House of Commons - Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation)

Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Contents

Submission from the Hansard Society (SC-22)

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In order to make the Westminster Parliament more representative in the future:

Political parties should:

— take measures to substantially increase the number of women, BME and disabled MPs. These should involve measures not only in relation to selection procedures but also winnability

— publicly endorse the objective of increasing the number of women, BME and disabled MPs, and publish their strategies setting out how they intend to achieve this objective

— remain free to choose their own means of implementation, which will range from encouragement and guidance to more formal procedures which would result in the election of equal numbers of men and women and increased numbers of BME and disabled MPs

— ensure that selection processes are non-discriminatory, taking account of existing advice on promoting equality, providing training for party selection committees and party members where appropriate

— encourage women, BME and disabled citizens from a diversity of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds to seek political office, employing party staff with a specific brief to talent spot and mentor potential candidates

— act to eliminate any sexual and racial discrimination and harassment in their parties, and provide leadership in this area in relation to recruitment to party positions and staff appointments. Parties may wish to consider internal race and gender quotas for such positions

— monitor selection procedures using people with appropriate experience of equality issues (eg equality monitors) and report on the outcome of their selection processes after each election.

The Government should:

Women at the Top 2005

— provide grants via the Electoral Commission to parties to fund both the employment of a member of staff in each region specifically tasked with talent spotting and mentoring potential candidates and the creation, operation and monitoring of equality selection procedures

— fund research on equal representation. After the general election a detailed study of the efficacy of the parties' different approaches to improving representation will be required. Additionally, an under-researched area is the question of resources that are available to aspirant women and BME candidates in all parties when seeking selection and election. For example, a known gender resource imbalance exists with women facing a significant pay gap, more likely to be working in the low paid sectors of the economy, and more likely to be bearing domestic and caring responsibilities than aspirant male candidates. What impact does the availability of resources, both time and money, have and how can it be addressed? One possibility would be to establish a national "Emily's List" style funding body, perhaps administered by the Electoral Commission, to support female, BME and disabled candidates.

The Westminster Parliament should:

— commission a research study of the lessons to be learnt from Scotland and Wales with regard to the representation of women, exploring how the political parties and the new political institutions achieved a significantly higher level of representation than the House of Commons, what reforms have been instituted and how important these have been in improving female representation levels, and what factors account for the recent decline in the number of women elected in the devolved legislatures at the last elections

— undertake an audit to explore the degree to which female and BME MPs and staff have experienced harassment of some kind

— deploy gender and BME sensitivity training to all staff employed by Parliament and by MPs.

WOMEN AT THE TOP

2. The Hansard Society undertakes research to stimulate reform of political institutions and the parliamentary process and has particularly focused on women in politics and political engagement more broadly in recent years.

3. In 1990 the Hansard Society established the Women at the Top Commission to, "identify barriers to the appointment of women to senior occupational positions, and to other positions of power and influence, and to make recommendations as to how these barriers could be overcome".[46]

4. 2010 marks the 20th anniversary of the original Women at the Top report. Since publication, we have revisited the issues raised within the report every five years, reviewing the progress that has been made in breaking the so called "glass ceiling" in both the public and private sectors.

5. The last update was an independently commissioned report, Women at the Top 2005: Changing Numbers Changing Politics? which focused in particular on developments in the political sphere. It is the findings of this report to which we wish to draw the attention of the Speaker's Conference. Published after the 2005 general election, little has changed in the years since, and accordingly its findings form the bulk of our recommendations with regard to the representation of women in the House of Commons.

BME AND DISABLED REPRESENTATION

6. Achieving improved representation of BME and disabled citizens is as important as securing equal representation for women.

7. However, these issues are not areas where the Hansard Society has conducted substantial research. We have not conducted research into disabled representation and therefore this submission does not specifically address this aspect of the Conference's work. Nor have we conducted detailed research into BME representation issues. However, the views of BME respondents do form part of our annual Audit of Political Engagement and where appropriate we have drawn on this Audit evidence to illustrate issues in relation to BME representation.

