The
Chairman: Order. the representation of various groupings
in political parties is very interesting, but before the hon. Gentleman
intervenes I should remind the Committee that we are debating amendment
204. I will allow the intervention, but hon. Members should bear my
remarks in mind.
Dr.
Harris: I am not going to go into historical analogies.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of women MPs in
politics, and we support that. However, it should not have to be the
Bill’s purpose that policies that women need are promulgated.
Liberal Democrat party policy is made by our conference, in which a far
higher proportion of women participate than are present in the
parliamentary party. In terms of undemocratic parties, the
Solicitor-General may be right that it is essential for women to be
represented in the small cabal at the top that makes the policy. Where
there is democratic policy making, however, people do not have to rely
on the elite making the policy. The elite should be bound by the
membership and the democratic policy-making
apparatus.
The
Solicitor-General: What a dreadful admission. The
conference is full of women and the parliamentary party is palpably
empty of them. That really says it all. I am very pleased that the hon.
Gentleman felt that confession was an appropriate way to clean the
Liberal Democrats’ soul of the past.
The
amendments are not necessary. There is certainly no suggestion as
implied by amendment 204 that associations will break themselves up
into smaller bodies to avoid the law. Even if they were Liberal
Democrats, presumably there would be enough men and women in the
organisation to say that they do not want to take such action just to
avoid anti-discrimination law. We have no information, no
understanding, no appreciation of a need for amendments 204 or 205. Our
own positive provisions are sufficient, so I invite the hon. Member for
Hornsey and Wood Green to withdraw the
amendment. 9.15
am
Lynne
Featherstone: Is the Solicitor-General saying that
amendment 203 would make positive action within the party
legal?
The
Solicitor-General: As far as I know, parties are
self-regulating and can do what they want within the ambit of the
forthcoming legislation. The hon. Lady can invite her national
executive and her women-full conference to read the current legislation
to see where it would take them in their internal machinations. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean made a point about single-sex
shortlists. I was talking about positive action, not other
characteristics.
Lynne
Featherstone: I will take Solicitor-General’s word
that all parties are covered, whatever they do in respect of positive
action within their confines. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Ms
Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab):
Before we leave the clause, I wish to express my regret that it does
not contain a mechanism for achieving the same leap forward for black
and ethnic minority representation that we achieved in 1997 with an
all-women shortlist. I shall to return to the subject when the Bill is
discussed on the Floor of the House, but if progress on the matter of
women has not been fast enough, progress on a more diverse racial and
ethnic representation in Parliament has been pitifully slow. I could
never have guessed 22 years ago when I was first selected as a
candidate that 22 years later there would still be only one other
Afro-Caribbean woman in Parliament and no Muslim women whatever. That
rate of progress is not acceptable. Twenty-two years ago, people were
telling me and my young friends—Bernie Grant, Paul Boateng and
Keith Vaz—that the reason there were not more black and Asian
MPs was that we were not ready or qualified. It was not true then; it
certainly cannot be true now, when a whole new generation of young
black and minority ethnic people have emerged on the political
scene. To
touch on our earlier argument, Labour Members seem to be saying that
the point of more women MPs is that legislation would be tailored to
the needs of women. With respect to colleagues, the argument for more
diverse parliamentary representation—whether more women, more
black and Asian or more Muslim MPs—is not that only women can
represent women and only black and minority ethnic people can represent
black and minority ethnic people, but that we must have a Parliament
that looks like Britain. I have argued that case for 22
years when it was not popular in the party. The argument is not that
only people of a certain skin pigmentation can represent others with a
certain skin pigmentation, but about the legitimacy of our democracy in
the eyes of the people. Given the issues that have arisen in the past
few weeks, we should be focusing more on the overall issue of
legitimacy.
Dr.
Harris: I thank the hon. Lady for agreeing with the point
that I made earlier. The Liberal Democrats recognise that we just have
not done well enough to attract more black and Asian
candidates.
Emily
Thornberry: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot give way in an
intervention.
Dr.
Harris: We accept that we have not done well enough to
attract black and Asian candidates to winnable seats. However, to
extend the argument being made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North
and Stoke Newington, I hope she accepts that the history of policies on
immigration and asylum over the past 12 years shows that
whether we have black and Asian representation in the parliamentary
party is a separate issue. Her party obviously has more such
representation. However, although she has voted with us on some
occasions, her party’s record is not great in respect of showing
sensitivity towards the stigma associated with its policies on asylum
and immigration policies—and, indeed, on
anti-terrorism—which all have an impact on the black and Asian
population.
Ms
Abbott: I listened with interest to the hon.
