Clause 1

HC Deb 14 November 2001 vol 374 cc884-918

EXCLUSION OF CANDIDATE SELECTION FROM 1975 ACT

4.48 pm

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert— '(2A) This section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert— '(2A) This Article applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.

Mr. Lansley

On Second Reading, the Bill received a welcome across the House. It was rightly said that the Bill was short and relatively simple, but important. I support it, and the amendments are not intended to reduce that support.

On Second Reading and in Committee many Members applauded the fact that the Bill is permissive in intent, but by switching off the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 it allows the discretion given to political parties to be used to do various things. It became increasingly clear to me in Committee, and I hope that it will become clear to other right hon. and hon. Members, that the Bill runs the risk of reintroducing to this area of law and practice by political parties many of the uncertainties that arose from the Jepson case in 1996, and we would do well to remove them.

Amendment No. 4 is designed to apply to Great Britain and amendment No. 3 to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Amendment No. 4 would set a limit on the circumstances in which positive discrimination may be exercised in favour of women. It would ensure that when a single member was being elected for a specific geographical area—that would generally mean individual Members of Parliament elected for a specific Westminster constituency or, in local government, single members elected for a ward—while a woman could be given preference in the selection over a man who had equivalent merits, all the candidates for the post, including men, should be subject to an assessment. Account should be taken of the candidates' personal circumstances, including their relationship with the specific geographical area. It may not necessarily be obvious, but the effect would be to exclude the application of all-women shortlists in parliamentary constituencies. Men would no longer be excluded from consideration for selection by political parties in areas where they live, regardless of their merits.

On Second Reading, when I was, frankly, less informed than I have become, I argued that although the Bill switched off the provisions of the 1975 Act that apply to the selection of candidates by political parties, it might none the less become subject to intervention by the courts on the strength of the adoption of the new equal treatment directive, or even the old one. The Minister confidently assured me that as the measure applied to elections and not to appointments, that would not be the case. However, in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said: I cannot give an absolute guarantee because the European Court of Justice could ultimately decide the question differently … However, even if the court decided that candidate selection fell within the equal treatment directive, the hon. Gentleman— the Minister was referring to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is in his place— will be aware that measures under the directive and the treaty … allow for positive action. He said later in that short debate: We expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 27.] I do not doubt that the Minister was being both prudent and accurate, but in doing so he highlighted the problem to which I partially referred on Second Reading and which we explored in greater detail in Committee. If a court held that the equal treatment directive applied, it might apply to the measures adopted by political parties—the test of proportionality. That test was summarised in a commentary on the European Court of Justice ruling in Abrahamsson and Anderson v. Fogelqvist in July 2000, in which it was held that it was permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates. I hope that it is clear that the language chosen for the amendment rests directly on that used to express the test of proportionality that a court might choose were it to apply the equal treatment directive to positive action measures taken under the legislation.

When I questioned the Minister in Committee, he said that he wanted to make it clear that providing the remedy is proportionate to the wrong that it is seeking to address, political parties should be able to introduce measures such as we have discussed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 28–29.] In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of his confident declarations on the inapplicability of the equal treatment directive, was none the less contemplating the possibility that under the Bill political parties would have to act in a proportionate manner. Most of us would want to do so, but the question is, if political parties—in this instance the Labour party—go down that path, will it be regarded as proportionate by a court?

The Government maintain that the judgment applies to a post, but not to the selection of a candidate. I am still not persuaded by their argument. If the Jepson case demonstrated anything, it was that the selection of candidates by political parties effectively puts those parties in the position of qualifying bodies under section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act. By extension, I see no reason why a court, in assessing whether people receive equal treatment when taking up a vocational activity or occupation under the directive, would not hold that the selection of candidates is integral to the process of securing employment.

The purpose of the amendments is pre-emptively to apply a test of proportionality to the positive action that the Bill will enable political parties to take, thus removing the uncertainty about the extent to which they can take action. They will then no longer need to undertake expensive legal inquiries and test cases, with all that they entail, to establish the law on positive action of this sort.

It is not only the equal treatment directive that might impact on positive action measures. If I have read the notes to the Human Rights Act 1998 correctly, protocol 12 to the convention—I do not know whether the Government intend to sign it—which creates a freestanding right to equality looks to a right of member states to take

measures to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for these measures". A court might regard such a test—of objective and reasonable justification—as being similar to the proportionality test. In those circumstances, the European Court of Human Rights might, separately, look to some of the jurisprudence in the European Court of Justice in order to establish the relationship between those principles and their application to these matters.

5 pm

If the Bill is designed to permit political parties to take positive action and the Labour party wants to pursue all-women shortlists, it runs the risk of legal challenge. Although I have not succeeded in tempting the Minister on this point, it would none the less be helpful if he were to tell us whether the Labour party wants to re-introduce all-women shortlists.

The Liberal Democrats debate whether or not they want such shortlists. The hon. Member for North Cornwall may be able to tell us a little more about that. He certainly seemed to imply that although the Liberal Democrats might be tempted in the direction of all-women shortlists, they were deterred by the possibility of legal challenge. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like Conservative Members, wonders whether a legal challenge would ensue and doubts that this is a sensible measure for a political party to pursue.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove uncertainty about a legal challenge. It is also intended to establish that there should be limits—never mind the European legislation—to the extent to which positive action is taken by political parties in order to secure greater equality.

