5 Selection processes and barriers
to selection
106. There are a number of reasons why individuals
from under-represented groups find it harder to become MPs. Research
has shown that in most cases a number of different socio-economic,
political and cultural factors will combine to create a barrier
to individual success.
107. If someone wishes to represent their community
in Parliament, and be an MP, being selected as a local political
party's official candidate (prospective parliamentary candidate,
or PPC) is a virtual necessity. The formal selection process which
is operated by local parties is, therefore, the first key campaign
which an aspiring candidate must successfully negotiate on the
road to becoming an MP. Comparatively few women, disabled people,
and people from a BME and/or LGBT background are endorsed as PPCs.
Selection processes
108. Each of the political parties has its own specific
selection procedures. Some parties offer local constituencies
a choice of procedures, while other parties carry out all selections
by a single procedure. The most common features, and types, of
party selection process are:
· An
initial assessment of an individual's skills and competencies
before the party will approve the person as suitable to be considered
as a potential MP;
· Application
to a constituency by job application form or CV;
· 'Long-listing'
and 'short-listing';
· Presentation
to, and interview by, a meeting of the local party;
· Selection by
all-women shortlist;
· A 'primary'
processeither closed (for party members only); open (for
any interested person to attend) or full postal (opportunity extended
to all local voters);
· Interview and
assessment by a panel of local party members or local community
representatives.
Barriers to selection
109. In broad terms, it can be helpful to think about
two types of reason why people from under-represented groups are
not more successful in being selected as parliamentary candidates:
· supply-side
barriers can deter people
from these groups from putting themselves forward to be selected;
and
· demand-side
barriers can stop people from under-represented
groups being selected once they have put themselves forward.
For any individual a combination of both supply-side
and demand-side factors may affect his or her decision as to whether
to stand.
SUPPLY-SIDE BARRIERS
110. "Supply-side" barriers are those which
might prevent an individual from coming forward for selection.
The main barriers to supply are:
· Cost:
we received a variety of cost estimates from official and unofficial
sources ranging from less than £1,000 for the formal costs
of attending selection panels up to £42,000, once loss of
earnings and residential costs linked to the campaign are taken
into account, for the total cost of competing for selection and
subsequent election over an electoral cycle.[79]
We were reminded by the Hansard Society that financial barriers
impact on women more greatly than men due to the gender pay gap,
the fact that women are more likely to work in lower paid sectors
of the economy, and also because they are more likely to have
caring responsibilities towards children or other relatives.[80]
The TUC highlighted further that BME communities and disabled
people are also on average amongst the least well-off sections
of society.[81]
· Social class
was another factor that was identified by Unison, and others,
as being crucial in relation to under-representation.[82]
In particular, individuals from working class backgrounds were
viewed as less likely to have access to the financial resources,
networks and training that is available to others.
· Cultural
factors may combine with financial and
other difficulties to create multiple barriers for some individuals.
For example, the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group told us
that women from BME communities, who are more likely to be on
low incomes than some other candidates, can also face sexual discrimination
and cultural prejudice within their own community if they put
themselves forward for election;[83]
the Fatima Women's Network similarly identified a need for BME
women to have "a very high level of courage" to face
down such social pressures. [84]
· Time pressures:
the Fabian Society told us that "the time demandscampaigning
across the country to show keennessdemand a professional
job, and make little allowance for family commitments".[85]
The Women Liberal Democrats noted that none of the party's female
MPs have childcare responsibilities and called for more support
for mothers who are seeking to stand for election.[86]
The Youth Parliament called for lessons to be learned from the
Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, where crèche
facilities are available and there is an emphasis on family-friendly
working hours.[87]
· Lack of
support: many witnesses added that under-represented
groups are less likely to have access to the networks, training,
role models and support that are essential for aspiring MPs.[88]
This, in turn can lead to
· Lack of
confidence: research carried out by the
National Federation of Women's Institutes revealed that lack of
confidence was the main reason given by women who said that they
would not stand for public office. The General Secretary of the
Labour Party, Ray Collins, stated that people from under-represented
groups are also more likely to under-value their own skills.[89]
· Lack of
aspiration: individuals from under-represented
groups, who currently see few role models in the House of Commons,
may see more disadvantages than advantages in the prospect of
a parliamentary career. We were told that polls of the lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgendered communities demonstrated a "legacy
of expectation of discrimination"[90];
similarly it was reported that "a lot of people from minorities
can't see themselves getting anywhere with politics so they don't
want to give up their jobs to pursue it".[91]
· Parliamentary
culture: we were told that the confrontational
style of "yah-boo" politics which is strongly associated
with the House of Commons is particularly off-putting to many
women.[92] We also received
testimony that the sitting hours of the House are problematic
for the parents of young children; they would also be difficult
for those caring for other dependents.[93]
111. In many cases, these issues will combine to
form multiple barriers or disincentives to a person who is considering
putting themselves forward as a potential parliamentary candidate.
