Submission from Rt Hon Harriet Harman
QC, MP
I am writing to you to set out in the strongest
possible terms why I think you should not give any support to
the idea of going back on the new hours of the House of Commons.
Just by way of background, you will remember
that when I first entered the House in 1982 I was one of only
3% women MPs. The old sitting hours were not an issue for the
male dominated House who had, for the most part, delegated their
day-to-day family responsibilities to their wives.
For the women MPs, of whom there are now many
more, that is less likely to be the way they choose to, or have
to, run their family life. The fact is that it is mostly mothers
who have day-to-day caring responsibilities for children and elderly
relatives and in that respect women MPs are no different from
other women.
It has been good for parliament and good for
Labour to have more women MPs. There is now, regularly on the
parliamentary agenda for debate, issues which would not have had
a look-in in the days when I was first in parliament—issues
such as childcare, flexible working and domestic violence. Labour
believes in equality and in supporting the family. The old sitting
hours were much more difficult for women combining their work
in parliament with their family responsibilities—so they
cut against our commitment to equality. And they made it more
difficult for MPs, whether men or women, to be seriously involved
in day-to-day parenting—and thereby cut against our commitment
to supporting parenting.
For a Labour dominated House to revert to the
old hours would show double standards—we urge employers
to be family friendly, but we turn back the clock on Parliament
becoming more family friendly.
And parliament looked ridiculously old-fashioned
with 97% men. The old sitting hours belonged to that era and not
to today.
So my positive points are:
— Parliament needed more women—the
new hours are part of making parliament more modern and equal.
— More women have widened and improved
the areas of debate in parliament.
— The changed sitting hours have not
reduced the number of hours available for the parliament to scrutinise
the executive.
— It has always been the case that
committees, Westminster Hall and the Chamber have operated at
the same time.
My negative points are:
— To change the hours would make Labour
look old-fashioned and backward looking.
— Women MPs would be furious—and
so would many men.
— It would be double standards.
It is important to remember that the current
sitting hours are not a victory for the "modernisers".
The current sitting hours were a compromise. Many of us wanted
9.00 am-5.00 pm (except for Mondays which all have agreed should
stay as they are.) In practice, the current compromise leaves
the House sitting often after 7.00 pm. If the current compromise
is unstitched, there is no guarantee that another compromise could
be agreed to take its place. We could well end up with the situation
we had on Lords reform with the House voting down all options.
So I would counsel you to be very cautious before unstitching
the current compromise—would you be able to get agreement
on what should take its place? Parliament could well do without
looking ridiculous as it reached deadlock on how to organised
itself.
As to the point that the current hours do not
help MPs whose families live outside London, I would make two
points in response:
— A reform which helps some should
not be ditched just because it does not help all.
— The current hours do not make things
worse for those who live outside London—indeed the Thursday
change (to 6.30 pm instead of 10.00 pm as it used to be) is specifically
to enable more MPs to be able to return to their constituency
and family by Thursday night.
And as to the point that the current hours leave
MPs with nothing to do in the evening—MPs could follow the
example of the PLP women's committee that has instituted a "Women
on Wednesdays" social evening.
I would also, finally, appeal to you personally
as you are someone who has a reputation for being progressive
and in favour of equality, not to support any such move.
As we agreed the current sitting hours, one
MP who opposed change said "what about my visit to the gym".
To which I replied—"what is more important—the
gym or family responsibilities?".
We have got plenty of important issues to debate
in parliament over the next few years. Changing the hours back
to suit a male-dominated House of the last century should not
be one of them.
January 2004
| 
