Women’s equal representation in Parliament matters for a host of reasons. From the simple fact that 50% of us are women – to research that points to improved decision-making when women are involved in leadership, and that people like decisions made by mixed groups.  

 Our Parliament made a positive step toward equal representation at the 2024 General Election, with more women MPs elected than ever before, but there’s still room for improvement. The lack of women in Parliament is the result of many small decisions that have blocked the road to equal representation in our politics. 

Women’s Representation in the House of Commons

In the House of Commons, there are currently 263 MPs who are women, out of 650 MPs in total. That means that we now have the highest ever proportion of women MPs, at 40%.

But though 40% is a record high, it’s still a far cry from equal representation. And globally, we’re lagging behind: the UK ranks just 27th in the world ranking of women in parliament.

Meanwhile, across the different parties, there are varying levels of representation. 46% of all Labour MPs are women; in the Conservative party, 24% of MPs are women, and for the Liberal Democrats, the figure is 44%. So, there’s no parity in sight at party level, either.

Under-representation begins long before MPs take their seats 

The root of this imbalance in the House of Commons starts before we actually head to the polls and vote for MPs.

This is because candidates (excluding independents) standing in election are chosen by political parties. So the fact that we have such poor representation in Parliament, even though 50% of us are women, is largely the result of parties choosing to stand male candidates in winnable seats.

In the 2024 UK General Election, not a single party choose a gender equal slate of candidates. Overall, just 31% of candidates were women.

If there aren’t enough women for us to vote for in the first place, then we’ll never get equal representation. That needs to change: parties need to do more to build representation into the candidate selection process. Fortunately the UK Government is now taking steps to address this, now that they’ve enacted a piece of legislation that we’ve been pushing for since 2018. Political parties will now be required to release diversity data about their candidates at every stage of selection – which will make it easier to hold parties to account on representation, and to identify where the barriers to women lie.

However, beyond ensuring that enough women are actually being selected, they also need to stand in seats where they have a chance of winning. There’s no point having half of your candidates as women, if they are all challengers in seats they have no chance of winning.

Women’s Representation in the House of Lords 

In the House of Lords, women’s representation continues to be pitifully unequal.  

There are 829 Members of the House of Lords. Just 258 of them are women. That’s just 31% of all members of the House of Lords who are women. 

This is an especially troubling figure given that it’s not the result of an election, but appointment. Since the Prime Minister has the power to appoint anyone they want, we could easily have a House of Lords made up with 50% women.  

Unequal representation amongst our lawmakers is being forced on the public. 

Women’s Representation across Parliament as a whole 

Looking at our parliament as whole – both the House of Commons and the House of Lords – women’s representation is lacking.

Across both chambers of parliament, women make up only 35% of members of the Commons and the Lords

But the work toward a gender equal parliament can’t end there. There are other measures that can be used to aid women’s representation in our politics, such as gender quotas.

Think it’s time women had equal representation? Add your name.

The Senedd hit the headlines back in 2003 when it became the first legislature in the world to reach 50:50 gender parity between men and women. It was a proud moment for our country and showed Wales leading the way in ensuring democratic institutions truly represent the people that they serve. However, now that legacy is under threat. Just over a year out from the next elections, the Senedd could once again make the news on its gender balance – but for all the wrong reasons. That is, unless political parties step up.

Earlier this week the Welsh Government published long awaited guidance around diversity, which includes a range of measures from gender quotas, diversity plans and the collection and publication of diversity data. Those of us with a long memory may recall some of this was part of a bill to introduce statutory gender quotas. That Bill was dropped in September, and in its place we now have this guidance.

The key difference here is that last year’s bill would have made gender quotas mandatory, while this new guidance leaves it up to political parties to decide whether or not to adopt these measures – meaning that some may choose to ignore them altogether. The risk here is that many will choose to do the latter.

The Senedd’s positive record on gender parity has historically been the result of parties voluntarily utilising measures like all women shortlists, zipping and the twinning of constituencies. All of which are strategies that basically ensure there’s a good number of female candidates in places where they are more likely to win seats. That is what led to the record breaking numbers we saw in 2003. But dig below the surface and the reality is that only a couple of parties have used measures like this, and by chance they have done well at Senedd elections, essentially inflating the success of voluntary positive action. 

The risk now is that few parties will introduce the measures recommended in the guidance, and with polls showing a real split in voter intention it is likely the next Senedd will be made up of more parties. As a result, if these polls bear fruit then this fragmentation could lead to a Welsh Parliament that is less representative of women than ever before. 