The Equality and Diversity Forum referred to the problem of "multiple
discrimination" for individuals who face a range of barriers
due to being, for example, gay and Asian or working class and
black. The Fabian Society called for more to be done to gain a
better understanding of these challenges:
more attention is needed to [determine] how chances
are distributed within the group of aspiring BME candidates and
women candidates, and the importance of how class, gender, race
and disability interact.[94]
Strategies to address supply-side barriers, including
the specific barriers experienced by disabled people, are considered
in the chapter below.
DEMAND-SIDE BARRIERS
112. In recent years the demand-side has been viewed
by academics and organisations such as the Fawcett Society as
the greater problem to be overcome. The Fawcett Society expressed
concern that "direct and indirect discriminatory practices
by the political parties are going unchecked":[95]
the people who choose candidates, the "selectorates",
in general appear reluctant to appoint individuals from under-represented
groups, and the bias against them strengthens where a seat is
considered by the party to be "winnable". We received
considerable evidence to suggest that local selectorates, thinkingly
or unthinkingly, still tend to prefer the candidate who meets
the 'white male, middle-aged, middle-class' norm.[96]
At the 2005 general election this tendency contributed to a situation
where "the electorate were faced with an all male candidate
list in 300 of 646 constituencies as none of the major political
parties had fielded a woman."[97]
We have not seen an equivalent analysis for other under-represented
groups in 2005, but it would appear likely that the incidence
of non-representation for people from the BME and LGBT communities
and for disabled people would be higher still.
Direct discrimination
113. On some occasions there is clear and direct
hostility to a candidate on grounds of their gender, background
or personal circumstances. Research carried out in 2002 about
the experiences of women candidates at selections reported
numerous examples of discrimination including:
· Being
told that the constituency was "not ready for a woman";
· Questions about
family responsibilities being asked of women but not men during
selection;
· Women candidates
being criticised for behaviour or circumstances, for example being
too young, going for selection in several seats at once, not being
local, when their male counterparts were not criticised in the
same way;
· Sexual harassment
by party activists, including members of selection committees;
· The existence
of 'favoured sons'candidates who benefited from high levels
of support from the party nationally, or regionally and/or from
key donors and supporters (including trade unions in the Labour
Party). These candidates are rarely women;
· Corruption
in the selection process including CVs being 'lost', some candidates
being given greater access to local membership lists and so on,
again this benefited male candidates;
· Open hostility
to the idea of women in public life from some party members.[98]
Similar points were listed for us by BAME Labour
about the experiences of potential candidates from black and minority
ethnic communities, and there are clear records of homosexual
candidates being asked repeatedly about their reasons for not
being married.[99] Behaviour
at selection panels which discriminates against candidates on
grounds of their sex, background or personal circumstances can
never be justified.
Indirect discrimination
114. Local parties are not businesses or professional
organisations which recruit staff all the time: we were reminded
that, particularly where a local party has had the same MP in
Parliament for many years,
local party members may have no experience of
selecting a candidate (or indeed much experience of any recruitment).
Their model of a successful MP will be based on the previous incumbent
(usually male) and perhaps unsurprisingly they select someone
similar, only younger.[100]
Discrimination in such cases is indirect, even inadvertent.
The decision to fall back on 'more of the same' may also reflect
a belief that a candidate who is a woman, or from an ethnic minority
background, or disabled, or an open member of the LGBT communities
is, in consequence of those factors, more likely to lose votes
and is therefore a more risky choice.[101]
115. The grading criteria used by selection panels
can also be a source of indirect discrimination. For example,
selectors may set great store by a candidate's previous political
activity. The Electoral Reform Society, among others, noted that
female or BME candidates may be more likely to have gained comparable
skills through being active within the community, but that selectors
can fail to place sufficient emphasis on the value of this experience.[102]
Overall, the Fatima Women's Network concluded that women and minorities
"need to perform well above the average to justify their
being selected".[103]
116. While the point is not often discussed openly
the political parties themselves recognise the "inbuilt tendency
within [local political parties] to choose white men".[104]
All of the main political parties have taken steps to deal with
the more blatant types of discrimination listed at paragraph 112
above: it is now common for local selection committee chairmen,
or entire selection committees, to be required to attend diversity
awareness training. Party officials and candidates told us that
certain questions, for example about family responsibilities,
are no longer allowed at hustings and CVs or application forms
must be submitted without photographs or family details. The Liberal
Democrats take the further step of requiring selection committees
to be "constructed to reflect the electorate in the constituency
in terms of geography, gender, ethnicity and age", thus reducing
the likelihood that a selection decision will be influenced by
prejudiced assumptions about individuals from a particular group
or community.[105]
These are welcome developments: the use of diversity awareness
training is particularly important as anecdotal evidence suggests
that in some cases similar types of direct discrimination remain,
although at a much lower level. Political parties should make
diversity awareness training, advice and support available to
party members involved in candidate selections.
