Women and Westminster

Last week, I spoke in debates on successive days.  On Monday, I contributed to the debate on women in public life – marking the centenary of the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1918 – and on Tuesday I spoke on the motion to concur with the Commons in agreeing the full decant option for the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) of the Palace of Westminster.  I was expecting the first to be consensual and the second to be contentious.  In the event, Tuesday’s debate followed Monday’s in agreeing the motion before the House without a division.

As I explained in opening my speech on Monday, I decided to contribute because I thought it important that some male peers contributed, because there were one or two points I wanted to make, and because the second woman to take her seat in the Commons was Margaret Wintringham, returned as MP for Louth in a by-election in 1921.

My first point was essentially to address the sleight of hand in the motion.  It commemorated the contribution women to Parliament since 1918 and the passage of the Representation of the People Act.  I drew attention to the fact that they were distinguishable, as women have been able to stand for election to the House of Commons since 1918, but not because of the Representation of the People Act.  In the UK, the franchise and the qualifying age for election to public office are dealt with separately in statute.  The RP Act reached the statute book in February 1918.  An Act to enable women to stand for election to the House of Commons was enacted at the end of the year.  It made no mention of age and it was taken that women could stand for election at the same age as men, namely 21.  The RP Act had limited the franchise to women aged 30 and over (and meeting the property qualifications for voting in local government elections).  The reason for that was to ensure that women were in a minority in the electorate.  That consideration had no relevance to the age at which one could stand for election.  The voting age for women was lowered to 21 in 1928, thus bringing it into line with the qualifying age for election to the Commons, although (not a point I made in the debate) there is no compelling reason why the two have to be the same.  Some nations do have a higher age for standing for public office than for voting, though in my view there is a stronger argument for having it the other way round.

The other point I made was that some of the (few) women elected to the House of Commons in the inter-war years were very effective parliamentarians.  Their limited number, in what was seen as a not especially environment, may suggest they were isolated and ineffective figures.  In reality, some were doughty and effective campaigners.  I focused on the role played by Eleanor Rathbone, the subject of my 2015 Speaker’s Lecture.  As I emphasised in the lecture, she was a remarkable figure, not only in achieving the introduction of family allowances, but in her understanding of the dangers posed by Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.  I also drew attention to others, such as the Duchess of Athol on the Conservative benches and ‘Red’ Ellen Wilkinson and Margaret Bondfield, the first female Cabinet minister, on the Labour benches.

Overall, it was a good debate, with plenty of speakers.  I shall do a separate post on Tuesday’s debate on R&R, but from my point of view it was a good outcome – far better than expected.

Advertisements

About Lord Norton

Professor of Government at Hull University, and Member of the House of Lords
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Women and Westminster

  1. tizres says:

    Thank you, I’ve been dining out this week on your astute comments re the RP Act! Do I detect a hint of sadness at today’s cohort of female parliamentarians?

    • Croft says:

      Tiz: I wonder if there is a certain inevitability; that the earliest women had to be so good to overcome the prejudices of the time that they naturally set a very high bar. By contrast perhaps the cohort of ‘Blair’s babes/Cameron’s cuties’ garnered those pejorative terms at least in part because of a belief that some were not the best candidates but included purely for gender virtue signalling by their respective parties.

      • maude elwes says:

        You are so right about the intake of many females being frighteningly embarrassing. Most especially those on the front benches. If this goes on, this selection for physical attribute rather than a head for political nous, will destroy, not only our position in the world, but added rejection by the people.

        You cannot go on pulling at straws in order to pretend ability. They are simply not up to it. And it’s creating enormous distress in the country. The real problem lies in Universities lacking ability to select or lead.

        Here is a man all aspiring women should be emulating in confidence, speech, cognisance and attire. The guy is clean and tidy, has a grasp on his subject and doesn’t look as if he’s just fell out of bed after stuffing 20 suet pies. Clearly he was chosen for his promise.

      • tizres says:

        Yes, I completely agree.

        While today’s women in Westminster still have to jump over inexplicable hurdles as part of their day-to-day life, those who were elected between wars were extraordinarily brave; that can not be said of all recently appointed baronesses.

        PS Do you know of a resource that has the number of women who voted in 1918 (to date and by constituency if poss…)? I had considered if the number of male deaths from WW1 and Spanish flu were significant factors but the extent appears to be marginal.

      • tizres says:

        Sorry, last comment initially addressed to Croft.

  2. maud elwes says:

    This may point in the direction you seek.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/

    An interesting snippet from the Telegraph.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html

    Not what you are looking for, but, if I find anything as I sweep I will pass on the link.

  3. Thank you, Lord Norton, for another fascinating insight.

    Kind regards,
    Henry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s