Selection of candidates

I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 99, page 73, line 22, at end insert—

‘(f) internal party elections.’.

The amendment allows political parties to positively discriminate in their own internal elections, such as elections for executive members on local councils.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 204, in clause 101, page 74, line 3, at end insert—

‘(2A) An association is deemed to have at least 25 members for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it has been reconstituted or formed out of an association of at least 25 members.’.

An amendment to prevent an association from reconstituting itself into many separate associations as a means of avoiding the duties under the Act.

Amendment 205, in clause 101, page 74, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

The amendment prevents the Government from reducing or increasing the number of members an association must have to be covered by this Act.

How nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Benton.

We agree with the Government that enabling political parties to discriminate positively in elections is a good thing, because that changes representation, and, as we know, there has been woeful under-representation of women and ethnic minorities. Amendment 203 is about extending that permission in enabling legislation to internal party elections.

Women are under-represented not only in political assemblies as mentioned in subsection (8), but sometimes in the upper echelons of those assemblies. Obviously we would not seek to bind the hands of a leader to appoint, all on their ownsome, a representative Cabinet. However, in internal party elections and on other occasions it would be helpful, in such cases as under-representation in federal committees, to be able to extend positive  discrimination, should there be a need for that. We hope, obviously, that there would be no such need. The idea is simply to apply the same rights in internal party elections as are applied in external elections.

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is thinking about her own party: when she talks about internal party elections, would that include all elections within a party, including the leadership election?

The provision would be enabling legislation, so yes, theoretically, it would apply to any party election in which an increase in representation of one sort or another was sought. The amendment is not directed at my party in particular.

Leadership bid.

I would not need enabling legislation to make a bid, should I care to do so. However, it is not my desire to do so, and I am not talking in a personal capacity. There is no self-interest to declare in the amendment. However, it would be useful to find that we are not inhibiting parties in any way from correcting any imbalance that they might find, and to make that lawful.

As to amendment 204, I do not know how likely the circumstances it would address are, and I would like the Minister to clarify whether we are worrying for nothing. We welcome the changes that the Government have made to outlaw discrimination by associations, and hope that any club would enter the enlightened era of openness, eschewing any discriminatory past that it might have had.

Nevertheless, the provisions are about ensuring that bigotry cannot hold sway, and I want some assurance from the Government about what would happen in the case of a golf club that had to give up some gender-based prerogative such as, perhaps—I do not know about this, as I am not a golf expert—male-only Saturday golfing. My reading of the Bill may be incorrect, and my fears unnecessary, but I want to understand that such a club would not be able to disestablish itself into smaller associations with a membership of less than 25, to maintain the ability to do as they pleased, and not come within the Bill. The amendment is intended for testing and clarification, and to put something on the record so that that could never happen.

Amendment 205 is about not leaving things to chance, with the possibility that a Government of a different hue might change the threshold at which the provision kicked in. Under the amendment, a future Government could not suddenly decide to change the threshold from 25 to 1,000, which would allow a host of associations not to be included in the protection of the Bill. Many of these important discretionary powers seem to rest on the belief that no Government would ever make changes in the wrong direction to ease the protection, rather than holding fast to the protection. I understand why the Government might want to tweak the numbers to ensure that they are covering the size of an association. My fear is that if that were not done the proper way round, we might run into difficulty.

I will attempt to be relatively brief. I shall speak about the amendments and I might also touch on the clause more widely. I want the Minister to address a particular situation, which I hope that she can rule out, relating to the ability of political parties to take positive action in this way. Most political parties, if they were going to use the measure, would do so in the way that the example suggested. I do not think that any hon. Member would support in any way the British National party using the provision to discriminate positively in favour of candidates of a particular colour—in effect, to use it in the opposite way from that intended by the Government. Have the Government thought about that? Can the Minister assure us, for the avoidance of doubt, that it will not be possible?