117. The parties have worked to challenge unthinking
stereotypes and inadvertent discrimination through such training,
and by encouraging local parties to think in a more structured
way about the qualities and skills they want in a candidate. Yet
training in itself does not bring a change in culture, and in
some cases there remains significant resistance to the idea of
a candidate who is not a white, middle-class man. Scope described
this to us as a
significant disconnect between the policy of
'central parties' and the practice applied on the ground by local
parties
This is not to imply that local organisations deliberately
discriminate against individuals
but is a reflection of
the conditions under which they operate.
Scope recommended that
an increasingly strategic approach is required
from central parties [which is
] less concerned with the
production of policy papers and more concerned with working alongside
local parties to ensure the development of practices that are
consistent with the ideology developed centrally.[106]
Equality rhetoric, equality promotion
and equality guarantees
118. Professor Joni Lovenduski, a leading academic
in the field of women and politics, divides strategies for promoting
equality into three different types called equality rhetoric,
equality promotion and equality guarantees:
· Equality
rhetoric is the action
of parties and of party leaders in publicly talking about the
importance of fair and just representation and encouraging candidates
from under-represented groups to come forward;
· Equality
promotion is the action of parties to
support potential candidates from under-represented groups by,
for example, giving them training or financial support and also
by increasing the diversity awareness of selectorates;
· Equality
guarantees "make a particular social
characteristic a necessary qualification" for office, for
example through all-women shortlists, 'zipping' at European elections
and reserved places for BME/disabled/LGBT representatives on party
groups and committees. Guarantees artificially create a demand
for individuals with that social characteristic and can thus force
the pace of change. [107]
The table below shows how the equality strategies
operated by the three largest political parties in the House of
Commons (discussed above) fall into these categories:
| Equality Rhetoric
| Equality Promotion
| Equality Guarantee
|
Labour
| v | Includes Emily's List (gender fund); Bernie's List (BME fund); Dorothy's List (LGBT fund); mentoring
| Passing of Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002; All-women shortlists operated in some constituencies
|
Conservatives
| v | Review of selection processes; Women2win; mentoring; the 'A'-list; promotion of diversity awareness by senior party members
| X |
Liberal Democrats
| v | Campaign for Gender Balance; Party target agreed at conference; diversity awareness training for all selection panels
| X |
119. From the table it can be seen that the only party thus far
to have used an equality guarantee at Westminster, as opposed
to softer equality promotion measures, is the Labour Party. The
Labour Party's decision to adopt an equality guarantee through
all-women shortlists is supported by the doubling of women's representation
from one eighth to just over one quarter of the parliamentary
party (26%) which occurred at the 1997 General Election. This
compares with the Liberal Democrats who, without all-women shortlists,
have increased women's representation in their parliamentary party
to 16% of MPs; and the Conservatives, where women's representation
has since 2001 'flatlined' at 9%.
120. As at 6 January 2010, the state of the selection
processes relating to the balance between men and women in the
three main parties, so far as we have been able to discern, is
shown in the table below.
As at 06-01-2010
| Retiring men
| Women selected
| Men selected
| Awaiting selection
| Retiring women
| Women selected
| Men selected
| Awaiting selection
|
Labour
| 56
| 24 (43%) |
21 (38%) | 11 (20%)
| 18
| 10 (56%) |
4 (22%) | 4 (22%)
|
Conservative
| 30
| 6 (20%) |
19 (63%) | 5 (17%)
| 5
| 2 (40%) |
2 (40%) | 1 (20%)
|
Liberal Democrat
| 7
| 4 (57%) |
3 (43%) | -
| -
| - | -
| 1 (notional seat)
|
Equality guarantees in UK law
121. At present, political parties can adopt voluntary measures
that allow positive discrimination in favour of women under the
Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. This can include
measures such as all-women shortlists that amount, in practice,
to a type of self-imposed quota. The legislative power for parties
to use all-women shortlists is currently due to expire in 2015
but may be extended until 2030 under the Equality Bill, which
is currently passing through Parliament.
122. There is no comparable power enabling political
parties to discriminate positively in favour of aspiring candidates
from other under-represented groups, including those who are disabled,
or from BME or LGBT communities. Similarly, there is no legal
basis on which political parties can be compelled to adopt quotas
that ensure their candidates or MPs more closely reflect the broader
make-up of society. The Equality Bill currently before Parliament
would, however, give political parties the choice to create selection
groups which gave greater weight to under-represented groups,
while not permitting fully exclusive shortlists for disabled people
or people from BME or LGBT communities.[108]
QUOTAS FOR WOMEN
123. Quotas are used in many countries to tackle
the global problem of women's political under-representation.
