§
'.—Nothing contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall render unlawful any action by a registered political party for the purpose of selecting candidates for election to the Parliament as constituency members or regional members.'.— [Mrs. Fyfe.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
1135 9.45 pmThe ChairmanWith this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Court action for alleged sex discrimination—
'.—(1) In the case of any court action undertaken by a person who claims not to have been chosen as a candidate for a constituency or regional seat at any election for the Parliament on grounds of his sex, the court shall, in forming its judgement, take into account the compliance or otherwise of the registered political party concerned with any relevant United Nations Convention and with any relevant Resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the extent to which any temporary special measures undertaken by the political party in question are in compliance with that Convention or Resolution.(2) Such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be held to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, if both women and men have equal rights to selection as candidates for the political party in question, and the criteria for selection as candidates do not discriminate against men or women.'.
§ Mrs. FyfeI thank all Labour women Members of Parliament who joined me this morning in paying tribute to Emily Pankhurst, one of the founders of the Women's Social and Political Union. It is 70 years ago this month that the House debated the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill which gave all adult women the vote.
Ellen Wilkinson took part in that debate. When she entered the House, she said that she felt that she had done so as a result of the labours of some of the best women that this country or the world had ever known. They made it possible for Parliament to do what it did that day. They made it possible for us women to be here today, and to argue, along with the support of our male colleagues, that the 1928 Act was not the final word, but that we must do all we can to achieve equal representation in our 21st-century Scottish Parliament.
The Labour party is the only party that has come up with a system to achieve that. When I tabled my new clauses, I thought that the Liberal Democrats would also seek to achieve the same end in their own way. But let us look at the Liberal Democrats' role in all this. In November 1995, they signed a formal electoral agreement with the Labour party. I have it here with me. It states:
The Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve this aim, the parties agree and commit themselves to:Select and field an equal number of male and female candidates for election, taking into account both the Constituency and Additional Member List candidates;Ensure that these candidates are equally distributed with a view to the winnability of seats;Use an Additional Member System … for elections;Ensure that the size of the Scottish Parliament is large enough to facilitate effective democratic representative Government.That is signed by Marilyne MacLaren, convenor, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—I exempt her from the critical comments that I am about to make—and by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.That followed years of promises, when we all met in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, that the Liberal Democrats would play their part; that they were every bit 1136 as committed to gender equality as we in the Labour party were. They were utterly opposed to doing anything by law within the Scotland Bill which would have guaranteed it—that was held to be against Liberal Democrat principles. Therefore, we, in our honest efforts to work together with the Liberal Democrats for the greater good of Scotland, agreed to work separately in our own ways and in our own parties to achieve equal numbers of men and women in the Scottish Parliament. The goal was 50:50.
Because other parties are opposed to the whole concept, or unwilling to back positive action, we knew before the Bill was printed that 50:50 representation could not be achieved. But still we could hope for a greater proportion of women in the Scottish Parliament than had been seen anywhere else in any national Parliament.
That was until last weekend, when the Liberal Democrats at their Scottish conference decided to do nothing but offer the usual meaningless, fruitless encouragement—the kind of inaction that has seen them deliver one female Member of Parliament in Scotland in 75 years of women being elected to Parliament.
The Liberal Democrats have betrayed their own women members, who believed that proportional representation would, of itself, deliver for women. They have behaved treacherously to the Labour party and all those in the Scottish Constitutional Convention who, over the years. committed themselves to equal representation in the Scottish Parliament. Worst of all, they have done their bit to ensure that the new Scottish Parliament will not reflect the people who vote for it. It will be a male-dominated body after all.
The only hope for women in Scotland lies with the Labour party. It is because of my anxiety that it should not go wrong, despite our best intentions, that I tabled my new clauses. But whatever the Liberal Democrats say or do tonight, nothing can hide their shame or protect them from the blame that lies squarely at their door.
We in the Labour party have made no attempt to impose our method on anyone else. This debate is about defending decisions democratically arrived at. Whether Opposition Members agree with the method or the aim is irrelevant; the point of this debate is that political parties should be free to choose their candidates. We intend to ensure that at least our contingent in the new Scottish Parliament will be balanced.
§ Mr. GrieveWill the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mr. GrieveThe hon. Lady says that political parties should be free to choose as they wish, but the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which she seeks to exclude and which was passed by a Labour Government, specifically prohibits what she proposes as interpreted by the European Court.