When the clause, much of which has been carried over from existing legislation, was introduced, it was at that time, I think, supported by the Conservative party, although we have managed to make considerable progress—of course, it will not be visible until after the next general election—without using all-women shortlists. Indeed, 30 per cent. of Conservative candidates that we have selected already, without using the provisions of the clause, are women, and that is a higher percentage than either Labour or the Liberal Democrats achieved at the last general election. If we had a majority of just one after the next election, we would have at least 50 women MPs. At the last general election, we fielded the highest ever number of female candidates. As I said, we have made considerable progress, although we shall not see it in this place until after the electors have had the opportunity to speak, but that goes to show that it is possible to make considerable progress without the legislative changes proposed in the Bill by the Government or carried forward from previous legislation.

I have no idea what the significance of that was, because it was palpably incorrect. There is a woman candidate in about 10 of the hopeless Tory seats in the north-east—that is real progress towards equality for women.

Thirty per cent. of our candidates.

Thirty per cent. of the hopeless candidates in the non-winnable seats are women. That is great—progress in the Tory party. On we go; let us leave reaction behind.

Amendment 203 would extend the provisions in clause 99 to internal party elections. We are not totally sure what is meant, but granted that it could not cover the leadership, we had better deal with it, I suppose—in a serious way, of course. We are not in favour of positive discrimination, which is the terminology that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green used, and there is no provision in the Bill to allow positive discrimination, which means discrimination in favour of an individual just because they have a protected characteristic, rather than on merit.

The all-women shortlist provisions have very effectively ensured that there is a larger number of women MPs in the Labour party than in any other party by an enormous margin, and those women have been able to put on the agenda things that have simply never featured in the past, such as concerns about domestic violence, the  conviction rate in rape cases, child care and better provision for equality in this legislation and other legislation. All those matters came from Labour MPs and many of them were initiated by those among the influx of up to 100 women Labour MPs brought about by the positive action that we have had the wit to introduce and the foresight to use in a positive way.

I meant to say positive action. Women shortlists have been successful, and we want them extended to any party that wants to encourage such a change in emphasis.

That is very good. Of course, the hon. Lady also ploughs a lonely furrow in the Liberal Democrat party, which probably has proportionately rather fewer women MPs than even the Tories. However, there is no doubt that my party is well ahead in this race. Indeed, the real sadness is that this is not a race—the other parties simply do not try to catch up and feel no real need to redress the gender balance.

The Solicitor-General is saying things that she palpably knows are not the case. The leader of my party has made it very clear that we want significantly more women in this place and a more diverse parliamentary party, and he has taken significant steps to bring that about. As I said, 30 per cent. of the Conservative candidates who have been selected so far are women, and that includes our target seats, not just those that we do not expect to win. After the next general election, the Solicitor-General will find that the Conservative parliamentary party has a significant number of very good female Members of Parliament.

One can only hope so, but it is highly unlikely. There are 9 per cent. of women MPs in the Tory party and 17 per cent. in the Liberal Democrat party, so it is a bit better, although it is, of course, very small in Parliament. Half a woman makes a massive difference in the Liberal Democrat party.

I will not get involved in that discussion, because I accept that the Liberal Democrats have not done well enough on the number of women candidates in the party. I speak as someone who has argued that we could have taken positive action earlier than we did, but progress has been made.

However, I question the Solicitor-General’s view that the only way for the Labour party to introduce policies that women need is by having more women MPs. My party does not believe that MPs’ gender determines policy, which should be determined by what the party calls for democratically. For example, we have not had any out gay MPs since I was elected, but we have been consistently ahead of the game.

Shame.

The hon. Lady says “Shame”, but the shame is parties not introducing equality policies regardless of people’s sexual orientation. Individuals do not have to be gay to want gay equality or to be black to want to  fight racism. That connection should not be made as directly as the Solicitor-General makes it. It should not require women MPs for us to have pro-women policies. That is a slightly separate issue.