A review called The Quota Project has found quotas in use in 97
out of 189 countries reviewed.[109]
This research identified three main types of quota:
· Constitutional
quotasthese require
a specific percentage of women to be members of the legislature
under the country's constitution. There are currently 15 countries
using constitutional quotas, mostly outside Europe and often in
countries with newly written constitutions. Examples includes
Rwanda, Serbia, Kenya, Iraq and Argentina;
· Electoral
quotasrequire a specific percentage
of women either to be selected as candidates or to be elected
as members of the legislature under the country's electoral legislation
(rather than its constitution). There are 44 countries with mandatory
electoral quotas. Examples include Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal,
Sudan and Pakistan;
· Party quotasthese
permit political parties voluntarily to impose some form of positive
action or quota. There are 69 countries that make use of party
quotas, including Italy, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and
the United Kingdom.
124. Westminster's position "almost at the bottom
of the league table of modern democracies" on issues of
equality was commented upon as early as 1990. [110]
The United Kingdom currently ranks 69th in the Inter-Parliamentary
Union's league table for its overall percentage of female MPs,
who make-up around 1 in 5 (19.5%) of the total Commons membership.
This percentage compares unfavourably with the best performing
nations: Rwanda (56.3%); Sweden (47%); Cuba (43.2%); Finland (41.5%);
the Netherlands (41.3%); Argentina (40%); and Denmark (38%).
125. There is substantial evidence linking the use
of quotas to increased diversity. We were told by the Centre for
Women and Democracy that quotas of some kind are currently used
in 83% of countries in which women comprise 30% or more of the
national legislature's lower house. Quotas are used by 69% of
those European political parties that have achieved, or are close
to achieving, 30% women within their parliamentary delegations.
126. Thirty-five women were selected through all-women
shortlists (AWS)a form of quotafor Labour at the
1997 general election. They were not used by Labour in the 2001
election, as a consequence of a legal challenge, but following
the passing of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act
in 2002 AWS was used in 30 constituencies for Labour in 2005.
This action contributed to a significant jump in the number of
women elected for the Labour Party. In 1997, when AWS was first
used, the number rose from 37 to 101 (from 13.7% to 24.2% of the
Parliamentary party). In 2001, when AWS was not used, the number
fell to 95 (23.1%). When AWS was re-introduced in 2005 the number
rose again to 98 (27.5%): the majority of Labour MPs first elected
in 2005 were women.[111]
127. The Labour Party believes its use of all-women
shortlists to be a "crucial" factor behind the rise
in number of female Labour MPs from 9.1% of the party's total
in 1987, to 27.5% in 2005. The Prime Minister stated that the
"under-representation of women historically, we have found,
can only be addressed by all-women shortlists."[112]
The party's General Secretary, Mr Collins, similarly stated:
My wish is that we can build a much stronger
consensus across the parties about the need for specific actions,
and certainly I would hope that all-women shortlists would be
one action that would be accepted across the board because it
produces results.[113]
A CASE FOR COMPULSORY QUOTAS?
128. The crux of the debate on quotas is whether
to make them compulsory, particularly since there has, as yet,
been little objection to the proposed extension of the voluntary
powers that were made available by the Sex Discrimination (Election
Candidates) Act 2002.
129. There are a small number of countries that have
been successful in increasing diversity without relying upon compulsory
quotas. These include Finland (where women's representation stands
at 41.5%) and also Denmark (38%), which abandoned quotas in 1996.
The Centre for Women and Democracy accepted that quotas are not
a "panacea" but maintained that high female representation
in Scandinavia is not a direct precedent. In particular, Scandinavian
culture was viewed as being more open to women becoming politicians
as demonstrated by the historically high level of female representation
and the associated expectation of the public, who offer the final
sanction of failing to vote for a party that does not have representative
candidates.
130. A number of people told us that compulsory quotas
would be the quickest and most effective way to redress the imbalance
in women's under-representation. For instance the Director of
the Centre for Women and Democracy, Nan Sloane, called for a mandatory
quota system to be built temporarily into our electoral law and
reviewed after each general election to consider whether it remains
necessary:
You have to make a basic choice about whether
you are going to have an optional or a compulsory system
Whilst we would not say that a party quota [i.e. optional] system
cannot work, because clearly it can, it can only work if all the
parties engage in it and accept it and at the moment that is not
the case.
131. The consultant and campaigner, Lesley Abdela,
is representative of those people who view compulsory quotas as
a necessary last resort when progress is otherwise slow:
Back in 1980, I was totally opposed to any form
of quotas, but after some years working on the issue of women's
participation in politics in the UK and overseas I became convinced
that training, lobbying and similar activities on their own are
helpful but are not enough. Progress is too slow. I have seen
that in country after country in Europe, Africa, Asia, and it
has been documented elsewhere that other actions without some
form of quota will not succeed.