Gentleman. In
the next few brief minutes, I want to move above party political points
and put on record the principles for which I have stood for the past 23
years. The issue relates to the political process, particularly in
cities such as London. An increasing proportion of younger people are
from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. How can they be expected to
see politics as relevant to them if they do not see MPs of whatever
party that look like them or to whom they can relate?
As we have
seen, having a black man as President of the United States has had an
extraordinary effect not only on black Americans but young Americans
and white Americans who felt that nothing could change and that
politics was the same old, same old. If we show people that
representation can change and that their representatives do not have to
look like those who were there before, it will have a galvanising
effect not only on women or minorities but on young people and the
wider community. I believe that the Bill could do more in that respect.
The idea seems to be that we should wait for natural processes, but
that has given us two black women in 22 years—so in 50 years we
will have three. We cannot wait for natural processes. We have to
consider what sort of positive action can be taken.
We have heard
various explanations of positive action as opposed to positive
discrimination. My argument has always been that positive
discrimination takes under-qualified people and puts them in position.
Positive action is about making it possible for people to be put in
position who are qualified but who, for all sorts of structural
reasons, do not have access to opportunity.
I have not
argued in a long while about race; and I have never argued for positive
discrimination. I believe that it is not necessary. When I was first
selected, there was a lot of media attention. I remember at Stoke
Newington hearing one white party worker say to another,
“It’s all very well, this Diane Abbott; I keep reading
about her, but is she qualified?” My friend said “Well,
do you know, she has 10 O-levels, four A-levels and a degree from
Cambridge, and she has served for four years on the city council. What
qualifications do you
mean?”
Mr.
Harper: The hon. Lady gave the example of President Obama.
He was selected as his party’s candidate in the primaries, and
he became President of the United
States because of his merit and talent. In no part of that process was
any form positive action taken. Why was that possible in America, and
why is it not possible
here?
Ms
Abbott: I have my eye on the time, Mr. Benton,
so I shall be brief.
To understand
the rise of President Obama, we have to remember that he came from the
politics of Chicago, which had been shaped by black mobilisation since
before the second world war, by the huge influx of slaves that came to
work in the northern cities and by positive action. That allowed
Chicago to select black Congressmen before the second world war; and
Chicago became only the second US state to have a black Senator. Obama
was undoubtedly able to rise on merit, but he was able to do so as a
result of positive action and black mobilisation that went back 50
years. That is all that we ask for today: give us the foundations on
which our merit can be seen.
The question
is important because of the changing nature of the demographics of the
country and our big cities, the legitimacy of our politics and the
pathetic progress made not only for women but for black and ethnic
minority people. The black and ethnic minority community is looking for
progress. People campaigning in the inner cities will know that some of
the most conscientious and engaged voters are black or minority ethnic
people. They are looking for progress. The Bill and the clause do not
address that question, and I plan to return to the subject on
Report.
The
Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend said nothing with which
I do not agree. She will know that we commissioned a report from
Operation Black Vote on the viability of having black and ethnic
minority shortlists, but it raised practical considerations that led to
the Government deciding not to go in that direction. With a bit of luck
the Speaker’s Conference will produce a little acceleration; the
new Speaker is pretty committed to radicalism.
May I add a
footnote to what my hon. Friend said? Really outstanding people can get
on, whoever they are. Indeed, the hon. Lady herself is pretty special
and got on a long time ago, when it was much harder even than it is
now. The worst aspect of discrimination and of structural inequality is
that people from the ruling sector—whether that is to do with
class, race or whatever—get on in a way that people of roughly
the same ability from other sectors do not. The vast bulk of people in
the middle suffer most from discrimination.
Ms
Abbott: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Really
outstanding women, such as Ellen Wilkinson, Barbara Castle and Jo
Richardson have risen. The test of a truly equal society is when
mediocre women and mediocre black candidates can rise in the same way
that mediocre white male candidates have always
risen.
The
Solicitor-General: I agree. Down with mediocre white
men!
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 99
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
100 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
101Interpretation
and
exceptions Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper: I will not detain the Committee too long. I am not
entirely certain that this is the right time to raise the issues that I
am about to raise—I am sure that you will tell me if it is not,
Mr. Benton.
Before I go
on, mention of outstanding women parliamentarians should not pass
without referring to the Baroness Thatcher—the first female
leader of a British political party. I am sure that she slipped the
mind of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington while
she was talking about great women of the past. That omission needed to
be filled in.
Emily
Thornberry: Can the hon. Gentleman recall how many women
from the Conservative party were promoted by Margaret Thatcher into her
Cabinet? Was she the only woman in her
Cabinet?