§ Mrs. FyfeIf the hon. Gentleman bides his time and is patient, he will hear my argument about that.
When the Secretary of State proposed writing a short provision into the Scotland Bill to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act provisions to the electoral process, or make it utterly clear that a political party could pursue 1137 gender balance, an ad hoc committee chaired by the Lord Chancellor was informed that it would be impossible to make the change for the Scottish Parliament, but not for the Welsh assembly and the regional assemblies for England.
So far, it is only in Scotland that there is any commitment to twinning or any other positive action, so why cannot the law in Scotland be different? We already have our own separate legal system. We already accept that proposals for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland do not all have to be alike. Untidiness has been allowed for time and again, so why can we not make that change? Risking continuing with the same old inequalities would be worse than a little untidiness. However, I am told that, even if the Government were willing to amend the Sex Discrimination act, we would be up against the equal treatment directive; so let me deal first with the Sex Discrimination Act.
Until the Jepson case, it was widely understood that the actions of political parties were outwith the Sex Discrimination Act. Section 33(2) says that section 29(1) of the Act should not be construed as affecting any special provision for persons of one sex only in the constitution, organisation and administration of a political party.
When Mr. Jepson brought his case against the Labour party founded on section 13, the Equal Opportunities Commission obtained an opinion from leading counsel, which agreed that selection for parliamentary candidates did not constitute employment, and thus did not fall within the scope of the SDA in any case. The selection process was to be considered an internal matter for the political parties. The EOC was also advised by leading counsel, subsequent to the Jepson and Kalanke cases, that the election of parliamentary candidates fell within the scope of neither the SDA nor the equal treatment directive.
The industrial tribunal agreed with Mr. Jepson, although tribunals elsewhere in the country would not have done so. The crucial point is that one industrial tribunal decision does not make law for the whole country, and does not set a precedent.
§ Mr. GrieveWill the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. FyfeNo, I have already given way. In the time available to me, I intend to go through the detailed arguments.
In coming to its decision, the industrial tribunal referred to the equal treatment directive. That was rather odd, because European directives are not an aid to interpretation of UK Acts of Parliament. The tribunal could legitimately have asked the European Court of Justice for a ruling on whether the directive applied in the Jepson case. Instead, it used its own interpretation of the directive to distort the meaning of section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
When the Labour party did not appeal against the case, it was widely accepted that it could not do so at the time, because selections for candidates were under way. However, there was talk of amending the SDA at some time to make the position clear and beyond doubt, but at present there is no proposal to do so. Apparently, that is because, even if we did so, we could still fall foul of the equal treatment directive.
I shall now deal with the European scene. Nothing stops a potential litigant taking up a case under the equal treatment directive, although that would be much more 1138 difficult and complex than raising it under the Sex Discrimination Act, because the directive may be relevant only if the selection of parliamentary candidates comes within its scope. There has been no ruling on that whatever; indeed, no equal opportunities legislation of the European Union relates specifically to national electoral systems. The legal base for the directive is article 235TEC, which regulates the labour market. There is no general power to go beyond those objectives.
The Marschall decision and the Kalanke decision, which it overruled, were in both cases to do with civil servants applying for a single vacancy. Article 24 states that the provisions of the directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunities for men and women. The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Marschall case ruled that a selection procedure that gave priority to female candidates where fewer women than men were employed was not unlawful discrimination, provided that there was an objective assessment of male as well as female candidates.
It should be noted, however, that the Labour party's twinning proposals do not give priority to female candidates; they ensure broadly equal representation. If a man could pursue a court action because he was not selected as a candidate, so could a woman with equal justice.
Noreen Burrows, professor of law at Glasgow university, has pointed out that, in the 1997 French parliamentary elections, the Socialist party reserved 30 per cent. of constituencies for female candidates. The French Parliament is not brand new, and such action involved a bigger upheaval than starting from scratch, as we are. No challenge was made by individuals in France or by the European Commission, and no mention was made in France of the equal treatment directive. I wonder why we are being advised that such a challenge is likely.
After the general election, the French Prime Minister suggested the introduction of a parity clause to the French constitution. "Quel horreur!", some people might say, yet there was no reaction from the European Court of Justice, or anywhere else.