132. The Chair of the Hansard Society, Peter Riddell,
did not accept that compulsory quotas were appropriate in a pluralistic
democracy. The Hansard Society's report, Women at the Top 2005,
however, recommended that 'Government should consider introducing
prescriptive rather than permissive legislation' since even with
a widespread adoption of voluntary quotas "there will be
only limited and incremental change and
this is unacceptable."[114]
133. The Centre for Women and Democracy added that
the Westminster Parliament is now so far behind similar legislatures
that progress will be impossible unless all parties are made equally
responsible for achieving results. The point was made bluntly
by Lesley Abdela:
It is like waiting for fish to grow feet. More
generations of excellent women will come and go, as they have
over the last 90 years. [115]
134. Designing an effective mandatory quota system
is important. The mandatory systems in Belgium and France have
both been criticised for failing either to provide sufficiently
tough sanctions against parties that do not meet the quotas or
to require that women be selected specifically in winnable (rather
than unwinnable) seats. The Women's National Commission warned
us:
Quotas required by law are not always successful.
If the law does not specify where on the list women should be
placed or how winnable a seat they should be selected for [then]
parties may select women for unwinnable seats or keep them in
low positions on a party list. Where the consequences of failing
to abide by the law are low (for example a modest fine) parties
are less likely to co-operate than where they are high (for example
a party's list being declared invalid). [116]
135. The electoral law of Spain was drawn to our
attention as one possible model that could be followed. Specifically,
Spanish law places a duty on political parties to select 40% female
candidates, 40% male candidates and a mix of either gender for
the remaining 20%. Any list that does not comply with these requirements
will not be accepted by the Spanish Electoral Commission. While
the electoral system operating in Spain is not directly comparable
to the electoral system in the United Kingdom, this model (of
a 40:40:20 quota) offers greater flexibility to political parties
than the rigid 50:50 quota operated in countries such as France
and Belgium.
OBJECTIONS TO QUOTAS
136. Witnesses who opposed the introduction of quotas
primarily objected for reasons of principle rather than on practical
grounds. For instance, Fay Mansell of the National Federation
of Womens' Institutes cited the perception that restricting or
manipulating a shortlist could prevent a proper consideration
of candidates' merits, to the detriment of the successful candidate
and the constituency:
"I do not think any of us would want to
be a token woman and I do not think it would be fair to foist
a token woman or token anybody on the electorate."[117]
137. This "tokenism" objection has found
favour among sections of the press, some current female MPs and
also some of those active within political parties.
138. A further key objection was raised by the Deputy
Chairman of the Conservative Party, John Maples MP, who opposed
compulsory quotas due to concerns that they restricted the freedom
of the local party to choose the candidate who is best suited
to represent the area.
139. While some people see quotas as a way for central
parties to short-circuit the recruitment process and deny local
party members a choice of candidates, in practice all-women
shortlist selections have been carried out by UK local parties
in exactly the same way as traditional or 'open' selections, in
every respect other than the formal requirement that all the candidates
are women. We were told that the role of the all-women shortlist
is solely
to reduce the discretion available to local
party selection committees to demonstrate bias in favour of men.[118]
140. We have previously quoted the statistic that,
in 2005, "the electorate were faced with an all male candidate
list in 300 of 646 constituencies as none of the major political
parties had fielded a woman."[119]
In those contests, voters were not given any opportunity to compare
the merits of a woman candidate with those of men. Selective shortlists
can be useful where they open up different choices and comparisons
for the selectorate and electorate. The Hansard Society also believed
that anyone would be "hard pressed" to know which women
MPs currently in the House of Commons were selected on the basis
of All-Women shortlists[120],
which arguably undercuts the proposition that women selected through
such measures may be lacking in merit.
2010 AND BEYOND
141. The willingness of all three main party leaders
to give evidence to our inquiry is a significant indication that
the case for just representation has moved up the political agenda
in recent years. Each of the leaders expressed their personal
commitment to increased diversity in the House of Commons and
assured us that under their leadership the parties would do more
to enable candidates from under-represented groups to come forward
for election.[121]
142. We had, however, been warned that after the
progress of the last 12 years the 2010 election may prove a setback
for equality of representation overall in the House of Commons.
This is because women's representation is very heavily weighted
towards one party (the Labour Party) and if, as many opinion polls
predict, there is a re-balancing of power between the different
parties in 2010 more women MPs may lose their seats than will
be newly elected across all three main parties to make up their
numbers. It is unlikely that the number of women MPs overall will
increase substantially; it may even fall.[122]
While there is some reason to hope that the current very small
number of BME MPs will increase, the number of disabled MPs and
openly-LGBT Members is also unlikely to rise substantially after
2010.
143. If the number of women MPs in the House of
Commons falls at the 2010 election it will make more pressing
the need for all the main parties to be assertive in their equality
policies. While each party has clearly adopted equality rhetoricwhich
is welcome, and importantequality promotion across the
parties remains uneven and each of the parties remains wary of
equality guarantees in some degree. The Prime Minister, while
affirming the success of all-women shortlists for women's representation
in the Labour Party, would not commit to all-black and minority
ethnic shortlists, stating that "how we get to that aim [of
greater representation for under-represented groups] of course
is going to be different in different cases and bound to be so".[123]
Mr Cameron acknowledged the difficult balancing act which the
party leaders can face when trying to promote positive action,
saying "if you just totally try and dictate, then you will
not take the party with you".[124]
Mr Clegg said that the Liberal Democrats "are not a sect
where the leader says this and it happens across the country
neutering local democracy
is a tempting shortcut but I
do not think it would work."[125]
144. Within our political system the freedom of local
parties to choose their own candidate for Westminster is a jealously-guarded
privilege: it is fair to say that the selection of a candidate
is their one real power. The leadership of each of the parties
has had to acknowledge this and build support for their equality
policies through the mechanisms provided by each party's culture.