In addition to the measures on gender balance, the guidance also includes recommended provisions to improve broader diversity in the Senedd. Suggesting parties measure and publish data around the diversity of their candidates, and take diversity and inclusion seriously through a specific strategy. This is absolutely where parties can do better, particularly around ethnicity and the representation of disabled people. Currently, 5% of MSs come from an ethnic minority background, slightly lower than the Wales average, and there is no data around those who identify as disabled whatsoever. 

The reality is that grasping the nettle on measures like quotas, better data, and tackling the culture within parties to offer support to a more diverse range of candidates will benefit us all. Apart from 2003 in Wales, women have been underrepresented in every other previous parliament across the UK. We know that having diverse and equal representation leads to better decision making. Wales is a diverse country and studies show that political institutions with gender parity can be viewed as more legitimate, with their decisions seen to be fairer. In short, those sitting in the Senedd Siambr (debating chamber) should truly reflect the broad life experiences and perspectives of all people in Wales.

With this guidance published, the responsibility is now squarely on political parties to step up and ensure Wales doesn’t squander its world-leading legacy when it comes to gender balance in its parliament. They must take on this responsibility, commit to introducing these measures to ensure that equal representation is a basic requirement of our democracy rather than just another missed opportunity.

This article was first published in Nation.Cymru

Show your commitment to change by joining the Electoral Reform Society, and supporting the work of ERS Cymru

Join the ERS today

How many women stand for election every year? It’s hard to tell. That’s because right now, parties don’t have to publish information on the diversity of their candidates.

However, last month, the Minister for Women and Equalities, Annaliese Dodds MP, announced that the government would finally begin the process of enacting Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010. This is a major step forward for diversity in politics and a huge win for the ERS – we have been campaigning alongside Centenary Action to push for change since 2018.

But what exactly is Section 106, and why is it important? Let’s break it down.

What is Section 106?

Enacting Section 106 would require political parties to publish diversity data on the people who put themselves forward as candidates for elections to the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Diversity data is information about candidates’ characteristics, including their gender identity.

Despite the legislation for this already being written back in 2010, it’s now, after 15 years of inactivity, that this government is finally taking action.

Since 2010, we have seen progress in representation – there are more women in Parliament than ever before, rising from 141 (21.7%) in 2010 to 263 (40.5%) today. But that still means women, who make up 51% of the population, are underrepresented in decision-making spaces.

Why is Section 106 important for women’s representation?

If we want a government that truly represents our society, we need to make sure everyone has a fair chance to get involved. But right now, there’s no standardised way of tracking who is stepping forward, and this means women are being left behind. There’s also no legal obligation for parties to publish this data.

Section 106 will change this – finally lifting the lid on diversity data and ensuring parties are transparent about their selection procedures. By making this information public, Section 106 would encourage political parties to take real action to ensure fair representation.

Publishing data drives transparency, which in turn fuels change. We’ve seen this approach work before – gender pay gap reporting, introduced in 2017,  was devised with this rational in mind, and has led to greater awareness and steps toward pay equality. Section 106 could do the same for political diversity.

By making the data transparent, parties can truly be held to account. If parties are forced to make this information public, they can no longer overlook representation gaps without scrutiny.

What happens next?

Our team are continuing to engage with the Government to make sure that Section 106 is enacted to its fullest and delivers real change.

To achieve this, it is essential that Section 106 includes provisions that ensure data is collected and published about all the stages of the candidate selection process. We need to make sure all stages remain transparent, not just limited data being released.

This would mean identifying who applies to become a candidate, who successfully secures a nomination to stand for election, and ultimately, who does and doesn’t get elected. By seeing all this data, we can gain a clearer picture of representation at every stage and address any barriers preventing a more diverse political landscape.

Transparency matters

We cannot let this continue to happen behind closed doors. These measures won’t say who should stand, but they will reveal who is – it’s about transparency. When we can see where the gaps are, it becomes easier to address them.

By shining a light on diversity in politics, we can ensure that everyone, regardless of gender or background, has an equal opportunity to be involved. This is a simple but powerful step toward making politics work for everyone.

We think it’s time women got their fair share in parliament

If you agree, add your name to our call for a fully representative House of Commons and keep up to date with our campaign.

