She pointed out that currently 33% of Conservative candidates are women and that this was achieved without all-women shortlists or quotas. She added that there were no women in the cabinet or any frontbencher who had come from all-women shortlists, except for previously Jacqui Smith. Women should be elected on their own merit. What did concern her was the impact of expenses reforms on MPs with families, especially women, as they would not be able to bring their families with them. These practical issues may discourage women from becoming MPs and she felt that we may lose some current women MPs. She recently spoke at a girls' school where only a minority said that they would consider entering politics. Most said they were not interested because it was too adversarial, boring and like football. Nadine Dorries wasn't sure that it was possible to change the culture of politics and pointed out that in her experience women in politics were just as ambitious and adversarial as the men, but she did want to see a crèche at Westminster, better working hours and expenses reforms that took account of MPs with families. She concluded that all-women shortlists won't help but that 30% of  MPs in parliament being women probably would make a difference to parliament and politics.

Professor Sarah Childs explained that while she supported all-women lists, quotas, mentoring and networking, and that her research supports these ideas too, she had a problem with the 30% figure. She also wanted to question what was meant by ‘making a difference?' as this would be assessed differently by different women. She would rather start from the principle of justice. She argued that there is no magic in numbers and that the actual data is a lot messier than one would hope for. Also, the 30% figure may become ‘a ceiling and not a floor'. She questioned the assumption that women would act differently than men - studies do not show that a certain number of women corresponds with women friendly policies. Men may backlash against a block of organised women and greater numbers of women may have less solidarity. A focus on numbers misses the context in which politics take place, e.g. ceremonies and rituals, party allegiances. It also depends on where women are in institutions, whether they are leaders or on committees where they can change things. She argued that ‘critical actors' are more important than critical mass. Critical actors are prepared to speak on behalf of women - they can be men or women. To conclude she addressed the issue of parity of presence stating that international data shows that sex quotas make a difference and the idea of critical mass hides more than it reveals.

The panellists agreed that getting more women to participate in politics was essential for including more perspectives and better policy making, but they also mentioned a number of practical issues and key changes that were necessary to make it possible for women with families to be able to participate in parliament and politics. By implementing measures such as flexible working and job-sharing, business has had success retaining talented women. Questions from the audience raised issues such as how the press treated women MPs, how to encourage more women to stand as candidates, how women are elected at the same rate as men but that incumbents are often re-elected which makes it harder to change the balance and how the public can ask all politicians about issues which affect women.

Listen to the audio

Linda Tarr-Whelan & Harriet Harman MP

Nadine Dorries MP & Professor Sarah Childs

Q&A

If you would like to attend this event, please click here