The argument for all-women shortlists was, we were told, hard-fought
at the Labour Party's conference in 1993 and following that national
endorsement has been implemented carefully, in negotiation with
local and regional party officials, and on a limited basis. Within
the Conservative Party's "quite decentralised" culture[126]
the leadership's approach has been largely negotiated constituency
by constituency: as selections arise constituencies may be offered
a choice of different processesfor example, a selection
from the 'A-list' or a gender-balanced shortlistand a representative
from the central party will meet constituency members "to
talk them through some of the issues
and explain that the
issue of diversity is important for the party as a whole."[127]
In the Liberal Democrats' similarly "decentralised grass
roots culture"[128],
we were told, the combination of nationally agreed targets and
a reformed selection process is working effectively towards the
initial goal of getting women candidates selected for target seats.
145. We recognise that equality guarantees do not
sit easily within some political party cultures. Yet, to date,
the all-women shortlist has been the only mechanism to have produced
a significant step-change in representation in the House of Commons
in a relatively short period of time. We were therefore interested
to hear from Mr Cameron that between January and the general election
in 2010 he intended to use his party's 'by-election procedure'
to secure all-women shortlists from the Conservative A-List in
some constituencies.[129]
This short-term measure was considered as a booster for women
candidates because "there are many very, very good women
on [the] priority list of candidates who have not yet been selected".[130]
We were also encouraged to hear from Mr Clegg that while he did
not wish to take more prescriptive action for the present, he
was "not theologically opposed to it", if the party's
current policies in this area proved ineffective.[131]
146. We welcome the progress which each of the
main parties has made over recent years towards ensuring that
its local selection procedures are more professional and objective
than they have been in the past. Yet the fact that, in most cases,
it remains more difficult for a candidate who does not fit the
"white, male, middle-class" norm to be selected, particularly
if the seat is considered by their party to be winnable, means
that the case for equality of representation has not yet been
won. It is essential that the leadership of each of the political
partieslarge and smallcontinues to make this case
in discussion with their members and activists, and also takes
the measures necessary to secure progress.
ALL-BME SHORTLISTS
147. The use of all-BME shortlists is controversial.
There are questions of definition, and how the eligibility of
a person to stand on an all-BME shortlist can be determined.
Concerns have also been expressed that the use of all-BME shortlists
could lead people to believe either that a community can only
be represented effectively by one of its own members or, equally,
that BME candidates should only stand in constituencies where
a BME community is in the majority. Such beliefs would undermine
the fundamental principle that an MP represents all his or her
constituents regardless of their identity, background or political
allegiance.
148. Nonetheless we note that all-women shortlists
were, and to an extent remain, controversial yet have had positive
effects overall. We believe that similar enabling legislation
could be created to allow all-BME shortlists to be used, if and
when political parties judge that their use would be reasonable,
in order to achieve greater parity of representation for BME communities
in the House of Commons.
149. We fully support the proposed extension of
the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to enable
the use of all-women shortlists until 2030. Equivalent enabling
legislation should now be enacted to allow political parties,
if they so choose, to use all-BME shortlists. Like the Sex Discrimination
(Election Candidates) Act 2002 such provision should be time-limited
and should be subject to review prior to 2030.
PRIMARIES
150. There has been much interest in the Conservatives'
recent use of American-style primaries for the selection of some
of their candidates. Primaries open up the selection of a prospective
parliamentary candidate to any interested local voter, regardless
of their political allegiance.
151. We found opinions divided as to whether primaries
would support the promotion of diversity. Some people we spoke
to thought that the general public might have more flexible ideas
than a selectorate about what makes a good MP; for this group,
primaries represented an effective way to challenge preconceptions
and, sometimes, to dilute bias. Others feared that candidates
from under-represented groups, perhaps particularly disabled candidates,
would find it more difficult to overcome prejudice in a large
general meeting than they would to challenge the doubts of a selectorate
which, by the time of the final selection, they might know rather
well.
152. David Cameron told us that, in fact, he "[did]
not think they [primaries] are necessarily the most effective
weapon for making sure we have more women in Parliament, more
disabled people in Parliament, or people of black and minority
ethnic backgrounds. I think the primary is a very good weapon
to fight a slightly different battle, which is: are we doing
things that are opening up politics to people who had not previously
considered it; are we involving people more in the political process
?"[132]
153. The turnout for the full postal primaries which
have taken placein Totnes (25%)[133]
and in Gosport (17.8%)[134]suggests
that primaries may be helpful as a means to promote citizen engagement,
particularly in 'safe seats' where voters may feel that their
vote has little influence over the final outcome at a general
election. It is, however, too soon to tell whether primaries will
enable, or stand in the way of, the selection of a broader spectrum
of parliamentary candidates.
