Introduction
1. The House of Commons exists to formulate and review
the laws which govern our society. It can only do this effectively
if its Members are in tune with the experiences of the population
as a whole. The House will respond well to the wants and needs
of the country if, in itself, it reflects the diversity of people's
lives.
2. Yet despite recent changes, MPs remain predominantly
white, male, middle-aged and middle class. Many people
will look at MPs in the Commons debating chamber and see very
few Members who look as if they have lived a similar life or who
can speak for them with the authority of shared experience. Fairly
or unfairly, the public generally continues to see Parliament
as removed from the daily reality of their lives.
THE CURRENT STATE OF REPRESENTATION
3. At present, the House of Commons does not reflect
the fact that, in society at large, there are more women than
men, approximately 1 in 5 people are disabled[1]
and 7.9% of the population come from black and minority ethnic
backgrounds[2]. The proportion
of the population which is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) is not currently monitored, but official and third sector
estimates for the lesbian, gay and bisexual population put the
proportion at 6 to 9%.[3]
Why should the make-up of the
House of Commons reflect the make-up of wider society?
4. There are three main reasons why the House of
Commons should better reflect the social characteristics of our
society.
5. The first, and most important, reason is the concept
of justice: the representative body of our society should
have a place within it for all sections of society.
6. The second reason is effectiveness. As
we have stated, the House of Commons will work most effectively
if it holds within its membership the same diversity of life
experiences as are present in wider society. This means not only
representing people by constituency but also reflecting the diversity
of people's lives in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, age and social class. [4]
7. The third reason is to enhance Parliament's legitimacy
as an institution. Even when legislators do a good job in representing
the breadth and depth of their constituents' concerns, the absence
of a wide cross-section of society in the House of Commons means
that it suffers from a lack of legitimacy. If, in these circumstances,
it appears to disregard the needs and concerns of specific groups
- perhaps through ignorance, inattention or a collective failure
of the imagination - its decisions and actions may be considered
less legitimate than they would otherwise be.
8. These principles are supported by evidence both
from the UK and from other countries which suggests that socially
diverse parliaments establish different priorities for Government
action. In the UK the Hansard Society points to the fact that
after 1997, when the percentage of women in the House of Commons
rose from 9% to 18% of the total membership, legislation was
enacted on the minimum wage, family-friendly flexible working
and violence against women.[5]
There has also been progress in terms of the way in which the
House conducts its business. Many Members claim that the culture,
style and atmosphere of the House of Commons has changed; many
women supported the partial reform of Parliament's working hours
to bring them more closely in to line with other workplaces.[6]
9. The increase in women's representation in 1997
- when the numbers of women doubled overnight from 60 to 120 -
did not happen purely by chance. A small number of the women
who stood as Labour candidates in that election were selected
by constituencies from all-women shortlists. Following the enactment
of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which
permits the use of various mechanisms designed to reduce the inequality
in the numbers of women and men selected by a political party,
all-women shortlists were used again by the Labour party in 2005
and will be used for the forthcoming General Election. While
such measures remain contentious it is clear that using them in
1997 helped to make the 1997 Parliament very different from
its predecessors. All of the main political parties agree that
Parliament should be more diverse. All have taken some measures
to support their commitment to greater diversity and openness
in public life. Where the parties have taken specific action,
the diversity of their candidates has improved.
Why should we act now?
10. In recent weeks we have experienced unprecedented
public anger in relation to the publication of Members' allowances.
Trust in politicians and political parties has slumped. Data taken
from the British Election Study survey for May 2009 indicates
that when participants were asked to rate their trust in the political
parties on a scale of 0 to 10, 85.8% gave a rating between 0 and
5; 91.6% gave a rating between 0 and 5 for their trust in politicians.
Nearly a quarter (23.8%) said they had no trust at all in political
parties and nearly a third (30.7%) said they had no trust at all
in politicians. This contrasts with the ratings which participants
gave to their trust in people in general: 37% gave a rating between
0 and 5 and only 2.2% said that they had no trust in people at
all.[7]
11. This is a matter of urgent concern. There
is a real danger that in this furore people have lost sight of
the importance of democracy. All of us now should take a step
back and consider the fundamental value and importance of Parliament.
Without it, our democracy would simply not function.
12. As part of that consideration we should also
determine what steps we can now take to transform the House of
Commons and reassert its legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness
as a representative body. We know that this work will require
the commitment of the political parties and the Government to
wide-ranging changes; it will require further reform of Parliament's
culture and procedures, and of its work of education and outreach.
These are matters for the longer term, which we shall deal with
in our full report towards the end of 2009. There is, however,
also an immediate opportunity for change.
The current opportunity for change
13. We believe that the House of Commons needs
to change. Increasing the diversity of MPs would make it a more
just, legitimate and effective legislature. We believe that in
the public's eyes this would make it a more credible legislature.
