This 2010 report reviewed women's representation in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly a decade after devolution. The report concluded that the battle for women's equal representation in Edinburgh and Cardiff was far from won, and that urgent further action was needed to ensure that the progress of the previous decade would be sustained in the next.
The establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly was accompanied by hopes of a 'new politics', involving, among other things, significantly higher women's representation than at Westminster. In the first elections to the devolved legislatures in 1999, 37% of seats in Edinburgh and 40% in Cardiff were won by women. But in the 2007 elections, the proportion of women in the Scottish Parliament fell to 33%, and even in Wales the number of women constituency candidates declined. By 2010 there were concerns that the 2011 devolved elections would see progress stalling further.
In light of these trends, British Council Scotland commissioned Has Devolution Delivered for Women? to reflect on women's representation in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, ten years after the devolved legislatures were first elected and 20 years after the report of the Hansard Society Commission on Women at the Top. The report, by Joyce McMillan and Ruth Fox, investigated trends in women's representation in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, analysed drivers of and obstacles to progress, and explored women's impact on policy and the culture of politics in Scotland and Wales.
Voluntary action by political parties is not enough. The progress it delivers is vulnerable both to change within key parties and to the shifting balance of power between them. There is therefore a case for reopening the debate about whether equal representation of women should be guaranteed by constitutional and electoral law, rather than purely by action within parties. An inquiry similar to the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation held at Westminster in 2008-10 is needed in Scotland and Wales to look in detail at the issues and make recommendations.
Given the apparently strengthening media tendency to present politics as a theatre of conflict and personal destruction, a case can also be made for a new ‘King Report’ on gender and the media in politics, along the lines of Sir Anthony King’s Report on the BBC’s coverage of the devolved institutions, to explore how current assumptions about newsworthiness affect perceptions of women politicians and their work.
There has been a change in culture towards a ‘new politics’ in Edinburgh and Cardiff, in terms of less confrontational and less party-bound ways of working. But there is a growing perception that Holyrood, in particular, is increasingly reverting to Westminster-style confrontational politics. The debate about how to avoid this needs to be reopened.
The dramatic increase in women’s representation at the dawn of devolution was achieved through strong, well-organised campaigning across a range of parties and organisations. The time has come to start rebuilding these alliances within Scotland and Wales, across the UK and internationally. To support a new campaign there is a need especially for structures and institutions which enable dialogue among women across the generations – for example, the idea of a Women’s Centre close to the Scottish Parliament was proposed in 1999 but did not come to fruition, and should be revisited.
Preface
Introduction
Part 1: Changing Numbers: Women's Representation in Scotland and Wales
Part 2: Changing Politics, Changing Culture: Women at Work in the Devolved Legislatures and Civil Society
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Election Results 1999-2007
Appendix 2: Seminar Attendees - 25 January 2010
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