FUTURE PROGRESS
154. All three party leaders told us that they believed
that their parties would make progress towards a fairer representation
of society in the 2010 election; while this progress would not
be enough to create a parity of women or BME MPs, let alone disabled
or openly-LGBT MPs, it was clear that the leaders looked towards
a situation where "the whole process will become easier,
because it will become self-reinforcing". [135]
155. It may, however, be misconceived to think that
a degree of success will automatically lead to greater results
in the future. It could, instead, lead to complacency among grassroots
members unless they have a genuine conviction of the arguments
for justice. It may prove harder to move from 30% to 40% in women's
representationand correspondingly for other groupsthan
it is to get from, say, 9% to 30%.
156. There is also the question about how long it
takes to make such progress. The parties are currently closely
focused upon the election due in 2010: yet, whether their performance
in 2010 proves to be good or bad for diversity, there should be
a longer-term trajectory for the parties' policies on equality.
Candidate selections for the following general election will
begin, for some parties, within the first twelve to eighteen months
of the 2010 Parliament.[136]
These selections will be equally important for securing cultural
change within parties and within the House of Commons. In this
context we particularly welcome the indications from the opposition
party leaders that they are open-minded on the matter of equality
guarantees. If the political parties fail to make significant
progress on women's representation at the 2010 general election,
Parliament should give serious consideration to the introduction
of prescriptive quotas, ensuring that all political parties adopt
some form of equality guarantee in time for the following general
election.
Targets and monitoring
157. We have been told that formal monitoring can
help to increase the speed of change, particularly where monitoring
reports are published.
158. Since 2001 the Trades Union Congress has, every
two years, published an equality audit. This monitors the diversity
of trade union membership, the composition of elected bodies and
trade unions, and the impact of diversity upon the unions' "campaigning
priorities [and] negotiating and bargaining agenda".[137]
Sarah Veale of the TUC told us that these audits have enabled
the unions to "really drill-down into who is doing what,
where, what background they are from, how did they get there,
what obstacles stand in the way of people from different backgrounds
getting in".[138]
We were told that individual results which had been seen from
the monitoring process over the past eight years included:
· a
focus upon diversity awareness and education of members on the
aims of positive action;
· the increased
use of reserved seats for members from under-represented groups
on representative bodies;
· greater participation
by women and black members; and
· the election
of more women and BME members to official positions.
159. Sarah Veale believed the discipline of publication
had the benefit of pushing an organisation to act upon the issues
of concern:
if it is not going to do that [audit],
it has got justification for not doing things to make a difference[139]
160. In our first and second interim reports we set
out the importance of monitoring: we have recommended that the
parties publish monitoring data on the diversity of their candidate
selections, in a common format which will enable each party's
performance to be compared with the others and with comparable
parties throughout the world.[140]
Following our second interim report we tabled amendments to the
Equality Bill which, if enacted, would have provided a statutory
framework for the publication of such reports. Unfortunately,
although our amendments were selected for consideration by the
House, there was not enough time for them to be debated before
the Equality Bill was sent to the House of Lords. The Solicitor
General wrote to us that the Government is "committed to
tabling an amendment [in the House of Lords] to make this a legal
requirement".[141]
We welcome this assurance.
161. As we have previously stated, we welcome
the openness of all three main party leadersRt. Hon. Gordon
Brown MP, Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP and Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MPto
the principle of publishing monitoring data in relation to candidate
selections. This is an important indication of the commitment
of all three main parties to the promotion of fairer representation
in Parliament. We recommend that all political parties registered
under part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000 should be required to publish details of their candidate
selections online every six months, on 31 March and 31 October,
setting out, for each potential candidate at each stage of the
selection process, the following information:
(a) the administrative region in which the selection
took place;
(b) the method by which the candidate was selected;
(c) whether the party:
(i) currently holds the seat for which the candidate
was selected; or
(ii) came second or third in the seat at the last
general election within a margin of less than 5% of the votes
cast; or
(iii) came second or third in the seat at the
last general election within a margin of more than five per cent
but less than ten per cent of the votes cast;
(d) the sex of the candidate;
(e) the ethnicity of the candidate; and
(f) whether the candidate is willing to identify
as a disabled person.
The reports might also include the following information:
(a) where a candidate is willing to identify as
a disabled person, the nature of the impairment;
(b) where a candidate is willing to state his
or her sexual orientation, the sexual orientation of the candidate;
(c) the age of the candidate;
(d) the occupation of the candidate at the time
of selection; and
(e) the highest level of the candidate's educational
attainment.