UNBALANCED REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

8. Women make up half of the UK electorate and yet at the 2005 general election only 19% of the MPs elected were women. Only 23% of the total number of candidates fielded by the three main parties were women (432 out of 1,451) of which only 125 were elected to the House of Commons. Looking at the candidates fielded by all parties at the general election, women comprised 20.3% of the total number, or 720 female candidates compared to 2,834 male candidates. Fairness and justice demands that these representational inequalities be addressed.

9. Political decisions made at Westminster shape our lives in every aspect of the public and private sphere. It is therefore vital that women's views, opinions and aspirations play a full role in our political and legislative debate. A Parliament that better represents the full range of the people it serves will be enriched by such diversity and will help to change society's attitude towards women as role models in positions of power and influence.

10. An increase in the number of women in the House of Commons will not itself guarantee delivery of legislative and policy priorities for women. Female MPs will still, for example, be subject to the same parliamentary procedural mechanisms that face men such as collective commitment to their party's manifesto and adherence to the whipping system, all of which influence the direction of the political agenda.

11. However, concern about parliamentary under-representation arises not solely from anxiety that issues affecting women are not prioritised—though this may be true—but rather that the under-representation of women in Parliament inhibits the quality and vision of decision making, limiting as it does the full range and scope of influences and perspectives that are brought to bear in legislative debate and on the policy making process.

12. For too long, debate about increasing the number of women MPs has been caught up in a wider debate about the merits of the women who get to Parliament through some form of positive discrimination. This debate needs to be disentangled if progress is to be made. In the final analysis, it is the democratic right of women—comprising half of the electorate—to be fairly represented in Parliament, regardless of whether or not they will make a difference when they get there. The right of women to be in Parliament exists separately from any debate about the intellectual and behavioural merits of individual women as parliamentarians.

13. In recent years the House of Lords has become increasingly more representative and now has a higher proportion of women members, and women in leadership positions, than does the House of Commons. The House of Lords today has 148 women members, four out of the last five Leaders of the House have been women, the Convenor of Crossbench peers and the Opposition Chief Whip are women and 41% of appointments made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission since 2004 have been women. Similarly, there are now 28 BME peers and seven BME (21%) appointments were made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission between 2004 and 2008.

14. In the 2005 general election, BME candidates represented only 5.1% of Labour's candidates and only 6.2% of the Conservative Party's candidates. In total only 15 BME MPs were elected by the two parties, and none by the Liberal Democrats. As with female representation, it is imperative that the House of Commons represents the people it serves and therefore that BME representation more broadly reflects the ethnic make-up of British society.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVELS OF REPRESENTATION AND VOTER ATTITUDES TO PARLIAMENT

15. Recent Hansard Society research demonstrates that there is a link between levels of representation and voter attitudes to Parliament. Only 18% of a sample group of citizens questioned in 2008 believe that: "Parliament broadly reflects the make-up of British society" and only 19% believe that: "Parliament is working for me".[47] These findings are of profound concern for a democratic system.

16. Hansard Society research has also consistently found a marked contrast in the professed knowledge, likely participation and interest levels of men and women with regard to politics and Parliament. Since 2004, our annual Audit of Political Engagement has found that on average, over half of men (54%) have said they know a great deal or a fair amount about politics. Only 35% of women have said the same.[48] On average a majority of women—65%—say they know not very much or nothing at all about politics, compared to only 45% of men. While 54% of men say that they know either "a fair amount" or "a great deal" about the House of Commons, just 31% of women say the same.[49] The Audit has found that over half of men (54%) say they feel they know about the role of MPs, compared to 39% of women.[50] The Parliament and the Public report showed that while 42% of men agreed with the statement, "I feel I have a good understanding of Parliament", only 24% of women felt the same.[51]

17. However, perception of knowledge is not the same as actual knowledge. Our research suggests that feeling knowledgeable about politics and the political system does not always equate with holding actual political knowledge. Men tend to overestimate their actual political knowledge, while women are more inclined to underestimate their knowledge.[52] For example, while the percentage of men reporting a great deal or a fair amount of knowledge about politics is nearly 20 points higher than that of women, the proportion that can name their MP is only six points higher (47% versus 41%).[53] Men are also more likely to say that they are interested in Parliament (55% of men compared to 50% of women), but more women than men say they would like to know more about Parliament (49% of women compared to 44% of men).[54]

18. These research findings would suggest that women tend to be less bullish in their attitude to Parliament and politics, less likely to assume knowledge and more likely to be open to new information and opportunities for engagement.