Add your name: Demand better representation for women →

The 2024 General Election saw in a Labour Government and a brand-new cohort of MPs (335 new MPs) elected; but with all this churn how representative is our House of Commons? Before the election we published analysis of the candidates standing for election showing that only 31% of selected candidates were women. Let’s see how many were elected…

At the end of the last parliament, the UK had only ever had 564 women MPs, not enough to fill the House of Commons once over. But, with the 129 new women MPs elected on Thursday 4^th July we have finally managed to fill the chamber once over (with 43 extra!).

The House of Commons is slowly creeping towards gender parity; however we are still lackadaisical in our approach to achieving gender parity in our elected bodies, leaving it up to parties to field women candidates rather than ensuring that women are on the ballot paper via other mechanisms such as gender quotas.

Read our report Pursuing Parity: Examining Gender Quotas Across Electoral Systems here.

No party stood a gender equal slate of candidates, and this is reflected in the make up of the House of Commons, 40% of current MPs are women (263 of 650). Whilst there are many other achievements to celebrate such as the first ever women Chancellor, the most gender diverse cabinet ever (11 of 24), the most state educated cabinet ever (22 of 24) and the most Black women ever elected.

There are still glaring gaps in our knowledge on the diversity of candidates at present there is no legal obligation for parties or candidates to declare the diversity of candidates yet many already collect this data internally. This data is important as it will increase knowledge on under-represented groups and where efforts should be focused to ensure our democracy and our elected bodies are representative of the diversity of the UK.

If we are to rely on parties are the drivers for diversifying representation in political life, then there must be a mechanism for holding parties to account for their efforts to do so. Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 would require political parties to publish diversity data on candidates standing in elections to the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The legislation already exists, it just needs to be enacted.

The enactment of Section 106 would compel parties to publish diversity data on their candidates for public office.

Add your name to demand that Women get their fair share.

Women make up 40% of parliament – it’s just not good enough

Last week, all UK political parties confirmed which candidates they were standing in each constituency for the 2024 general election. Including independents, a total of 4,515 candidates will be fighting for a seat in the next government.

If you’ve already tried out our candidate name game, you’d have seen how the most common name was David, owned by a whopping 104 candidates. The Johns came in second with 84 candidates called by this name, and the Pauls a close third with a total of 79.

In fact, when tallying up the most common candidate names, we noticed the top 10 in the list are all male names. It is not until reaching position 11 that you come across the female name Sarah, owned by 43 candidates. Of course, this could be due to women having more diversity in their names. However, it is less easy to dismiss that out of the 4,515 candidates standing, only 31% are women. 

We can reach parity sooner with quotas

We strongly believe that women’s equal representation in government matters. Who better to ensure the crucial perspectives of women, making up 51% of the UK population, are equally considered in what has always been a male dominated space? Yet, as covered in depth in our recent report, Pursuing Parity, the only way to guarantee consistent representation in elected governments is through the use of legislated gender quotas.

The wide variation in the proportion of women candidates selected across the UK parties for the upcoming general election tells us why. For the Conservatives, 34% of candidates selected are women. Labour almost achieve gender parity in their selection, with 47% of their candidates being women. The Greens also achieve a near equal split with 45%.  Women make up 39% of the SNP’s candidates. Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have selected 31% and 29% women candidates respectively. For Reform UK, women make up only 16% of their candidates*.

It is a great sign that Labour and the Greens have come close to equal split in their selection. However, it is also difficult to point at progress when the total percentage of women candidates standing in this election is lower than the 35% of women currently represented in the Commons. This point emphasises how gender parity should not be reliant on which political party has the most support at any one time. As seen in the Welsh Senedd since 2003, backsliding can happen.

Why First Past the Post can disadvantage women

Another concern is that first past the post adds yet another layer of difficulty in getting women into Parliament. Due to ‘safe seats’, a feature embedded in this electoral system, it potentially allows parties to place their women candidates in seats they unlikely to win.

With Labour having selected candidates with a near 50:50 balance of men and women and looking strong in the polls, it is likely we will see more women MPs elected than in 2019. Although this would be an excellent outcome for diversity, it is essential to keep in mind that, without quotas, the success could be short lived.  Short term shake-ups to usual trends do not guarantee enduring representation in our democracy. A change to our electoral system would.

Find out how many candidates share your name

It’s been over a hundred years since some women won the right to stand as MPs and vote in 1918. But women only won the vote on the same terms as men in 1928, and the first woman prime minister wasn’t until 1979.

