| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, given the noble Lord's knowledge on the subject and in the light of recent experience, can he tell us whether, if Cassandra is right, we could seek a derogation from the Human Rights Act?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I deplore any derogation from the Human Rights Act. That derogation arose from a public emergency that occurred on September 11th threatening the life of the nation. This is not terrorism legislation; it is remedial legislation.
A perfectly good point has been made that lots of other countries are doing this kind of thing, so what is the problem? The problem is that none of those countries has had their systems tested in either of the two European courts. The only place where the idea has been tested is France, which my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood mentioned. Why did the French amend the constitution? They amended it because the Conseil Constitutionnel decided in 1982 that a rather modest 25 per cent quota for women in local government elections violated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen by violating the principle of equality. No one knows whether the amendment made to the French constitution, to take the matter away from the Conseil Constitutionnel, will pass muster under either European Union law or convention law.
All we can say is that there is a lot of this type of thing happening at the moment, and European judges have yet to pronounce on it. In the United Kingdom, however, thanks to the Government's wisdom in incorporating the convention in the Human Rights
Act 1998, it will be British judges who decide such questions. If parties behave sensibly and proportionately, the Bill will be a great step forward. If they do not, it will turn out to be a source of liability.I therefore support the Bill, and I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that it is compatible with the convention. I simply urge political parties not to be over-enthusiastic in seeking to overcome this ancient and completely unacceptable situation of the gross under-representation of women in Parliament and elsewhere.
2.26 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, a century ago, in 1901, Christabel Pankhurst decided to enrol as a law student. She completed her studies and joined the degree of Bachelor of Laws with first class honours. However, it was impossible for her to practise as a solicitor or a barrister. Because she was a woman, she became Secretary of the Committee to Secure the Admission of Women to the Legal Profession. It was not until enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 that the professions of the law were opened to women.
One hundred years on from 1901, and many decades after the efforts of the Pankhursts and others achieved women's suffrage, women are still grossly under-represented in the profession of politics. The Bill seeks to do something about that. I therefore warmly welcome it. It is a well-balanced Bill that allows a political party, should it wish to do so, to adopt measures to reduce inequality, and it does not compel anything. It will apply on enactment, but a sunset clause will apply when it is no longer needed. The sunset clause will, however, allow a big push to be made in the period covering the next three general elections.
Political parties in many European countries and around the world use positive action to address inequalities between men and women, and we should not lag behind. Legislation allowing political parties to apply positive-action mechanisms in candidate selection is essential. The use of such mechanisms has been shown to increase women's representation. Progress has been slow, or non-existent, when such mechanisms have not been used.
We must take action urgently; otherwise, we shall be unable to influence selection procedures for the next general election. In 1997, the number of women Members of Parliament increased from 60 to 120, largely because the Labour Party used all-women shortlists. In 2001, after such shortlists were outlawed, the number of women Members of Parliament decreased. This is no time for complacency.
2.28 p.m.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton: My Lords, having supported the Bill's development while Minister for Women, I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate, and I am delighted that the Bill is receiving its Second Reading today. As many of your Lordships are aware, selections that will be made this year could
be affected by this legislation. I therefore welcome the Bill's simplicity and the speed with which it is being passed.All Members of this House and of the other place wish that the Bill were not necessary; it is simply a means to an end. When I was involved in promoting all-women shortlists and a variety of other measures in my party, we believed that one push would make the difference and that progress would be maintained once we had achieved a large intake of new women MPs. Sadly, despite the fact that we maintained 50-50 male-female shortlists, the progress was not maintained; in fact, there was some slippage.
We are making a clear statement by supporting the Bill, not only about our desire to see women take their rightful place in public life and in the country's governance, but about our commitment to improving the quality of our democracy. We must build a democracy that uses the talents of all our people and truly reflects the society it was created to serve. Our society has changed considerably and our democracy needs to keep pace with those changes. It cannot be static.
This Bill simply recognises the reality that women are not coming through the political system in fair numbers and it is a statement that we want that to change. It is also the means which allows action to take place to encourage that to happen in a simple and practical way.