19. Last year's Audit of Political Engagement showed that BME respondents are far less likely (27%) than white respondents (53%) to say that they are interested in politics.[55] The BME community is also far less likely than many other groups to be political activists—only 1% of BME respondents classified themselves as political activists compared to 13% of white respondents.[56]

20. In an interesting parallel, the number of BME respondents who believe that they can make a difference in society matches the Audit's average of 31% for all groups, and they are far less likely to say that they cannot change things (28% for BMEs compared to 42% overall).[57] These findings are reflected in other research. For example, the Citizenship Survey found that BMEs are more likely than white people to feel they can influence decisions at both the national and local levels. This survey found that although only 19% of white people felt they could influence decisions affecting the country, the corresponding figure for BME respondents is 33%. This difference was also found in relation to people's perceptions of local decisions where only 27% of white people felt they could exercise influence but 37% of BMEs felt the same.[58]

SELECTION AND ELECTION OF WOMEN

21. The most significant problem facing women is not that they cannot get selected as candidates—though selection in many instances remains difficult—but rather that, compared to men, they struggle disproportionately to be selected in winnable seats.

22. The selection of women candidates has generally improved in each of the main parties in the last four general elections. In 1992 for example, the Conservative Party selected only 63 women candidates but in 2005 it fielded 118. In 1992 Labour fielded 138 female candidates, with 166 selected to run in 2005. The Liberal Democrats in contrast have remained broadly static in the number of female candidates selected: in 1992 women were chosen in 143 seats and in 2005 in 142 seats with some regression in 2001 when only 135 women were selected. In total the three main parties fielded 432 female candidates between them at the 2005 general election but in no single party did they form more than 30% of all selections.

23. The selection processes of each party at the last general election are set out in detail in the Women at the Top 2005 report, and to which we refer Members for further information (see Section 1 of the report).[59]

24. As selection procedures in all the main parties are now well advanced for the next general election, one area of research work that is needed is a detailed up-to-date study of the resources that are available to aspirant women, BME and disabled candidates in all parties when seeking selection and election and the impact that the availability of such resources (both time and money) has on representation, particularly given the known gender and class resource imbalance that exists in society.

25. Women, for example, face a significant pay gap, are more likely to be working in the low paid sectors of the economy, and are far more likely to be bearing domestic and caring responsibilities than aspirant male candidates. What impact are these factors having on the current political recruitment cycle, not just on the numbers of women who are seeking selection as parliamentary candidates but also on the range of backgrounds from which these women emerge? While the selection and election of more women is important, if the parliamentary process is truly to be enriched it would be best served by a Parliament in which the new women MPs are drawn from a range of diverse backgrounds, reflecting the full gamut of women's experiences in the UK today.

EQUALITY GUARANTEES: QUOTAS

26. The key distinguishing feature of the selection processes at the last three general elections is that only the Labour Party introduced equality guarantees—in 1997 and 2005—and only Labour delivered a significant increase in female representation in its parliamentary ranks at these elections.

27. Equality guarantees—a form of quota—create an artificial demand to ensure that women candidates fight a fair share of winnable seats. Winnability was defined by Labour in the run-up to the 1997 election as all those seats where a sitting Labour MP was standing down or where the seat could be won by the Party on a swing of 6% or less. In advance of the 2005 general election the Labour Party introduced All Women Shortlists (AWS) to replace retiring male MPs initially on a voluntary basis but with its National Executive Committee empowered to impose AWS where necessary in order to ensure that at least 50% of all vacant seats were filled with female candidates.

28. At the same time, the Labour Party in seeking to increase the number of BME candidates and MPs determined that seats considered winnable by a BME candidate (ie where the constituency had a significant BME population) would not necessarily be classified for an AWS selection.

29. Different initiatives have been used by parties at different times but only the most robust form—equality guarantees—has delivered effective change. The Conservative Party chose not to pursue quotas through AWS, believing them to be unfair in principle. Since the 2005 general election, the party leadership has established an "A List" of candidates with a view to selecting them in the most winnable seats. The success of this strategy will be predicated on whether or not women are equally distributed throughout the list. It remains to be seen whether this will prove as effective an approach as quotas has been for Labour and after the general election a detailed research study of the effectiveness or otherwise of the parties' different approaches to improving representation will be required.