While an increasing number of women have won seats in the House of Commons in recent years they still only make up 35% of the chamber. This fact hides how recent a phenomenon large numbers of women MPs has been. There are currently 226 women in parliament, out of a house of 650 members – but there have only ever been 564 women MPs in history. In the whole history of our democracy, we haven’t elected enough women as MPs to even fill the House of Commons.

Below are the names of all women who have won election to the House of Commons, starting from the first female MP, Sinn Féin’s Constance Markievicz (who was in Holloway Prison at the time and never took her seat), to Gen Kitchen, who won the Wellingborough by-election on the 15^th February 2024.

All the women MPs ever elected

First Past the Post holds back women’s representation

One of the reasons behind this slow change is First Past the Post. In Westminster, the same person will often hold on to their ‘safe seat’ for decades. When historically men held nearly all the seats, it’s no surprise that this is very often a man today.

With few seats changing hands at each general election, there are limited opportunities for women to become MPs. Moving to a proportional electoral system would clear away some of the barriers which curtail women becoming MPs. But we need to make more urgent steps if we want to see change.

Click to add your name to our call: Demand better representation for women

Throughout history, the political landscape of the United Kingdom has been predominantly shaped and governed by men. The struggle towards gender parity across the United Kingdom has been fought tirelessly throughout the 20th century. Women were given the right to stand as MPs in 1918, some women got the right to vote in 1918, the suffrage movement won the vote on the same terms as men in 1928, and the first woman prime minister was appointed in 1979.

Due to coordinated efforts of campaigners and activists, over the last 100 years an increasing number of women have assumed roles in politics. This shift is particularly evident in the increase in women Members of Parliament (MPs) who, as of February 2024 totalled 226 out of the 650 MPs, (35%). However, whilst the number of women MPs has increased, there is still a long way to go in order to achieve gender parity in elected bodies in the UK. 

Gender parity around the world

Across the world, as of 2nd Feb 2024, there are only 6 Parliaments (Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, Rwanda, Andorra and the United Arab Emirates) which have gender parity in their lower or single house. 

Other countries have achieved gender parity previously, such as Wales in 2003, however these have fallen back into male majorities in recent years. Globally there is an increasing number of women parliamentarians; in 1995 women made up only 11.3%, whereas by the end of 2022 women made up 26.5% of parliamentarians. However, whilst it is positive that there is an increasing number of women members, 2022 showed the slowest progression of women’s representation in parliaments in 6 years, only increasing 0.4% from the previous year. If this rate continues, it will take over 80 years for gender parity to be realised globally. It is evident that there is more work to be done before parliamentary gender parity becomes a reality.  

Quotas are a key mechanism to enable gender parity. In 2022 there were 18 countries which had a change in parliament where legislated gender quotas were in place in the single or lower house. In these countries 30.3% of the total number of MPs are women. In comparison, in countries with no gender quotas (19) which had a parliamentary renewal e.g. change in parliament, only 22.2% of parliamentarians elected were women. There is an 8-point percentage difference in gender parity achievement between countries with quotas and those without.  

How would a quota be implemented?

There are multiple types of gender quotas, and the ease and effectiveness of implementation can differ across voting systems. Our new report, Pursuing Parity: Examining Gender Quotas Across Electoral Systems, explores the different quota mechanisms through which gender parity can be achieved, examining the benefits and the potential drawbacks of the approaches. It then assesses the ease and success of quota implementation across majoritarian and proportional voting systems. Following this, we’ve created country case studies of several of the approaches that explore the mechanisms in action. 

Pursuing Parity illustrates how implementing gender quotas and moving to a proportional representation voting system (PR) can help speed up the progress of achieving gender parity in elected bodies around the world and at home.

Read our new report: Pursuing Parity

Men still dominate political decision-making in the United Kingdom. Women hold just one or two seats on prestigious select committees in the House of Commons, like Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Justice. No women sit on the Domestic and Economic Affairs cabinet committee. And 95% of all local councils have majority-men membership.

Yet voters do care about women’s leadership in elected office. My research shows that when women are absent from political decision-making, voters view governments as less legitimate.

New research on voters’ views of government decisions

Amanda Clayton (University of California, Berkeley), Diana O’Brien (Washington University in St. Louis), and I study citizens’ attitudes about political representation.

We find that citizens strongly prefer that political decision-making bodies have gender parity, meaning that they have equal numbers of men and women. Even when governments require gender quotas for women candidates, citizens still prefer to see gender parity amongst officeholders.