Every issue and every policy has an impact on women in our country. If we are to create good laws and effective policies, those must reflect the needs and concerns of our whole society. Women comprise 50 per cent of the population and almost 50 per cent of the workforce. They remain the primary carers of children and elderly relatives. They are the main users and key front-line deliverers of our health and education services. Over three-quarters of NHS staff and two-thirds of our teachers are women. They are the main users of local bus services. National surveys show that they are more concerned than men about safety on the streets and particularly about violent crime.
Women are often those members of society who feel the real practical effect, the practical ramifications of our laws. They do not necessarily do all the talking about policy but they certainly experience the results.
Yet if they look at our local councils and political institutions, women, and particularly young women, still see places that have very little to do with their daily reality. They still see, too, a sea of grey suits and are certainly disheartened by the yah-boo politics which seem irrelevant and childish to them, although, clearly, not in this place today.
The statistics have been well rehearsed, with just 18 per cent of women in the other place. And in local government, where many women begin their political careers, women still make up only 27 per cent of local councillors. Again, at a local level, those figures appear to have got stuck. In many ways, it is particularly important that we make progress at local
government level because if we involve women at that point, there is a chance of bringing them through the process.It is no surprise then that many women not only fail to see anything in the formal political arena which is meaningful to their lives but they also fail to see how they could possibly make any real difference themselves. And yet it is women who are leading in their local community groups; chairing the board of governors for their children's schools; leading their local residents association; and running the local playgroup. They are the rock, the foundations, of many of our local voluntary organisations and charities.
To be effective, our democracy and our political institutions need to make the connection between local, small "p" politics and the more formal political arena. That is the challenge facing all our political parties and, indeed, many of our national public bodies and national institutions too.
I firmly believe that a number of policies which this Government have adopted since 1997 have come about precisely because of the increased number of women MPs and women Ministers. We have, for example, improved maternity rights and pay. We are putting in place important measures to help parents—both mothers and increasingly fathers too—better to balance their work and family responsibilities. But in many policies, it is the emphasis in the detail, not the headlines, which have been influenced by the input of women. I strongly echo the view of my noble friend Lady Jay when she talked about women's approach to making policy being different: seeking consensus rather than scoring points.
It is appropriate that the Bill which we are supporting today is permissive not proscriptive and that decisions about particular measures are rightly left in the hands of individual political parties. It is appropriate that those changes are facilitated but not enforced by government. I am confident that in supporting this legislation, we are not only helping to increase the representation of women in public life but perhaps most important, we are greatly enhancing the quality of our democracy.
Finally, I believe that this Bill is proportionate and is in accordance with European law. I hope that we shall not lose the opportunity of taking action quickly which will affect our democratic institutions in the near future and move forward in the way that many other countries in the EU have done.
2.35 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have identified the gross under-representation of women in our political system. Even though the general election gave the Liberal Democrat Party four new women MPs, they still make up less than 10 per cent of our parliamentary party, which makes me very uncomfortable. Overall, women represent less than 18 per cent of Parliament as a whole, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has just pointed out. This
under-representation is bad for all political parties. It is bad for democracy and disconnects large sections of the community from the political process.The Bill before us is about the principle which allows us the methods, commitments and working culture that we need to develop in order to remove the gross under-representation of women. The questions we need to ask are how, within the framework of values and beliefs on equality, have we produced such a discrepancy and why women do not reflect their representation in the community. It has been often pointed out that if women constitute 50 per cent of our population, why is that not reflected in our political and public institutions? Surely, that is the minimum target for which we should be aiming .
The existing system is unlikely to achieve that: in fact, it works to the disadvantage of women. Targets are not unlawful. If effective steps are taken to remove direct and indirect discrimination, and if positive action is taken under the sex discrimination legislation, there is no reason why the percentage of women should not increase significantly. If that is the minimum that we can achieve, then we are on the right track.
The main aim of positive action is to make equal opportunity a reality. Unfortunately, the general election has demonstrated that, despite that provision, we have not achieved a balanced representation of women. If, therefore, we have failed, should we not try to put it right? We must aim for special measures that will make that possible. In my party we have tried shadowing and mentoring, and we have allocated extra financial resources. We have even developed a zipping system to save our blushes. But these measures have failed to deliver equality of outcomes.