A number of European electoral systems provide for positive discrimination by way of quotas. None of those arrangements has been challenged by the Commission as a breach of the equal treatment directive. It is far from clear whether the directive even applies to electoral law. I wonder why we are so out of step with the rest of Europe.
Other events in Europe are relevant. One of the five objectives of the European Commission's fourth equal opportunities action programme is promotion not of some women or a few women, but of gender balance. Article 3 of the Maastricht treaty states:
The community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women.The Amsterdam treaty allows states to take measures to ensure full equality for women and men, including those that would allow an under-represented sex to pursue a vocation.The treaty of Amsterdam amends the treaty of Rome to make it clear that positive actions to redress the under-representation of women are lawful. Article 3 states:
the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women".1139 I could refer to other articles, but I hope that I have made my point.We also have a United Nations convention to back us. In 1986, the previous Government signed up to the report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which meant that they agreed with the elimination of discrimination against women. Article 4 of the convention encourages the use of "temporary special measures" to give effect to article 7. Many other aspects of the CEDAW report support positive action.
It is worrying, therefore, that the leaked memo from Lord Irvine states:
It was particularly awkward that Donald's proposal was limited to the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, because this would allow it to be presented as an artificial and expedient response to a particular political problem.The temporary special measures that the UN convention has encouraged are temporary, and they respond, on one occasion only, to a particular problem. I urge the Law Lords to reconsider the matter, and to think more carefully about the CEDAW report. I have been told, however, that UN conventions are not recognised in British law, which is a pity. I had hoped that, over time, the issue might have been taken more seriously.We also signed up to the Beijing declaration and platform for action, which arose from the UN conference on the status of women. It calls for additional measures to improve women's participation in decision making, particularly where they have been traditionally under-represented, and especially in elected positions.
That might be regarded as insignificant in some quarters, but British politicians signed the declaration, and we should show that they meant it. Women have traditionally been under-represented in elected positions in Scotland. There have only ever been 28 women Members of Parliament in Scotland from all parties, from 1923 to the present day, which is an average of one every three years.
If the Government accept my new clauses or take similar action of their own later, it will strengthen the position of any political party, large, small or tiny, that may otherwise have to defend itself against legal challenge.
I have been asked why I am concerned. I accept that attitudes in the Labour party have changed. There was widespread support for twinning and for equal representation, but it would only require one objection to take the party to court and throw us into difficulty. It is because I am concerned about that possibility that I am asking my hon. Friends to consider this matter carefully before much more time elapses.
§ 10 pm
§ Dr. FoxThe hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was cruel in her criticism of the Liberal Democrat conference. Most opinion pollsters would agree that 10 is not a representative sample. She should not base her arguments on such a small number as appeared at the Liberal Democrat conference. It was the only conference that had to shift to a cupboard upstairs to ensure that delegates felt cosy.
1140 I am not particularly concerned about the Labour party's internal strife or its internal grief. The Conservative party has nothing to do with positive discrimination in selection procedures. We hope to get a wide spectrum of candidates, who are selected for their ability, not their anatomy.
I have more than a little sympathy with some of the hon. Lady's points. I question the quality of the conflicting legal advice that the Government have received. I was interested to read an article in The Scotsman this morning, which suggested that the Labour party had received conflicting advice from two sources close to the Prime Minister. Mrs. Blair has advised that the "cleanest and clearest" way of achieving gender balance is for Ministers to change the law, whereas the Lord Chancellor has given quite different advice. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the legal position according to the advice that the Government have received.
The hon. Lady referred to our freedom to operate as political parties within the restrictions of the legislation that she mentioned. If she is correct, and as we pride ourselves on our freedom of association, perhaps we should take a more libertarian view of our political practices and give ourselves greater freedom in how we conduct our policies and how we present ourselves to the electorate.
I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with the reasonable points that the hon. Lady made, although she would not expect me to agree with a great deal of what she said. Some of her comments were legitimate in a genuinely democratic argument. We must decide whether, in the conduct of our politics, we should be bound by legislation passed in the 1970s, or whether we are free in a truly democratic state.
§ Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, North and Leith)One of the several reasons why the people of Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament, and why so many people are looking forward to its new politics, was the thought of having the first ever Parliament with gender equality. It would be the cruellest of ironies if that were to be prevented by the equal treatment directive after a century of unequal selection treatment of men and women.