We conducted experiments using public opinion surveys. In these survey experiments, different respondents saw different news articles, but then everyone answered the same set of questions. This allows us to compare how the different articles shaped participants’ responses.

In our first study, the article was a fictional news story about an 8-member legislative committee making a policy decision. We used graphic design software to make our news story look real: it had a headline, photos of the committee’s members, and a narrative.

In one version, the committee was all men and we used only male photos. In another version, the committee had gender balance, and we used photos of four men and four women. Otherwise, the story was the same.

After respondents saw either the all-male version or the gender-balanced version, we asked them questions about the committee’s decision-making process. Did they think the committee’s procedures were fair? Did they think the committee’s composition was fair? And, did they think the committee could be trusted? These questions all measure ‘democratic legitimacy’—the extent to which citizens accept political decisions and are willing to follow them.

People trust decisions made by gender-balanced committees

We found that respondents who saw the gender-balanced committee rated that group as more fair and more trustworthy when compared to respondents who saw the all-male committee. People also expressed much more willingness to accept the gender-balanced committee’s decision.

Even more, the gender-balanced committee wasn’t just favoured by women and voters on the left—the two groups usually most associated with supporting women in office. Men and conservatives also preferred the gender-balanced group to the all-male group.

In a second study, we examined whether preferences for the gender-balanced committee changed if people were told that women had obtained gender parity thanks to a rule that insisted on equality – a quota.

This time, our fictional news story featured a local council making a policy decision. In addition to the versions where the council could be all-male or gender-balanced, we added a third version, in which the gender-balanced council was ‘quota elected’. Participants read one of three possible descriptions of the council:

1. The council is composed of all men
2. The council is composed of four men and four women
3. The council is composed of four women and four women, following a new rule that requires parties to run equal numbers of female and male candidates.

The original study was performed in the United States, but our follow-up experiment was performed in 8 countries—including the United Kingdom.

Our results build on the first study. Looking at council’s decision-making procedures, respondents viewed the gender-balanced council as the most fair and the all-male council as the least fair. They viewed the quota-elected gender-balanced council as slightly less fair relative to the ‘regular’ gender-balanced council—but still as much fairer than the all-male council.

Said another way, participants did not overly penalize the quota-elected council for attaining gender parity through a mandate. And they viewed a council with gender parity obtained via a quota as far more legitimate than a council composed entirely of men.

When women are represented in elected office, even with quotas in place, the institutions are seen as more fair, more trustworthy, and ultimately more democratic.

Citizens like the result of quotas

Our results counter critics who claim that gender quotas would diminish the quality of political representation. We find the opposite: citizens like quotas’ results, because women’s presence indicates that governments are working for everyone.

These results follow other studies showing that gender quotas enhance, rather than diminish, democratic outcomes. For example, when gender quotas lead to more women in office, women citizens express more trust in government and more satisfaction with democracy. Women citizens may be especially aware that, when more women are in office, policy becomes more responsive to their needs.

Right now, the Welsh Parliament / Senedd is undertaking an electoral reform, with gender parity rules likely to be introduced. From my research, I can say that the evidence linking women’s presence to improvements in democratic legitimacy is clear.

Find out more about women in government

In January 2023, the global proportion of women parliamentarians just was 26.5%, indicating that there’s a way to go before we have equal numbers of men and women in parliament around the world.

While quotas can make a big difference, they aren’t the only factor that can help women get their rightful place in Parliament.

In 2022, 47 countries re-elected either their upper or lower house. In countries with a quota system for women, 30.9% of the total number elected were women; in comparison, in countries with no quotas, only 21.2% of MPs elected were women. Quotas make a real difference to women’s representation in parliament, but so does the electoral system.

In 2022, countries with either proportional representation (PR) or mixed electoral systems collectively elected 29% women to their parliaments, whereas countries with majority or plurality systems like First Past the Post only elected 22.4% women to their parliaments. The electoral system used also influences the likelihood of applying gender quotas.

Of those countries holding elections in 2022, nearly three-quarters (73%) of countries with PR or mixed electoral systems had either a voluntary or legislated gender quota in place, whereas in majority or plurality systems nearly three-quarters of countries (73%) did not have any type of quota in place.

As the below chart shows, countries which use Proportional Representation consistently elected more women in 2022 in comparison to countries with a plurality/majority system and that positive effect was amplified through the application of gender quotas.