Two years ago I chaired a working party in my own party looking at policies and practices and how we could remove all the obstacles that could hinder the advancement of women within the process that we adopted. That has not helped. I trust that this Bill will go some way in assisting us. We now have a framework of new legislation which was long overdue.
At this stage perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, whose contributions I have always appreciated on this particular matter. I hope that her new duties will not prevent her from speaking in the House on this subject.
A new law permitting political parties to undertake affirmative action is a declaration of public policy. We need that strong and effective law within the framework of the Sex Discrimination Act. No amount of statistical information will make me believe that we have been fair in terms of female representation in our political system. It has been pointed out that other western countries have positive action programmes. A country such as India is not ashamed of establishing a 30 per cent quota for women members.
We now need to ensure that changes can happen now that the Government have given this particular lead. All political parties have to re-examine the practical implications to ensure that what we do is not
only lawful, but that the outcomes justify the actions we have taken. Do not let others frighten us in the action we should take. The law will encourage vital change in the attitudes and actions of individual men and women. It will help to break down the barriers and exclusions and enable the best use of the nation's resources where women have contributed so much and have received so little in return.It is beyond doubt that one conspicuous area in which we have yet to make a significant contribution is gender equality. As a result, all political parties have attracted considerable public criticism both as regards the processes employed and the outcome achieved. That should be of no surprise to any of us. There is no need to be squeamish about it. There is no doubt that if we resolve this issue, the equality of outcome for ethnic minorities will be a logical step forward.
There is a danger that positive action is often confused with positive discrimination. Positive action does not mean accepting lower standards. That is often the argument advanced in race cases. Positive action does not mean quotas, but removing past disadvantages which women have suffered. Positive action means creating a level playing field and providing education, welfare and training, which will allow women to compete from the same starting point.
The present Bill will help but let us not make a mistake, Parliament itself has to change. It has to look at practices and procedures which disadvantage women. We have to accept that women have shared needs, separate needs and special needs. Those differences enhance, not damage, our democratic process. The concept of gender equality can be extraordinarily difficult to comprehend in a society where the processes are inevitably and for reasons of history in the hands of a single, dominant male culture. That will have to change. Now is the time to ensure that we do precisely that. This legislation on gender equality points that way, but I hope that this is a small step forward. Once we establish a pattern of success in the political arena, we need to take forward the principle of equality for women in all walks of public life.
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, it is now well over a century since the movement for equal rights for women began. We all remember with deep admiration Pankhurst the Equaliser. The aim of the movement was clear—women to have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges that men enjoyed and to have the right to be part of decision-making.
The very fact that this Bill is before us today shows that the issue remains a problem. The question today is, how is this problem to be solved? It is quite obvious that there has been gross discrimination against women in all aspects of life. Over time our man-made laws have perpetuated that discrimination. That is one good reason for supporting the Bill. It cannot be unfair if we seek to redress the balance by any legitimate means necessary. There need to be changes in the laws
and practices that govern our institutions to convince not only men but also some women that equality will not just happen but has to be addressed—hence the Bill today seeking affirmative action.The case for affirmative action is clear. In the history of mankind runs a thread of much repeated injury and absurdity as regards what women can and cannot do. History also testifies to the patient sufferance of women under male dominated governance which in the 21st century leaves women in the position where they are forced to seek affirmative action in order to achieve the equal status to which we all agree they are entitled. That is the second good reason for the Bill.
It is not difficult to understand why women have not attained true equality with men in the political arena. Men do not truly believe that women have the intellect to occupy seats of power. Alas, some women do not themselves believe it even though some have broken the glass ceiling by demonstrating their remarkable abilities. I think of the well known song, "You'll take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland afore ye". Why should women be forced to take the high road with its many bumps and bruises when all that is needed to make the low road accessible is to appreciate that prejudices need a little help to get rid of them?
We are all acquainted with the notion of handicaps in horse racing. Women are not asking for men to be given extra burdens; they are saying that to make the playing field even you must recognise the deep-seated prejudices that exist which have allowed men a long tradition of men only lists. The public get the best man for the job. However, taking affirmative action would give the voter the choice of the best person for the job.