162. Publishing this information would enable everyone
to see what numbers of candidates are coming forward from different
groups for selection. It would also allow analysts to work out
how successful potential candidates from different groups are,
in being selected for winnable seats; and whether there are particular
points in the process at which different groups tend to fall out
of the competition.
TARGETS
163. While monitoring in itself can help to ensure
progress, it can be even more powerful when combined with targets.
Gordon Brown told us that "on a like for like basis"
he expected the number of women Labour MPs in Parliament "to
rise to between 120 and 140 after the next election". David
Cameron said that his current target is for 30% of Conservative
MPs to be women after the 2010 election, but he wished to take
progress "one election at a time";[142]
the Liberal Democrats told us that their current target was "for
at least 40% of [their] new MPs and at least 25% of [their] total
MPs to be women" after the 2010 general election"[143]
but Nick Clegg did not give a formal target for either 2015 or
2020.[144]
164. It has become fashionable to criticise target-setting
in public services. But we believe that sensible and realistic
targets can have a galvanising effect when big strides have to
be made urgently towards important goals. Better representation
for under-represented groups is clearly one such case. It is clear
from our evidence that none of the major parties has, to date,
set out either what its long-term goals are for achieving fair
representation, or the milestones by which it will measure its
progress. At present there are short-term goals for women's representation
but no targets for the representation of disabled people or people
from BME or LGBT communities.
165. Following the 2010 general election all political
parties represented at Westminster should publish a statement
setting out the current proportion of their Parliamentary party
which is: female; from a BME community; and/or identifies as a
disabled person. The statement should also set out what proportion
of the Parliamentary party the national party would like to see
appearing in each of these categories in December 2015 and December
2020. This statement should be published by December 2010. In
December 2015 and December 2020 the parties should publish further
statements setting out what progress they have made towards just
representation within the parliamentary party, compared to the
2010 baseline and the percentage of each group within the UK population
as a whole. These reports should also include an evaluation of
the mechanisms the parties have used to secure progress.
166. Further scrutiny within the House of Commons
will help to secure accountability for the parties' performance
on diversity. Our Conference, unfortunately, will be unable to
lead on any review since it will come to an end at the dissolution
of the 2005 Parliament. We recommend that the Government should
find time for a debate on the implementation of the Speaker's
Conference's recommendations and progress towards just representation
in the House of Commons in 2010, 2012, and every two years thereafter
to 2022. We also recommend that the House of Commons should
provide access from a dedicated page on the Parliament website
to all published statements and reports by each party represented
at Westminster on their Parliamentary party representation and
candidate selections, alongside links to the reports from the
Speaker's Conference.
79 Ev 27 Back
80
Ev 58 Back
81
Ev 18 Back
82
Ev 41, Ev 68 Back
83
Ev 102 Back
84
Ev 109 Back
85
Ev 118 Back
86
Ev 64 Back
87
Ev 102 Back
88
Ev 95, Ev 96 Back
89
Q245 Back
90
Q355 Back
91
Ev 31 Back
92
Ev 200 Back
93
Ev 197, Ev 222 Back
94
Ev 116 Back
95
Ev 218 Back
96
Q352 Back
97
Ev 216 Back
98
Ev 72 Back
99
Ev 147; Ev 82 Back
100
Ev 72 Back
101
Ev 169 Back
102
Ev 173 Back
103
Ev 108 Back
104
Q447 Back
105
SC74, Ev 226 Back
106
Ev 29 Back
107
Women at the Top 2005, p 25 Back
108
Equality Bill, Clause 101, [Bill 5 (2009-10)] (Bill as amended
in Committee) Back
109
The Quota Project was created by the Inter-Parliamentary Union
and researched by the International IDEA and the University of
Stockholm Back
110
Women at the Top 2005 Back
111
Women at the Top 2005 pp 28, 36. Back
112
Q443 Back
113
Q243 Back
114
p 98, Women at the Top 2005 Back
115
Ev 202 Back
116
Ev 74 Back
117
Q13 Back
118
Ev 86 Back
119
Ev 216 (see paragraph 111 above) Back
120
Ev 62 Back
121
Q434; Q447 Back
122
Q333 Back
123
Q443 Back
124
Q449 Back
125
Q466 Back
126
Q447 Back
127
Q451 Back
128
Q466 Back
129
Under the by-election procedure, where a seat becomes vacant only
shortly before an election is expected the selection process can
be speeded up by the provision of a shortlist of potential candidates
to the local Conservative Association by the central party. Back
130
Q447 Back
131
Q464 Back
132
Q448 Back
133
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/08/big_turnout_in_totnes_primary.html Back
134
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8394458.stm Back
135
Q458 Back
136
Q465 Back
137
Ev 19 Back
138
Q76 Back
139
Q76 Back
140
Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Interim
Report, Session 2008-09,HC 167-I
Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary
Representation) Second Interim Report, Session 2009-10, HC 63-I
Back
141
SC114 Back
142
Q458 Back
143
SC98 Back
144
Q469 Back
|