There is now a significant opportunity to make this change happen,
as current Members of the House announce their intentions to retire
before the next general election - to be held before June 2010.
14. To date, 89 Members have declared their intention
to stand down at the general election - approximately 13.8% of
the total Commons membership. Prospective parliamentary candidates
from the same parties have been chosen for 49 of these seats,
leaving 40 - equivalent to 6.2% of the total Commons membership
- still to be selected. The number of potential candidates is
further increased as individuals come forward from parties challenging
in these seats.
15. Leadership will be required within the political
parties nationally, regionally and locally to ensure that the
current round of selections for vacant seats results in a diverse
list of candidates. The evidence we have taken indicates clearly
that:
- The local constituency selection
process for parliamentary candidates is a key point at which individuals
from under-represented groups can gain, or be denied, a real opportunity
to enter Parliament;
- A major barrier to the representation of women,
ethnic minorities and disabled people is the reluctance of political
parties to nominate them to seats which the party either holds,
or has a reasonable chance of winning; and
- The rate at which change can be achieved nationally
is impeded by the incumbency of Members who may hold a 'safe'
seat - that is, a seat which the political party would normally
expect to retain - for 15 or 20 years. During this time there
is effectively no competition in the seat and no opportunity for
other candidates to be considered.
16. If just half of the vacant and winnable seats
we have highlighted as likely to arise before the next election
should be filled by individuals from under-represented groups
the result would be a House of Commons which not only looks different
but is likely to think differently, speak differently, and bring
to its work the lived experience of a much greater proportion
of society.
17. We are confident from the extensive evidence
we have taken that such a House of Commons would have a fresh
approach to the problems the country faces. We think that this
is a goal which all the political parties, and all those who care
about just representation and therefore the health of our democracy,
should share. Putting forward candidates from under-represented
groups is a very practical way for the 'selectorates' within the
parties - those who choose the candidates to go forward for election
- to show that they sincerely wish to change the culture of politics
and to show their support for the revitalisation of Parliament.
18. This is an important window of opportunity. If
a more diverse group of candidates is not selected in these seats
now the incumbency factor makes it likely that many of the constituencies
concerned will not see another opportunity for change for the
next fifteen to twenty years.
19. We believe that there would also be direct benefits
for the political parties themselves in approving a greater diversity
of candidates. We have been told informally that the message
of inclusion is a very powerful one which could help to engage
new audiences. The development of closer bonds with communities
which are currently disengaged could also in time lead to greater
dialogue, more effective policy formulation and the opportunity
to rebuild falling party membership numbers.
20. Much work will be done over the next few months
by the political parties to identify, assess and approve potential
candidates. The choices which local, regional and national
political parties make in regard to the candidates who will represent
them will be central to shaping what the next House of Commons
looks like, and in determining the extent to which it is genuinely
changed. We call upon all those involved in the selection process
to consider both the opportunity which is open to them, and the
long term consequences of failing to take up these opportunities.
The political parties might reflect whether there will be reason
for the public to trust the parties and Parliament more if, after
the general election, they are apparently presented with more
of the same.
21. We recommend that in circumstances where the
sitting MP will not contest the general election, each of the
political parties should commit itself to:
- Promote equality by selecting
at least 50% women as candidates;
- Ensure that a significantly greater proportion
of candidates than at the 2005 election are selected with BME
backgrounds;
- Seek to encourage a wider placement of BME
candidates across the country than was present at the 2005 election;
and
- Ensure that a significantly greater proportion
of candidates who identify as disabled are selected than at the
2005 election.
22. Additionally, we recommend that each of the
political parties should commit itself to:
- report by 12 October 2009
the result of selections by constituency giving the date of selection,
the method of selection, the candidate's gender and the candidate's
ethnicity and reporting in accordance with candidates' identifications
of disability and sexual orientation; and to
- appoint a named party officer responsible
for supporting the access requirements of disabled candidates.
23. We shall continue to monitor the outcome of the
parties' selection of their candidates over the coming months
before our full report.
1 http://www.odi.gov.uk/docs/res/factsheets/Factsheet_CivicParticipation.rtf
: the figure refers to Great Britain. Back
2
www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=273 Back
3
Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Session
2008-09 Volume II, HC167-II, Ev 80 Back
4
Ev p188 Back
5
Women at the Top 2005: Changing numbers, changing politics?
Sarah Childs, Joni Lovenduski and Rosie Campbell, The Hansard
Society 2005, pp19, 52 Back
6
The other UK legislatures at their establishment adopted earlier
working hours: for example, Standing Orders 7.8 and 7.9 of the
National Assembly for Wales state that business in the Assembly
plenary must normally finish no later than 5.30 pm. Back
7
http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/ Back
|