On a personal level I feel able to support the Bill because of the double discrimination meted out to women of colour. Both as a woman and a black person it is difficult for me to see how these twin prejudices could be overcome without some form of direct action from the law. Here I must remind the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the Bakke case has never been conclusive.
The qualities brought by women to the political arena would be unique. Men do not need to feel threatened by women. When women take their rightful place alongside men, healthy, honest and robust debates will truly enrich the political agenda. The break-through now needs a final push. Affirmative action from the political parties can no longer be left on a low burner. We need to take all the legitimate measures necessary to eliminate discrimination from the public and political life of our country, as set out by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Some progress has been made but it has not fully worked. It needs a little push, which I believe this Bill will provide.
Both education and laws that are enforceable are needed to overcome deep-seated prejudice. That is why I ask noble Lords to take today, without any frills or statistics, noble and gallant action to end discrimination by supporting affirmative action to redress the balance. That would be the right thing to do, and that is why I welcome this Bill.
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I begin by stating that I am very much in favour of taking positive action. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Ildlicote, and my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton, I am sad that it is still necessary to do so; but it is still necessary. As my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford said in the other place, there is,
- "chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/01; col. 900.]
This Bill has been designed to remove the uncertainties created by what has come to be known—it has been referred to before today—as the Jepson judgment. I served on the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1996, when the employment tribunal ruled that all-women shortlists were illegal and Mr Jepson for a brief period of time became a celebrity. Both the commissioners and the staff of the EOC hoped that there would be an appeal against the judgment, but understood why the Labour Party felt that it could not appeal at that time.
Since 1996, political parties have been very wary of using positive action to reduce gender inequalities. This Bill should set at rest the minds of those who want to take positive steps for more women in Parliament. The sunset clause to measure its effectiveness, or otherwise, can eventually be reviewed and, if necessary, amended.
I followed the debate in the other place with interest. There were some excellent speeches and some strange ones. One female honourable Member claimed that the Labour Party wanted to use the Bill to debar a man from being selected even when he had far greater merit as a candidate. That is really not so. As others have said, the Bill aims to create a level playing field for men and women—no more, no less.
The same honourable Member went on to criticise trade unions in a speech which I am afraid showed a sad lack of understanding of the trade union movement. Today I want to speak about how the trade union movement has changed and taken positive steps to improve the lot of women. Here I declare an interest as a former member of the TUC General Council and a senior official of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union. There have, of course, been close links for decades between women in the unions and women in political parties. Women trade unionists were active campaigners for votes for women, believing that women's voices in Parliament would make the legislation that was enacted more sympathetic to and positive for women workers. The woman who, above all others, interlinked women in the unions and in Parliament was Margaret Bondfield. She was a member of the shop assistants union, now known as USDAW. She was the first woman to chair the TUC general council, the first woman Labour MP—representing Northampton—in the House of
Commons and the first woman member of the Cabinet, becoming Minister of Labour in 1928. The links between trade union women and political women were firmly established many years ago.Why is that important for and linked to women's representation in Parliament? Because unions have an important influence in the selection of and support for parliamentary candidates, especially, but not exclusively, in the Labour Party. I want to illustrate the importance of positive action by discussing the steps that the TUC, rather than its affiliates, has taken to improve women's representation and its effects.
Currently, out of 46 members of the TUC general council, 12 are women. That is approximately 24 per cent, which tallies roughly with the percentage of women in trade unions. That increase from what was for many years a token number of women—that is, two—to the figure of 12 today did not happen by chance. It happened because when Norman Willis was general-secretary of the TUC, he recognised two things. First, he recognised that unions needed to increase women's membership, because women were becoming an increasingly important part of the workforce. If women were not recruited into the unions, a potentially important and influential part of the workforce would be isolated from the main body of trade unionism, thus weakening the unions. In turn, women would be alienated from the unions.
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, Norman Willis is a man who genuinely believes in equality between the sexes. He recognised the injustice of women being represented at only the lower echelons of the trade union movement. So Norman introduced positive action. That did not happen without opposition from the gentlemen serving on the general council at the time, but that was overcome. Positive action took the form that every union that was affiliated to the TUC and with more than 100,000 members had an automatic extra seat on the TUC general council, and that seat had to be filled by a woman member. Undoubtedly, that changed the TUC fundamentally. Not only were women on the general council; they were also on each and every sub-committee. Their voices were heard. Above all, they became role models for other women in their own and other unions.