Mr.
Harper: Given that the Baroness became Prime Minister when
I was only nine years old, I am not entirely familiar with all the
people whom she promoted to the Cabinet. She certainly smashed through
one barrier: whether one agreed with her or not, she showed beyond all
doubt that a woman was eminently capable of being the Prime Minister of
our country. That was an excellent example to set and it should have
made it easier for women for two reasons: first, she demonstrated
beyond peradventure that women could do the job; and secondly, she
raised the aspirations of all those women who think that they can do
the job to show that they can and should do it. Her example is
remarkable.
Emily
Thornberry: I am older than the hon.
Gentleman — [Interruption.] It is
true. I can assure him that photographs of the Cabinet of the time show
only one woman, who is therefore not a
feminist.
Mr.
Harper: I did not say that Margaret Thatcher was a
feminist; I said that she was the first female Prime Minister. She
believed in people succeeding on merit. I shall finish on this point,
Mr. Benton, because I see you growing restless in the Chair.
I meant to make a small point at the beginning of my remarks, but I am
afraid that I provoked the hon. Lady. The parliamentary party that
Margaret Thatcher led was not diverse. I have already said in response
to the Minister that the current Conservative leader wants the party to
be more diverse, and we have taken measures to make that happen. I am
confident that it will be more diverse after the next general election.
I am pleased that the Minister said in her response that she was
looking forward to that and, implicitly, to a Conservative
Government.
The
Solicitor-General: Did I say
that?
On the
clause, I wanted to probe the Minister on what the existing law says on
association and in which cases the Bill would actually change the law.
During
business questions on 11 June, the Minister for Women and Equality, who
was talking about the provision in the constitution of the British
National party that people who are not white cannot be members,
said: “Under
the Equality Bill that is passing through the House, that constitution
will be made unlawful.”—[Official Report,
11 June 2009; Vol. 493, c.
935.] She also
made a slightly inaccurate reference and said that we voted against the
Equality Bill—we did not; we tabled a reasoned
amendment—and she added that she hoped that we would strongly
support the Bill, which would prevent us from having an apartheid
political party in this country.
9.30
am We,
of course, abhor the behaviour of the British National party more than
anyone else, and it is not wise for the Minister for Women and Equality
to try to score cheap points on a matter where all the mainstream
parties in this country should be united. She implied that a party
having a constitution that prohibited anyone who was not white from
being a member was not currently unlawful but that the Equality Bill
would make it so. I am not sure that that is entirely accurate. As the
Solicitor-General will know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission
wrote to the British National party on Tuesday of this week about
possible breaches of existing anti-discrimination law.
I shall
briefly set out to the Committee what the commission has done. It wrote
to the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, to outline its concerns about
the BNP’s compliance with the Race Relations Act 1976 and asked
for undertakings that it will make the changes required by the
commission by 20 July. Failure to do so would result in the commission
issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP. The
commission refers to its existing statutory duties to enforce the
provisions under the Equality Act 2006. That Act will be partly
subsumed by this one. The commission also refers to provisions on
racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976, which will be
subsumed to some extent by this
one. It
seems that the membership criteria under the British National
party’s constitution, its recruitment and employment policies,
practices and procedures, and the provision of services by its elected
officers to constituency members of the public are already prohibited
by existing legislation. First, will the Solicitor-General confirm that
that is the case? If that is so, the Minister for Women and Equality
should not really be implying that those things become unlawful only
with the passage of the Bill.
Secondly,
given that the British National party’s constitution prohibits
membership by people who are not white and since that party has been
around for a while, can the Solicitor-General explain why it is only
now, when the BNP has succeeded in getting its members elected to the
European Parliament, that the EHRC has taken action against such
discriminatory practices? If the BNP’s constitution has been in
place for a while and it has been behaving in such a way for a while,
the EHRC and its predecessor organisations should have taken action
earlier to nip it in the bud. However, despite the lateness of the
EHRC’s action, I entirely welcome it.
If
the BNP’s constitution violates the law, I hope that the EHRC
will get those undertakings. If it does not receive them, I hope that
the commission will take the proper legal action to ensure that the
British National party behaves in a non-discriminatory way and conducts
itself in accordance with the law of our country. That would be the
best answer to its behaviour and a good response by the EHRC. It is a
shame that that has taken so long if the BNP’s behaviour is
prohibited under existing legislation.
I am sure
that every member of the Committee is behind what the EHRC has been
doing—the measured and precise way that it has been doing it
sends a clear message that political parties should not discriminate
against anyone in the way that they conduct themselves.
| 