30. It is worth noting that three women MPs have died since the 2005 general election (Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour), Rachel Squire (Labour) and Patsy Calton (Lib Dem). All three have been replaced in by-elections by male candidates (2 Conservative and 1 Lib Dem). Similarly, no woman has been elected in a by-election in this Parliament where the seat was previously occupied by a man and there was only one instance of a woman winning a by-election in the last Parliament (Sarah Teather for the Lib Dems). This is important given that we know that the parties are able to exercise more central control over by-election selections.

31. Unless the strategies adopted by all three main political parties to improve female representation are equally robust and have a high likelihood of success, then the number of women MPs will likely decrease at the next general election—particularly if the only party adopting the one proven model (ie quotas) is struggling in popularity and is unlikely or unable to expand its base. That is why the Women at the Top 2005 report recommended that the Government consider prescriptive rather than permissive legislation in this field.

32. Quotas are not a perfect solution but they do deliver change quickly. For example, Labour used AWS in 1997 and 2005 and at each election the number of its candidates and MPs increased whereas in 2001, when they were not used, the number of female Labour MPs declined.

33. There is resistance to the use of quotas in all parties, and there is debate about the extent to which their introduction is fair. However, quotas are a means to an end—to address unequal representation in the House of Commons as quickly and effectively as possible—and they are no less fair than the current situation in which fewer than one in five MPs are women.

34. There has also been criticism that quotas lead to the creation of second class female MPs who get to Westminster by virtue of positive discrimination rather than on their own merits in equal competition with men. However, as the Women at the Top 2005 report demonstrates, the reality of political selection processes is that many women are simply not competing on an equal footing with men—the selection process can be stacked against women, thereby enshrining unfairness and inequality.

35. Nor is there evidence to bear out the claim that All Women Shortlists have resulted in the creation of a second class tier of MPs. Of the 26 Labour women MPs newly elected in 2005, 23 were selected by All Women Shortlists but most people, including their constituents, would be hard pressed to know which. Once the newly elected woman MP arrives at the House of Commons any residual concerns about the method of their selection is expunged by the authority and legitimacy that winning a popular mandate in a general election confers on them.

36. Quotas are permitted under the auspices of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act. That legislation is due to expire in 2015. All parties and the Government should be encouraged to give an early commitment to extend the timeframe of the Act.

OTHER MEASURES TO AID SELECTION AND ELECTION OF WOMEN AND BME CANDIDATES

37. Talent spotting and mentoring of potential candidates by political parties is crucial if the number of candidates is to be increased and broadened. One way to do this, in order to avoid an over-concentration on London/South-East candidates who prosper by virtue of their personal contacts with party staff and MPs might be to provide national funding to all parties, via the Electoral Commission, to enable them to employ a member of staff in each region tasked specifically and solely with broadening their party's representation.

38. Additionally, consideration might be given to establishing a national "Emily's List" style fund on which some potential candidates from all parties could draw to enable women, BME and disabled citizens to cover the expenses associated with seeking elected office.

39. The political parties should seek at all times to ensure that selection processes are non-discriminatory through, for example, the employment of equality promotion measures—for example, gender and Black Minority Ethnic (BME) sensitivity training for party selection committees and party members.

40. In advance of the 2005 general election the Labour Party utilised selection monitors to examine the selection processes in relation to equal opportunities and their work was supported by a Race Equality Forum. This approach should be examined to determine whether it can be a model for future development. All parties should seek to monitor their selection procedures using equality trained monitors and produce evaluation reports at the conclusion of their selection processes to assess the outcomes and progress that has been made and to learn lessons for the future. Given the different selection procedures being operated by all three main parties for the next general election this will be a crucial piece of research.

41. The experience of women and BME people at Westminster would be enhanced by changes in the organisational culture of the House of Commons and Parliament generally. The Hansard Society has heard anecdotal evidence of problems in relation to human resources and some form of research—for example an audit—is needed to explore this issue and determine its true extent.