Since that time of change, the TUC has continued to pioneer on behalf of women trade unionists. It has established an organising academy that is training new generations of trade unionists—organisers in the unions—who will aim to recruit women members and young people in particular. Many of those new organisers are women.
The more that women become involved in the unions, the more they are likely to become active at a national level and involved in political work, including standing for Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. Positive action is needed not because women are not good enough to be selected as candidates on their own merit but because the discrimination that they face ensures that only too often they do not get a chance to try.
Finally, I firmly believe that only when 50 per cent of the other place comprises women can we say that it truly reflects our nation's needs and aspirations.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, the Bill is not about favouritism, unfair discrimination or patronising gestures for women. It simply recognises the fact that women form the majority of people in this country but are very under-represented in many of our elected institutions. It is about giving political parties more opportunities to counter the discrimination suffered by women which means that many of those institutions fail to be properly representative of the people who elect them.
I think that the Bill's non-prescriptive approach is right. It could be very dangerous for government or Parliament to take too much control over how political parties choose their candidates. But it will be of assistance to all parties if legal barriers to making their candidates more representative of the country as a whole are lowered.
The Bill will help to address one of the many areas holding back fair representation of women although I believe that many more fundamental issue are also relevant. Those issues involve disposable income, time availability and voting systems as well as working practices, the image and culture of the institutions, and confidence and experience.
The issues of disposable income and time availability are, I believe, particularly pertinent in my own party in that we do not have "safe seats" to allocate and our candidates generally have to work far harder and for far longer for a chance of electoral success—and our party has relatively little finance to support them.
The Bill is necessary because there are certainly elements of both covert and overt discrimination in political parties. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill referred to this point. It must be tackled perhaps through existing sex and racial discrimination. It is very hard sometimes to see how that legislation can be applied when people have private thoughts which are not recorded in a secret ballot. Sadly, I still hear people in my own party saying about a particular seat, "A woman could never be elected". The evidence is now to the contrary. Polling evidence suggests that men are no longer less likely to vote for a woman than for a man. But some women are more likely to vote for a woman than for a man. So it should be an electoral advantage to be a woman. Sadly, discrimination remains. Different remedies may be put forward by different parties for different electoral systems.
For example, my party agreed to put forward for the last European elections a mechanism known as "zipping". The system allowed both women and men to become MEPs but ensured that half of those elected would be women and half of them men. At 49 per cent it was the highest proportion of female candidates ever put forward for a national election by a major political party in Great Britain. Last week, Diana Wallis, MEP, became the first female leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the European Parliament.
However, we faced the threat of a potentially expensive legal challenge over our candidate selection process. We received conflicting advice from eminent and sometimes noble sources. The advice that we followed ultimately came in part from no less a person than Cherie Booth, QC. Her advice was to the effect that we would win in Europe but that the Sex Discrimination Act was a problem for us in domestic law. While I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not have dared to question such an authority as Cherie Booth, QC, there were those in our party who, we feared, could almost bankrupt the party with huge legal costs, even if they would fail ultimately in their challenge.
I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that if enacted the Bill would not prevent all legal challenges to this or other gender balancing mechanisms in the future. However, it would remove much of the ground from under those who sought to oppose what my party did for the European elections and those who sought to oppose the Labour Party's chosen mechanism for selecting candidates for the general election in 1997.
International experience suggests that positive action of some kind is an essential part of ensuring fairer representation of women in elected institutions. But it is my firm view that such mechanisms may fit in much more easily with electoral systems that are not based entirely on single member constituencies.
Systems of proportional representation undoubtedly tend to make for much fairer representation of women, as well as of political opinions. I am not an enthusiast for list systems, especially the closed variety. But lists make it easier and more desirable for a party to balance the tickets of the candidates they present.