The debate is essentially about the equal treatment directive. My understanding is that the Government have no objection to clarifying the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but their legal advice is that the new clause would contravene the equal treatment directive. Will the Government take a little more time to take further legal advice? The professor of European law at Glasgow university has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
There are two lines of argument about the equal treatment directive: first, that it does not apply to the electoral process, and secondly, that exceptions are allowed under article 2.4 to redress inequalities. I hope that the Government will take more time to consider the matter, and will not rule out clarification or temporary special measures as proposed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Labour party is fully committed to achieving gender equality. We are merely asking the Government to go the last mile. Great progress has been made. The party 1141 is committed to twinning, and will go ahead in any case; we tabled the new clause just in case there was a challenge.
As I said, we have one last mile to go, but the Liberal Democrats have many miles to go. It would be utter hypocrisy if the Liberal Democrats and others used the new clause as an excuse for not establishing party procedures to achieve gender equality. My plea to the Government is to take a little more time, and on that basis, I shall abstain in this evening's vote.
§ Mr. WallaceI agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm): it would indeed be perverse if an equal treatment directive was used in a way that frustrated an opportunity to achieve gender balance. I shall return to that point later. I cannot, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's accusation of hypocrisy, or his suggestion that we would use the new clause as an excuse not to establish provisions to try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary representation. The opposite is the case: we shall use the new clause in order to establish arrangements for gender balance.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) seems so frustrated about the fact that the Lord Chancellor would not even see her to discuss the issue that she is taking it out on the Liberal Democrats. She would not allow the facts to get in the way of a good rant. The facts of the Liberal Democrats' position were set out in our conference in Dunfermline, and remain the party's policy. I do not recall that the hon. Lady ever said that anything was wrong with that policy; indeed, at the time she probably congratulated us on it.
§ Mrs. FyfeWhat excuse will the hon. and learned Gentleman offer for breaking the solemn agreement that his party reached with the Labour party in November 1995?
§ Mr. WallaceI shall not offer any excuse; I shall merely tell the hon. Lady how the policy can be fulfilled. This is the policy of our party:
If the Scotland Bill exempts the political parties from sex discrimination legislation, the following system shall be used for the selection of list PSPCs"—that is, prospective Scottish parliamentary candidates.(i) In combination, the Local Parties within each Euro-constituency shall draw up a short-list from the male applicants and a short-list from the female applicants;(ii) all members of the relevant Local Parties shall select the male and female members of the list in a ballot using single transferable voting … and in a separate count of the ballots shall order the lists".Let me pause parenthetically to note that the lists will be drawn up by our membership; they will not be imposed from on high, as the Labour party seems to propose.The document continues:
(iii) Conference shall elect four men and four women to an Electoral Agreement Committee, which shall be charged with:In other words, a mechanism exists—if the Bill exempts the political parties from the sex discrimination legislation. That is what we are arguing for, and that is why we support the new clause.
- (1) taking into account the terms of the electoral Agreement;
- (2) taking into account the results of the PSPC selection in all constituencies where the Party's candidate received more than 15 per cent. of the vote in the 1997 General Election;
- (3) taking into account the likely overall gender balance of PSPCs within each Euro-constituency and neighbouring constituencies of similar geographic and political character;
1142 - (4) drawing up from the ordered male and female lists of short-listed applicants a final, integrated list for each Euro-constituency; and
- (5) ensuring that the order of male PSPCs and female PSPCs on the final list in each Euro-constituency strictly adheres to the order arrived at by the all-member ballots."
§ Mrs. McKennaHow many candidates have already been selected, and how many are women?
§ Mr. WallaceTwelve have been selected, three of whom are women; but, as the hon. Lady knows, the electoral agreement referred to a balance between the first-past-the-post system and the lists. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was party to the negotiations, but, if she had been, she would know that the lists were always seen as the mechanism through which we were most likely to achieve gender balance. We shall do that, if we can amend the Sex Discrimination Act.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the new clause, and look forward to joining the hon. Member for Maryhill in the Lobby. She cannot accuse us of hypocrisy; it is the Labour party that is putting up the road blocks, and preventing us from implementing mechanisms that have already been introduced.