That really is a doctrine of reaction. We do not know what impacts strongly and sharply on a community that we are not members of unless we tap into it properly, which the Liberal Democrats palpably fail to do. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has made a pretty negative contribution. Speaking of Liberal Democrat policy, when were the Liberals last in government? It was 100 years ago or just over, and there are about another 100 years to go.

Dr. Harrisrose—

Order. the representation of various groupings in political parties is very interesting, but before the hon. Gentleman intervenes I should remind the Committee that we are debating amendment 204. I will allow the intervention, but hon. Members should bear my remarks in mind.

I am not going to go into historical analogies. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of women MPs in politics, and we support that. However, it should not have to be the Bill’s purpose that policies that women need are promulgated. Liberal Democrat party policy is made by our conference, in which a far higher proportion of women participate than are present in the parliamentary party. In terms of undemocratic parties, the Solicitor-General may be right that it is essential for women to be represented in the small cabal at the top that makes the policy. Where there is democratic policy making, however, people do not have to rely on the elite making the policy. The elite should be bound by the membership and the democratic policy-making apparatus.

What a dreadful admission. The conference is full of women and the parliamentary party is palpably empty of them. That really says it all. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman felt that confession was an appropriate way to clean the Liberal Democrats’ soul of the past.

The amendments are not necessary. There is certainly no suggestion as implied by amendment 204 that associations will break themselves up into smaller bodies to avoid the law. Even if they were Liberal Democrats, presumably there would be enough men and women in the organisation to say that they do not want to take such action just to avoid anti-discrimination law. We have no information, no understanding, no appreciation of a need for amendments 204 or 205. Our own positive provisions are sufficient, so I invite the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green to withdraw the amendment.

Is the Solicitor-General saying that amendment 203 would make positive action within the party legal?

As far as I know, parties are self-regulating and can do what they want within the ambit of the forthcoming legislation. The hon. Lady can invite her national executive and her women-full conference to read the current legislation to see where it would take them in their internal machinations. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean made a point about single-sex shortlists. I was talking about positive action, not other characteristics.

I will take Solicitor-General’s word that all parties are covered, whatever they do in respect of positive action within their confines. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Before we leave the clause, I wish to express my regret that it does not contain a mechanism for achieving the same leap forward for black and ethnic minority representation that we achieved in 1997 with an all-women shortlist. I shall to return to the subject when the Bill is discussed on the Floor of the House, but if progress on the matter of women has not been fast enough, progress on a more diverse racial and ethnic representation in Parliament has been pitifully slow. I could never have guessed 22 years ago when I was first selected as a candidate that 22 years later there would still be only one other Afro-Caribbean woman in Parliament and no Muslim women whatever. That rate of progress is not acceptable. Twenty-two years ago, people were telling me and my young friends—Bernie Grant, Paul Boateng and Keith Vaz—that the reason there were not more black and Asian MPs was that we were not ready or qualified. It was not true then; it certainly cannot be true now, when a whole new generation of young black and minority ethnic people have emerged on the political scene.

To touch on our earlier argument, Labour Members seem to be saying that the point of more women MPs is that legislation would be tailored to the needs of women. With respect to colleagues, the argument for more diverse parliamentary representation—whether more women, more black and Asian or more Muslim MPs—is not that only women can represent women and only black and minority ethnic people can represent black and minority ethnic people, but that we must have a Parliament that looks like Britain. I have argued that case for 22 years when it was not popular in the party. The argument is not that only people of a certain skin pigmentation can represent others with a certain skin pigmentation, but about the legitimacy of our democracy in the eyes of the people. Given the issues that have arisen in the past few weeks, we should be focusing more on the overall issue of legitimacy.

I thank the hon. Lady for agreeing with the point that I made earlier. The Liberal Democrats recognise that we just have not done well enough to attract more black and Asian candidates.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot give way in an intervention.