I ask the Government to think again about the issue of open lists for the next European elections. It is particularly relevant to this debate to note what happened, for example, in relation to open lists in the parliamentary elections in Finland. When the parties all placed their favoured men for the top places on top of their lists, the women voters simply crossed out the names of the men and the women further down the list were elected instead. When the parties realised that they were losing all their best men through their actions, they had to mend their ways and put a balance of women and men at the top of their lists in order for their best people to be elected. That type of system puts power where it belongs—with the people and not with the parties.
Countries with systems of proportional representation tend to have far higher representation by women. It is not a coincidence that Sweden with 43 per cent of female MPs, Denmark with 37 per cent, Finland with 36 per cent, the Netherlands with 36 per cent and Germany with 31 per cent all have such a system in place.
I believe that the single transferable vote system would be eminently suitable for any election to your Lordships' House in the future. It would encourage parties to put forward men and women in multi-member constituencies. It would almost certainly
mean that far more women would be elected than under the present Westminster system where effectively there is a closed list of one person from each party. Only one is elected, and this June in 82 per cent of constituencies that person was a man.The Bill would also help parties to establish mechanisms to assist fair representation of women if ever, for example, the scheme put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, were allowed to be judged by the electorate and then introduced. Parties could choose, for example, a majority of candidates from one gender in their single-member seats and then introduce a balance in whichever way was required by putting on top of the top-up list a person of the different gender.
Many things must be done to address the issue of the inadequate representation of women, especially in the House of Commons. If parties fail to do so, they will ignore much of the considerable ability that should be available to them and to the country, they will skew the issues that are considered, and they will hinder their own electoral prospects in future by failing to show themselves as being representative of the country. This Bill will help to remove some of the barriers to taking action to make our legislatures and council chambers more effective, more representative and, in many ways, more sensible than they are now.
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a delight to take part in this passionate debate in which the other speakers—noble Lords from all sides of the House—have for a significant part of their working lives been engaged in policy-making and, in some cases, policy-shaking to the benefit of women.
Given that this is the last debate on the last day before the Recess, I hope that my Christmas shopping list will not get mixed up with my speaking notes. I hope that I shall be stopped if I start to call for pickled anchovies instead of positive action.
First, I warmly welcome the Bill. I am delighted that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House has opened and will be closing the debate. His presence sends the clearest signal, if one were needed, that this Government are greatly committed to the Bill. I also want to place on record my acknowledgement of the tremendous work undertaken in the creation and development of the Bill by my noble friends Lady Jay of Paddington and Lady Morgan.
The inclusion of the Bill in the Queen's Speech was greeted by the EOC as "a turning point in history". Since the Bill progressed through its various stages in another place, we have seen a consensus build both within and without Parliament on the need for far more radical measures to ensure greater representation of women in political decision-making than is the case at present.
Glancing at the report of the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, I was pleased to see that, despite a rather lengthy discourse on whether Cornish men and women feel the same way about female representation as their East Anglian counterparts, a bizarre and fleeting reference to Gladstone, and whether gender equality was ever a consideration in our recent internal elections for the remaining hereditary Peers, the right honourable Member Nick Raynsford was able to say that the Committee stage had been short but effective and had engendered a general spirit of agreement. At the Bill's Third Reading in another place the honourable Member, Dr Alan Whitehead, speaking for the Government, said:
- "It is a cause for celebration that the Bill's Third Reading will not be subject of a Division. That shows the strong commitment from all parties that they will take action to ensure that the House is properly representative of everyone in the country".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/01; col. 917.]
As chair of the Women's National Commission I have received many expressions of support for the Bill from women's organisations across the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, women in this country are the backbone of the voluntary sector and their voices should be heard to a far greater extent than they are at present. Political representation at local, national, regional and international level will assist in telling the story of women's great enrichment of our society far more clearly.
It has been my pleasure, as chair of the Women's National Commission, to write to leaders of opposition parties to ask them to confirm their support for the Bill. From the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, MP, Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, I have received an encouraging reply that states:
- "I certainly agree that we need to find effective ways of ensuring that able women candidates get the opportunities they deserve".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is a beacon on the road to women's equality in this country. I am inclined to the view of other noble Lords that the way in which the Bill has been written will mean that it will steer a strong legal course.