As has been said, the Liberal Democrats took advice from Cherie Booth QC—principally with regard to the European elections, although the advice that we were given could also apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament. Her advice was that the clearest way of exercising positive discrimination was to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act from the selection of candidates. We understand that the minute from the Cabinet Committee, to which the hon. Member for Maryhill referred, states:
Without an amendment of the kind proposed by Donald"—whom we assume to be the Secretary of State for Scotland—a political party adopting a selection process which appeared to discriminate in favour of women could be liable to challenge along the lines of the Jepson case.To be fair, it seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland realises the nature of the problem and, to his credit, he has been trying to remove the block of a possible challenge to parties that were trying to get some form of gender balance.
§ Mr. DalyellAm I mistaken, or is the hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from a Cabinet Committee document? If he is, how did he get that document?
§ Mr. WallaceI am quoting from The Guardian of 3 March. It set out the terms of the leaked minute, and I am not aware of anyone challenging the accuracy of that leak. I have outlined the position that was taken by the Secretary of State but, regrettably, that position was not taken by the Cabinet Committee.
I have said that we have a mechanism, but I can also say that we have more than that. The Trust for Scottish Liberal Democracy, whose members met at the weekend, has agreed that a substantial sum will be made available 1143 to women seeking selection in the lists. I understand that that will be matched by women Liberal Democrats to help to cover the costs of travel, campaigning and child care.
§ Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North)Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in terms of proportional representation his party is already over-represented here and is unlikely to get any Members in the top-up of the Scottish Parliament, in which he could bring his mechanism into being?
§ Mr. WallaceI cannot agree that my party is over-represented here. We had 17 per cent. of the vote, and we have only 46 seats out of 659. That is not fair representation. Our Scottish seats are almost exactly proportional because we got 13 per cent. of the vote and 13.9 per cent. of the seats.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)No top-up.
§ Mr. WallaceThe hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system upon which we are about to embark, because the additional member list will have top-ups from parts of the country in which we are not—
§ Mr. Home RobertsonDo the Liberal Democrats expect to get top-up seats in Glasgow?
§ Mr. WallaceWe shall get extra in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, because Labour will get no extra seats from the list in Glasgow: it is already over-represented there by a long way. I do not want to be tempted down the road of explaining the system of proportional representation to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give him a seminar on another occasion.
The other parties will find the going difficult. We have heard that in Wales there might be legal challenges to what Labour is trying to do to achieve gender balance. We have tried to wrestle with the problem, and if the new clause is accepted, a mechanism will be put in place. The Cabinet Committee minute also states:
Harriet Harman also supported Donald. She accepted there was a risk of a successful challenge under the ETD, but this had to be set against the risk that the representation of women in the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly would be unacceptably low if no action were taken, and an opportunity to advance modern democracy in these new institutions would have been lost.This is an opportunity. There are no incumbents and there is a chance to achieve a gender balance that has not been achieved in this place. We say, "Give us the legal backing to do it and we shall do it." That is why we shall support the new clause. Those who stand in our way will be hypocritical.
§ Mr. McLeishI do not think that I have seen the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats quite so angry for some time, but there may be some good reasons for that. I shall cover the points that have been raised and address some of Labour's concerns about the Liberal Democrats. Our White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" made it absolutely clear that we attach great importance to equal opportunities for all—including women, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. Our White 1144 Paper urged all political parties offering candidates for election to have that in mind in their internal candidate selection processes.
New clause 9 proposes that we should amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the selection procedures for parliamentary candidates from its scope. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and I have had many discussions on the issue. I have tremendous sympathy for the intentions behind the new clause. We want the Scottish Parliament to be women friendly. We are trying to ensure through the building design and through other preparations that women will want to serve as Members of the Scottish Parliament. The facilities will be designed to serve equally the needs of women and men; there will, for example, be day care provision for children. On the procedures, our consultative steering group has already given thought to how the Parliament can be made more accessible to women and those with family responsibilities.
The procedures will also be designed to be participative and, as far as possible, non-confrontational, so that all MSPs, both women and men, can contribute as fully as possible. That is how we are going about the question of encouraging equal representation in those particular areas.
§ Mrs. LaingWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. McLeishNo. With the greatest courtesy, I should rather get through some of the elements of the matter.