Why proportional representation helps women get elected

Matland and Studlar argue that “the greater number of parties in proportional representation systems provides an increased probability that one party will decide actively to promote women candidates” When one party starts standing female candidates, others tend to follow.

Proportional voting systems rely on larger constituencies that elect more than one MP. These ‘Multi-Member Districts’ allow parties to field numerous candidates within the same constituency. There is a greater opportunity to field more diverse candidates alongside the incumbent.

In contrast, in First Past the Post the focus is on one candidate, which minimises the opportunity to consider the balance across candidates. Moreover, it may be necessary to remove an incumbent or go against central party interest to put forward a woman candidate. Matland and Studlar argue that parties may “ignore the external challenge” in to avoid “creating internal strife and antagonizing powerful intraparty interest”.

Due to the design of the ballot, it is also easier to implement quotas on PR ballot paper. For example, in systems which use party lists it is relatively easy to interlock the list candidates to ensure a balanced list is presented. In First Past the Post, balance between men and women must be done at the macro-level between constituencies rather than it being able to be adopted from within each constituency list.

Voting systems which use PR are more successful in electing women whether they include gender quotas or not. However, PR alone will not sufficiently increase the speed in which we achieve gender parity. It is evident that gender quotas and a PR system working in tandem are the most conducive mechanism to increase gender parity.

We’ll be exploring how different countries around the world use quotas and proportional representation to increase the speed of achieving gender parity in a new report coming out later this year.

Would you like to support our work?

Join the Electoral Reform Society today

It is a quiet scandal that 105 years after women first won the vote they are still grossly under-represented in Parliament. Women make up just over a third of MPs in the Commons and the state is yet more dire in the Lords, where they account for around just 28 per cent of peers sat on the crimson benches. This is indicative of the story of gender equality in Parliament over the last century: one of glacial progress where it is treated more as an optional aspiration rather than a basic requirement of any healthy democracy. 

However, an unexpected opportunity is presenting itself that could give this limited progress towards a gender-balanced Parliament the shot in the arm it needs in the form of the proposed reform of the House of Lords. The upper chamber has historically lagged behind even the Commons’ slow progress admitting women. Whereas the first female MP took her seat in the commons in 1919, just a year after the 1918 Representation of the People Act first gave women the right to vote, the first female peer was not able to sit in the Lords until 1958. To this day, there are parts of the Lords that are still all male, such as the 92 sitting hereditary peers who take their seats by birth-right. On the current pace of change we may not see a gender-balance upper chamber until well after 2050. 

This is not just an affront to equality, it also had practical implications for the country. The 800 peers each have a life-long right to sit in the Lords and shape our laws, which gives them significant influence over how we are governed. Yet, that influence is overwhelmingly from the male perspective meaning women are still being governed largely by what the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst called ‘the laws that men have made’. The fact that in the intervening century progress to proper representation for women in parliament has only been achieved in a partial sense is a travesty.  

Lords reform presents an opportunity to right his historical injustice far more directly. Late last year, Labour unveiled its plans to abolish the current appointed House of Lords and replace it with a new, smaller elected chamber. The proposals, authored by Gordon Brown and endorsed by Keir Starmer, include significant reforms to reshape the composition and purpose of the appointed House of Lords, which the Labour leader described in its current form as “indefensible”.  

The plans also seek to embed representation for all parts of the UK in the southern England-dominated Lords. That could be delivered by a proportional electoral system, which would accurately represent the votes of the whole country in the second chamber.  

Yet the move to a proportional electoral system could also allow for gender balance to be baked in as a legal requirement via gender quotas.  

The Welsh Government is already looking to bring quotas in for its 2026 elections to ensure it always has proper representation of women in the Senedd (Welsh Parliament). Bringing in quotas for a new elected Lords would ensure that at least one of our houses of parliament would have equal representation of women. Not only would this be a realisation of the ambition voiced by all major political parties – but it would also mean better laws that properly reflect the experience and needs of women across the country. 

The reality is that gender equality in parliament is within our grasp, it is a matter of political will. The proposed reform of the Lords is an unprecedented opportunity to move the dial forward in a way that makes up for a century of grindingly slow progress and ensures at least one half of parliament meets that basic democratic requirement by the time of the centenary of the next great suffragette victory, the 1928 Representation of the People act that broadened the franchise to all adult women. And for the first time in its history, the House of Lords could become the engine of gender equality in our democracy rather than a brake on it. 

Do you want to make our second chamber an engine of gender equality?

Add your name to our call for a fairly elected House of Lords