Despite the fair wind that the Bill has so far received, there will be those in all parties who still need to be persuaded. Two arguments that are often put forward by those who oppose any form of positive action are, first, that special measures such as twinning, zipping, all-women shortlists, or even extra training and support, somehow sap away talent and merit. Yet those same opponents will never acknowledge the lack of a level playing field, referred to by my noble friend Lady Howells.
The lack of a level playing field affects talented women not being able to access candidate opportunities because there is a whole range of factors that affect them more acutely than their male counterparts. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made what I believe is an apposite point, that we have to start by looking at the vulnerable position of women in the labour market. There are also cultural influences that militate against women, some of which have been excellently portrayed this afternoon, and often the unwieldy structure of our party organisations militate very much against women.
We end up with what the EOC describes, after interviewing 400 male and female candidates at the last election, as the key problem of the apparent unwillingness of constituency parties to select women candidates who relate to the parties best prospect seats. As the EOC sees it, and as several noble Lords see it, the key is that the best prospect seats are jealously guarded in relation to women's opportunities.
The figures are fairly damning and actually answer the second argument that opponents of special measures frequently raise, which is that "not enough women come forward for selection". In the three main political parties, plenty of women came forward for the seats of retiring MPs at the last election and for the most winnable seats. Yet again and again the selectorate in each of those seats chose a male candidate until only a small minority of those best prospect seats went to successful women candidates. Were all those unsuccessful women just not up to it? I think not. Was some unspoken indirect, perhaps even unconscious, discrimination at work? I definitely think so.
We have in the Bill a real opportunity to begin tackling the long-standing barriers that face women in the political process. We have an opportunity to climb from our inglorious place of 33rd in the world's league table, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. While we rightly speak about the possibilities for women—for instance in Afghanistan—we must look to our own shop and our own house. We have the opportunity and the chance with the Bill to shine as a modern Parliament, in touch with its diverse electorate. Therefore, when people see their politicians at work, they will see reflections of themselves—male and female, younger and older, people from minority ethnic communities and people with disabilities. All parties are rightly concerned at the lower election turnouts and some evidence of voter alienation from the political process is at work. Engaging more women in politics will inevitably mean engaging more of our communities in the democratic process.
Finally, I went to the Library for inspiration for today's debate. I discovered—not by physically counting them I hasten to add—that, of the 60,000 books in the House of Lords Library, 18 contained the word "woman" in the title and 191 contained the word "women". Let us hope that our influence on the political and historical culture of Parliament will be far greater in the future as a result of the Bill.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this is the first Bill on which I have spoken where I have had several people come up to me in advance to ask me what I shall say. So it is very comforting to know that several Members of your Lordships' House are avidly waiting to hear what I have to say.
I rise to make a short contribution. It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Bill as such. Rather I wish to address the principle that underpins the Bill and consider the consequences deriving from that principle.
I have the honour to chair the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House. The committee has reported on the Bill. The report does not address the merits of the Bill but instead considers the Bill in relation to the principle of representation. I want to develop the points adumbrated in the committee's report.
The Bill that is before us cannot be discussed or justified simply or solely in terms of equal opportunities. If that were the case, the provisions of the Bill would not extend to Northern Ireland. Responsibility for equal opportunities has been transferred under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. What distinguishes the Bill, and the reason that it extends to Northern Ireland, is that it involves elections. Fundamental to elections is the concept of representation.
The Bill derives from a certain view of representation. That view is implicit rather than explicit. There is a House of Commons Library research paper on the Bill. As with other such research papers produced by the Commons Library, it is an excellent document. The paper considers women's representation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and identifies different methods of increasing the representation of women in the House of Commons and other parliamentary bodies in the United Kingdom.
At no point, however, does it address the principle that underpins the Bill. It takes it as given that the number of women in the House of Commons and other elected assemblies should be increased. My purpose is not to argue that that number should not be increased, but rather to argue that we need to be clear about the principle that justifies that increase.
The justification normally offered for an increase is that women are presently under-represented in the other place—for convenience, I shall focus on the other place—as well as in the other bodies covered by the Bill. I shall quote from the House of Commons Library research paper:
- "Women are still poorly represented in UK politics".
- "the representation of women".