10.15 pm
The requirements of European employment law and particularly the equal treatment directive have established the framework within which we must work. Any amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act enabling the parties to avoid falling foul of that domestic legislation might be found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of the equal treatment directive. We could not guarantee that the parties would be free from challenge. The challenge could arise in the domestic courts, which could refer the case to the European Court of Justice. The result could be a severe disruption of candidate selection procedures.
On new clause 10, I appreciate that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women sanctions special and temporary measures. However, CEDAW does not override or exclude the requirements of the directive under EC law.
The treaty of Amsterdam may pave the way for long-term change, but it will not be ratified in time to affect these elections and will not have retrospective effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission is examining the Sex Discrimination Act, but, again, the timing is not particularly convenient.
I appreciate that there is a view that standing for or being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation and therefore outwith the scope of EU law. However, the possibility of challenge exists and, in our view, it is more likely than not that such a challenge would be successful.
The Government have considered those matters very carefully. We appreciate that some people consider that there is no other way to secure equal representation, 1145 but we believe that the risks of breaching our Community obligations are too great and that we would be inviting a damaging and disruptive challenge.
In our view, the key lies in the commitment of the political parties to bring forward women candidates through equal opportunities best practice. We are looking into the measures that could be taken by the parties within the scope of the law. I am absolutely delighted that the Labour party continues to seek legal ways in which to deliver the electoral agreement that it entered into in 1995 on the issue. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not walk away from equal representation and that other parties will start to take the matter seriously.
§ Mrs. McKennaWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. McLeishI would rather just proceed.
The Conservatives have at least been honest tonight. They want nothing to do with equal representation and they want no positive discrimination. There is honesty in that policy. It is certainly one with which I do not agree, but I remind the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that he signed up to an agreement in which we were all involved. At that time, it did not make specific reference to changing any particular legislation.
The electoral agreement that was signed on Thursday 23 November 1995 in Inverness by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party stated:
The Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as Members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve the aims the parties agree and commit themselves to a number of measures.There was no caveat about the Sex Discrimination Act or the equal treatment directive. It was simply an electoral agreement that was entered into, I think, in good faith. It still exists and I hope that, even after the debacle of the conference at the weekend, the Liberal Democrats will stand strong on the issue, fight for equal representation and not hide behind the cloak of lack of legislation to defend their position.
§ Mr. WallaceMay I take this opportunity to renew my commitment that we shall try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary party within the law? As I have said, we have also committed a substantial sum to encourage and pay costs for women candidates seeking selection. I wonder whether the Labour party has done that.
§ Mr. McLeishI hope that the spirit of that intervention conflicts with and contradicts a comment that appeared in The Observer at the weekend, that
the proposal"—equal representation—received the strongest criticism from other females. Moyra Forrest, a fellow Edinburgh councillor, accused MacLaren of dirty tricks and attempting to hijack the conference. 'If the women candidates are any good, they will emerge from the selection process,' she said.'As a party, we do not practise discrimination and so we cannot be unfair to men in this fashion.'I hope that the Liberal Democrats are back on course. The weekend's discussions did not help. The Labour Government and the Labour party are committed to seeing equal representation in the Parliament.1146 We have heard from the Liberal Democrats and from the Conservatives, but the Scottish National party is conspicuous by its absence on this issue.
§ Mr. SalmondOn a point of order, Sir Alan. You know that I was rising during the debate. Is it in order for the Minister to criticise me when a time limit prevented me from speaking?
The ChairmanWhat the Minister says is entirely a matter for him. The Chair has called hon. Members in order, but there has not been an opportunity to call any hon. Member from the Scottish National party.
§ Mr. McLeishI sincerely hope that, in the variety of ways available to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), he makes his party's position clear. The Labour party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have spoken up and we await the views of the SNP on the issue.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)I am not sure whether the Minister has finished or is giving way to me. I should like to make the point—
The ChairmanOrder. Unfortunately, the matter is resolved.
It being five hours and forty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 272.
