The Guardian view on the women and equalities committee: the power of sensible and constructive politics to help the disadvantaged

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/guardian-view-on-women-equalities-committee

Version 0 of 1.

Parliament is most spectacular when its anachronisms are on display. The Queen’s speech is fabulous theatre but incomprehensible to most people from the outside. To the trained eye it is a celebration of democratic history; to the casual observer it is a parade of mostly white men in fancy dress.

It is vital male MPs put themselves up. The institution would be devalued if it came to be seen as an all-women enclave

When parliament does adapt to the modern world, it is usually without pageant. For example, when MPs start the process of choosing select committee chairs this week they will find a newcomer on the list: the committee for women and equalities. The committee is meant to fill an accountability gap. The government has legal commitments to uphold principles of equal rights. There is a ministerial portfolio for women and equalities, but there has been no dedicated mechanism in the legislature scrutinising that office. Now there is.

But the ambition of those who have championed the new committee is that it will one day be equivalent in stature to the mighty public accounts committee, which directs its scrutinising gaze well beyond the confines of Whitehall. MPs could initiate inquiries into realms that look systemically exclusive in terms of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. In recent years we have seen captains of finance and industry interrogated on their corporate tax affairs. Why not also call them in for a grilling about the lack of diversity on their boards?

If government policy has a persistently negative impact on different parts of society, that will also merit investigation. It is worth MPs testing, for example, the assertion often made that austerity is taking a disproportionate toll on women. Likewise, the impact of welfare reforms on people with disabilities needs sturdy parliamentary evaluation. There is no lack of work awaiting committee members once they are chosen.

On that score, it is vital that male MPs put themselves up. The new institution risks being devalued if it is too easily dismissed as an all-women enclave complaining about a man’s world from the sidelines. Its remit goes well beyond questions of gender balance. Another potential pitfall would be the perception of left-leaning bias intrinsic to the committee’s agenda. That risk should be diminished by the Speaker’s allocation of the chair to a Conservative MP – presumably as part of a deal with Tory whips to allow the body to be formed in the first place.

The bulk of credit is shared among many MPs, who set aside party rivalries to ensure it happened

John Bercow deserves recognition for his role in championing the new committee. But the bulk of credit is shared among many MPs, those who first called for the committee’s creation and those who set aside party rivalries to ensure it happened: Yvette Cooper, Jo Swinson, Maria Miller, Mary Macleod, Caroline Dinenage, Fiona MacTaggart, Therese Coffey; a mix of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory. The change they have brought about is no less significant for being managed through quiet cooperation instead of noisy confrontation. Indeed, it is both revealing and a little sad that the absence of noisy confrontation is probably a reason why good news about progress in politics has passed with so little fanfare.