42. Additionally, in accordance with professional human resource practices, gender and BME sensitivity training could be deployed by Parliament to its own staff and to the staff of MPs following the general election.

LESSONS FROM BEYOND WESTMINSTER

43. As of November 2008 the Westminster Parliament ranked 60th in the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) League table of female representation. Countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Uganda and Angola as well as Iraq and Afghanistan all have higher levels of female parliamentary representation than the UK.[60]

44. International comparisons and case studies are set out in detail in Section 3 of the Women at the Top 2005 report which we refer Members for further information.[61]

45. The parliamentary characteristics, broader political environment and cultural background of many of the nations ranked above the UK in the IPU league table are not comparable to the UK system. Yet even in Western Europe and Anglo-American democracies with similar socio-cultural patterns there are dramatically different levels of representation. Research conducted for Women at the Top 2005 demonstrated dramatically different percentages of women in Parliament from 11.55% in Italy to 45% in Sweden.[62]

46. The research concluded that the best established finding linking these international comparators together is that women fare best in proportional electoral systems, though the existence of a PR system does not guarantee a higher presence of women.[63]

47. The report concluded that women often benefit from proportional representation party list systems because: when using a list parties are more likely to offer socially balanced slates of candidates to the electorate; there tend to be more vacancies because the effect of incumbency is not so relevant as with the first past the post election model; and because a list offers more opportunities to include women without excluding men then parties are more likely to opt for equality guarantees.

48. Fast track measures to improve women's representation have now been used across the globe and more than 90 countries have adopted quotas or other similar equality guarantee measures.

49. But perhaps the most immediately useful comparisons can be drawn from the UK where the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have both outdone Westminster in female representation. In the 2003 election in Scotland, 43 female MSPs were elected (38.4%) for the four main parties, and in Wales 30 female AMs were elected. At the last election in 2007 however, there was some regression with only 42 women (33.3%) elected to the Scottish Parliament from the four main parties and 27 women (45.8%) elected to the National Assembly for Wales from the four main parties.

50. In Scotland, the key features of women's participation are family friendly working hours; recognition of Scottish school holidays; a cross-party Parliamentary Group on Women serviced by the Equal Opportunities Commission; access, consultation and participation have been enshrined as key principles of the Parliament; there is an Equal Opportunities Committee in Parliament; an Equality Unit has been established; equal opportunity has been made a key principle of the Parliament and a stated priority of the Scottish administration, both of whom are committed to mainstreaming the issue; and memoranda accompanying executive bills must include an equal opportunities impact statement thus ensuring that equal opportunities is considered across all areas of the Scottish Government's work.

51. The National Assembly for Wales has followed a similar pattern, and has also established an Equal Opportunity Committee in the Assembly and an Equality Policy Unit within the government. It has placed a statutory equality duty requiring that the Assembly and its sponsored public bodies have "due regard" to equality opportunities in all their functions.

52. The combination of party selection procedures, coupled with the move away from a first past the post electoral system and the range of initiatives outlined above, all helped secure a strong role for women in the devolved legislatures. However, the recent election resulted in a step back. How and why this has happened and what lessons we can learn from it is an area ripe for urgent study.

45 S. Childs, J. Lovenduski & R. Campbell, (2005), Women at the Top 2005: Changing Numbers, Changing Politics? (London: Hansard Society), p.99. Back

46 Hansard Society Commission (1990), The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Women at the Top (London: Hansard Society), p.xiii. Back

47 S. Kalitowski (2008), Parliament and the Public: Knowledge, Interests and Perceptions (London: Hansard Society), p.11. Back

48 Hansard Society Briefing Paper (2008), No Politics Please….We're Women: Gender and Political Engagement (London: Hansard Society), p.1. Back

49 Ibid., p.1. Back

50 Ibid., p.2. Back

51 S. Kalitowski, op cit., p.5. Back

52 Hansard Society Briefing Paper, op cit., p.2. Back

53 Hansard Society Briefing Paper, op cit., p.2. Back

54 Hansard Society Briefing Paper, op cit., p.3. Back

55 Hansard Society (2008), Audit of Political Engagement 5 (London: Hansard Society), p.14. Back

56 Ibid., p.20. Back