1148| Division No. 237] | [10.20 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Baker, Norman | Livsey, Richard |
| Ballard, Mrs Jackie | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Brake, Tom | Moore, Michael |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Breed, Colin | Oaten, Mark |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Rendel, David |
| Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) | Salmond, Alex |
| Cotter Brian | Sanders, Adrian |
| Cunningham, Ms Roseanna | Stunell, Andrew |
| (Perth) | Swinney, John |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Tyler, Paul |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Wallace, James |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Welsh, Andrew |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Willis, Phil |
| Harvey, Nick | |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Mr. Donald Gorrie and Sir Robert Smith. |
| Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) |
| NOES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Banks, Tony |
| Alexander, Douglas | Barnes, Harry |
| Allen, Graham | Bayley, Hugh |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Beard, Nigel |
| Ashton, Joe | Begg, Miss Anne |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Austin, John | Benton, Joe |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Gardiner, Barry |
| Betts, Clive | George, Bruce (Walsall S) |
| Blackman, Liz | Gerard, Neil |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Boateng, Paul | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Goggins, Paul |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Browne, Desmond | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Grogan, John |
| Byers, Stephen | Gunnell, John |
| Caborn, Richard | Hain, Peter |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Cann, Jamie | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Casale, Roger | Hanson, David |
| Caton, Martin | Healey, John |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Clapham, Michael | Hepburn, Stephern |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Heppell, John |
| Clark, Dr Lynda | Hesford, Stephen |
| (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Hill Keith |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Home Robertson, John |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hood, Jimmy |
| Clelland, David | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Coaker, Vernon | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Coleman, Iain | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Colman, Tony | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Connarty, Michael | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Cooper, Yvette | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hutton, John |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Cousins, Jim | Ingram, Adam |
| Cranston, Ross | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Crausby, David | Jamieson, David |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cummings, John | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Dafis, Cynog | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Davidson, Ian | Jowell, Ms Tessa |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly) | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Dawson, Hilton | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Khabra, Piara S |
| Dewar, Rt Hon Donald | Kidney, David |
| Dismore, Andrew | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Donohoe, Brian H | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Doran, Frank | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Dowd, Jim | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Drew, David | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Lepper, David |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Leslie, Christopher |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Levitt, Tom |
| Edwards, Huw | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Efford, Clive | Linton, Martin |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Lock, David |
| Etherington, Bill | Love, Andrew |
| Fatchett, Derek | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | McCabe, Steve |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Flint, Caroline | Macdonald, Calum |
| Flynn, Paul | McFall, John |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | McIsaac, Shona |
| Foulkes, George | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Galbraith, Sam | McLeish, Henry |
| Galloway, George | McNamara, Kevin |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| McWalter, Tony | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Mallaber, Judy | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Smith, Miss Geraldine |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Martlew, Eric | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Meale, Alan | Soley, Clive |
| Michael, Alun | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Spellar, John |
| Miller, Andrew | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Mitchell, Austin | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Moffatt, Laura | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Stevenson, George |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Morley, Elliot | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Mudie, George | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Stringer, Graham |
| Norris, Dan | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | (Dewsbury) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Pearson, Ian | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Pendry, Tom | Timms, Stephen |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Todd, Mark |
| Pickthall, Colin | Touhig, Don |
| Pike, Peter L | Trickett, Jon |
| Pope, Greg | Truswell, Paul |
| Pound, Stephen | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Vis, Dr Rudi | |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Purchase, Ken | Watts, David |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | White, Brian |
| Radice, Giles | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Rapson, Syd | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Raynsford, Nick | (Swansea W) |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Rogers, Allan | Winnick, David |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Roy, Frank | Wise, Audrey |
| Ruane, Chris | Woolas, Phil |
| Ruddock, Ms Joan | Worthington, Tony |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Wray, James |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Salter, Martin | Wyatt, Derek |
| Sawford, Phil | |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sheerman, Barry | Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Janet Anderson. |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. WallaceOn a point of order, Sir Alan. It is a Standing Order, or an expectation, that one's vote should follow one's voice. Is it not also the case that one's vote should follow one's speech? If so, perhaps those hon. Members who spoke in favour of new clause 9 could explain why they did not vote for it.
The ChairmanThe hon. and learned Gentleman is simply wrong in his interpretation of the Standing Orders.
§ Mr. SalmondOn a point of order, Sir Alan. During the vote, I observed the Minister in animated conversation with some of his hon. Friends. I do not know whether he 1149 was trying to persuade them to abstain or to vote against their principles, but should he be trying to persuade them at all?
§ Mrs. FyfeOn a point of order, Sir Alan. As I am sure you will confirm, had we not run out of time, I was going to explain why I would have withdrawn the motion, because—
The ChairmanOrder. The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. There was an opportunity for her to rise; she did not do so, and therefore did not catch my eye.