I doubt whether many people would argue with the proposition that the House of Commons should be a representative institution. The problem is that the concept of representation is subject to different definitions, which are briefly outlined in the Constitution Committee report.
One definition of representation is that it denotes people who speak on behalf of others. That has been the definition that has underpinned the development of Parliament—indeed, it is at the root of the emergence of the House of Commons. Members were originally drawn from particular communities in order to speak on behalf of those communities. The House of Commons was a representative Assembly even before the concept itself developed. That definition of representation continues to underpin the House of Commons. A Member of Parliament is deemed to act on behalf of all constituents, regardless of whether or not they voted for the Member.
A second definition of representation, which gained greater currency during and since the 19th century, is that of a body that is freely elected. That definition may be taken to encompass not only the method of election but also who does the electing. The House of Commons, under that definition, is a representative Assembly because all adult citizens now have the vote and can choose who they wish to serve them in Parliament. It is that definition which justified the various measures of the 19th and 20th centuries that widened the franchise. It can also be taken to underpin measures to widen the choice available to electors. Widening the eligibility to stand for election can be justified on grounds of equal opportunities, but may also be justified because it widens the freedom of choice of the electors.
A third definition of representation, and one central to this debate, is that it denotes a group that is socially typical. It is in that sense that market researchers refer to a representative sample. It is that definition that forms the basis for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to enable parties, should they wish to do so, to make certain arrangements that will facilitate the return of a greater number of women than before to the House of Commons. Why? Because, as we have heard throughout the debate, although women constitute just over 50 per cent of the adult population, only 18 per cent of the members of the House of Commons are women. The implication—indeed, it has been made explicit in this debate—is that, if they constitute at least half of the population, they should constitute half, or something approaching half, of the membership of the House of Commons.
A fourth definition, on which I shall not dwell, is that of symbolism. The Queen, for example, represents the unity of the nation. That use of the term is not central to the debate, although some might argue that the number of women in Parliament has been little more than symbolic.
It is, then, the third definition—representation as denoting a socially typical body—that is employed to justify the Bill. It is important that we recognise that explicitly, because it raises important questions. That
definition does not necessarily conflict with the other definitions, but it is not necessarily compatible with them either. One might pose the question of whether it runs counter to the post-1832 trend of widening the category of those eligible for election. In so far as it may restrict a certain category of citizens in seeking election, as party candidates, to the House of Commons, it may be argued to do so. I appreciate that there is a counter argument; one which may be taken to justify the Bill.More significantly, as the report of my committee notes, the Bill sets a precedent. If the Bill is predicated on the belief that the membership of the House of Commons should be socially typical, that has enormous consequences for our approach to the selection and election of parliamentary candidates. The House of Commons is atypical in its membership not only in respect of sex but also in respect of many other characteristics. Those include age, physical ability, ethnicity and prior occupation. There are others, some of which are observable and immediately measurable, some of which are not.
The logic of the case underpinning the Bill is that those various groupings should have some of their number in the House of Commons, arguably in proportion to their number in society. If one concedes the case for a socially typical House, or a more socially typical House, one has to ask how such a House can be achieved. In short: is a socially typical House of Commons desirable? Is it achievable?
The first concept of representation I mentioned is silent as to who can act on behalf of others. It was argued initially that one could speak on behalf of a particular body without being drawn from that body or indeed without being elected by that body. The latter assumption is no longer made; it has been superseded by the second definition of representation. However, the former assumption—that someone can speak on behalf of others without being drawn from the same group—is still argued. MPs who are men will claim that they can speak for all their constituents; MPs who are women will claim that they can speak for all their constituents.
Why, then, should we seek to fashion a House of Commons that is socially typical? I ask the question not in order to challenge the Bill but rather to ensure that we proceed on the basis of a clear, rigorous argument. If we can articulate, fully and persuasively, the case for the Bill on the ground of a clear principle, that strengthens the Bill enormously. Having articulated that principle, we then need to think through the consequences. If the Bill derives from the belief that a representative House of Commons equals a socially typical House, we need to be aware that the Bill does not constitute the end of a process. It is very much the beginning of one. The question I therefore put to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is: where to from here?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page