We accept that we have not done well enough to attract black and Asian candidates to winnable seats. However, to extend the argument being made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I hope she accepts that the history of policies on immigration and asylum over the past 12 years shows that whether we have black and Asian representation in the parliamentary party is a separate issue. Her party obviously has more such representation. However, although she has voted with us on some occasions, her party’s record is not great in respect of showing sensitivity towards the stigma associated with its policies on asylum and immigration policies—and, indeed, on anti-terrorism—which all have an impact on the black and Asian population.

I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman.

In the next few brief minutes, I want to move above party political points and put on record the principles for which I have stood for the past 23 years. The issue relates to the political process, particularly in cities such as London. An increasing proportion of younger people are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. How can they be expected to see politics as relevant to them if they do not see MPs of whatever party that look like them or to whom they can relate?

As we have seen, having a black man as President of the United States has had an extraordinary effect not only on black Americans but young Americans and white Americans who felt that nothing could change and that politics was the same old, same old. If we show people that representation can change and that their representatives do not have to look like those who were there before, it will have a galvanising effect not only on women or minorities but on young people and the wider community. I believe that the Bill could do more in that respect. The idea seems to be that we should wait for natural processes, but that has given us two black women in 22 years—so in 50 years we will have three. We cannot wait for natural processes. We have to consider what sort of positive action can be taken.

We have heard various explanations of positive action as opposed to positive discrimination. My argument has always been that positive discrimination takes under-qualified people and puts them in position. Positive action is about making it possible for people to be put in position who are qualified but who, for all sorts of structural reasons, do not have access to opportunity.

I have not argued in a long while about race; and I have never argued for positive discrimination. I believe that it is not necessary. When I was first selected, there was a lot of media attention. I remember at Stoke Newington hearing one white party worker say to another, “It’s all very well, this Diane Abbott; I keep reading about her, but is she qualified?” My friend said “Well, do you know, she has 10 O-levels, four A-levels and a degree from Cambridge, and she has served for four years on the city council. What qualifications do you mean?”

The hon. Lady gave the example of President Obama. He was selected as his party’s candidate in the primaries, and he became President of the United  States because of his merit and talent. In no part of that process was any form positive action taken. Why was that possible in America, and why is it not possible here?

I have my eye on the time, Mr. Benton, so I shall be brief.

To understand the rise of President Obama, we have to remember that he came from the politics of Chicago, which had been shaped by black mobilisation since before the second world war, by the huge influx of slaves that came to work in the northern cities and by positive action. That allowed Chicago to select black Congressmen before the second world war; and Chicago became only the second US state to have a black Senator. Obama was undoubtedly able to rise on merit, but he was able to do so as a result of positive action and black mobilisation that went back 50 years. That is all that we ask for today: give us the foundations on which our merit can be seen.

The question is important because of the changing nature of the demographics of the country and our big cities, the legitimacy of our politics and the pathetic progress made not only for women but for black and ethnic minority people. The black and ethnic minority community is looking for progress. People campaigning in the inner cities will know that some of the most conscientious and engaged voters are black or minority ethnic people. They are looking for progress. The Bill and the clause do not address that question, and I plan to return to the subject on Report.

My hon. Friend said nothing with which I do not agree. She will know that we commissioned a report from Operation Black Vote on the viability of having black and ethnic minority shortlists, but it raised practical considerations that led to the Government deciding not to go in that direction. With a bit of luck the Speaker’s Conference will produce a little acceleration; the new Speaker is pretty committed to radicalism.

May I add a footnote to what my hon. Friend said? Really outstanding people can get on, whoever they are. Indeed, the hon. Lady herself is pretty special and got on a long time ago, when it was much harder even than it is now. The worst aspect of discrimination and of structural inequality is that people from the ruling sector—whether that is to do with class, race or whatever—get on in a way that people of roughly the same ability from other sectors do not. The vast bulk of people in the middle suffer most from discrimination.

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Really outstanding women, such as Ellen Wilkinson, Barbara Castle and Jo Richardson have risen. The test of a truly equal society is when mediocre women and mediocre black candidates can rise in the same way that mediocre white male candidates have always risen.

I agree. Down with mediocre white men!

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.