Two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, the wrong that we want to remedy—the lack of balance in representation in the House—will not be appropriately remedied if we introduce another wrong by discriminating in such an overt and extreme fashion against men. That would occur in specific circumstances—for example, where a man wanted to be selected as a candidate for the area in which he lived.

We are talking about only those circumstances in which somebody wants to be selected as a candidate for the area where they live and where that constituency offers them a unique opportunity for election.

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people who seek selection are also able to do so in an adjoining area? Often, they are in a borough, county or area where there is some choice of seats. It is not always, or even usually, a specific and sole seat for which a person wants to be selected. Does he agree that many Members—of whom I am not one—have never lived in their own constituency?

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she takes me to the points that I wanted to make, although I am not with her on her latter point. I live in my constituency and am happy to do so. However, I understand her first point: people who want to be elected to this place do not necessarily seek selection as a candidate in the place where they previously lived or currently live. Indeed, I did not live in South Cambridgeshire before I sought selection as a candidate for that constituency, but that fact does not remove the principle. For example the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor)—he is no longer in his place, but he put a question at Prime Minister's questions—secured election as an Independent Member of Parliament. He secured election to the House on behalf of the place where he lives.

One might argue that the hon. Gentleman would not be affected by the measure because it deals with political parties, but is not the basis on which political parties select prospective Members of Parliament increasingly being influenced by the fact that they live in a particular place? In previous debates, the former Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, seemed to think that selection by political parties was all and that the merits of individual candidates were nothing, but that is not true of individuals. It was not true at the last election, and it will not be true in future, so it will be more important for political parties to select candidates who have links with the specific geographical area that they wish to represent.

Joan Ruddock

According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, if a seat has historically been held by one political party and all the evidence suggests that it will not change hands, a prospective Conservative candidate who lives in a traditionally Labour-held area could never become a Conservative candidate with any hope of success. Is he saying that those men should never consider becoming a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Lansley

No, I am not, but it is perfectly reasonable and entirely logical for people to seek selection as parliamentary candidates in the place where they live, and if they cannot do so they may well seek selection elsewhere.

Under what circumstances should we introduce a form of discrimination—a bar on such people seeking selection as a candidate in the place where they live? If I were a Conservative living in a strong Labour constituency the electorate would impose that bar on me. That is fair enough. In those specific circumstances, the hon. Lady advocates—but I oppose, under the amendment—telling a man that whatever his individual merits he is not good enough because a woman has to be selected for the constituency. He might have lived in the area for a long time, served as an elected representative and been the leader of the local council.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years women have sought selection in their home areas but have not succeeded, as the composition of the House shows? Does he agree that, in effect, that has been a bar to women becoming Members of Parliament?

Mr. Lansley

I have no doubt that that is precisely why the experience of all political parties is that such discrimination has occurred. The amendment is not intended to dispute the fact that women of equivalent, or substantially equivalent, merit to men have not been selected when they should have been. The issue is that Labour Members want to use the Bill to disbar a man from being selected even where he has far greater merit as a candidate by virtue of his specific personal circumstances, his relationship with a constituency and on the grounds of any objective assessment. That is wholly undesirable. In fact, not only is that inequitable, but it runs the risk of bringing into disrepute the positive action that needs to be taken to redress the lack of representativeness in the Chamber.

It is clear that my party needs to take further action, and in my view some of our ideas will make a substantive difference. If we were to contemplate introducing women-only shortlists, the process of trying to secure greater representation by women would be brought into disrepute. That is one of the reasons why we did not succeed in the past. The Conservative party sought women-only shortlists, but the Labour party's actions in the early 1990s were seen as inequitable and discriminatory and they brought into disrepute the adoption of such measures by the Conservative party.

Joan Ruddock

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Labour party introduced all-women shortlists, it took a regional approach, introduced the lists on the basis of consensus and applied them to only half its target seats? Contrary to his suggestion, our approach was not draconian. It applied to only a very few seats.

Mr. Lansley

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. The issue is what the Bill should allow people to do. If the hon. Lady is saying that it should not be used to create all-women shortlists that apply in a specific constituency, I agree with her. Furthermore, if she is suggesting that the Labour party should be able to introduce all-women shortlists on a regional basis through some form of twinning, I point out that twinning would still be acceptable under my amendment.

Perhaps the hon. Lady and the Minister will support the amendment because it would allow twinning to take place. If a couple of constituencies worked together, they would assess the merits of a man for selection in a particular geographical area—namely either of those constituencies—but they would select one woman and one man. That would be permissible under the amendment, as such an approach would be proportionate. However, it would not be proportionate for a man who on any objective basis is better qualified to be debarred from selection for an individual constituency.

Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

The hon. Gentleman said that, under his amendment, twinning would be acceptable, but I am not sure that he understands how it worked in reality. I understand the process because I am from Wales. Two constituencies would be twinned with one another and they would agree to be represented by one man and one woman. Under the system, a man could have double or treble the votes of a woman and a woman could have double or treble the votes of a man, but that person still might not be selected. The right of individual constituencies to select who they wanted was taken away. A constituency might overwhelming vote for a man or for a woman but, because of the system of twinning, its choice could be thrown out and a person of the. other sex brought in.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his view balances those expressed by other Labour Members. However. I do not go as far as he does. It is possible to devise a system of twinning that is proportionate and that would be acceptable under the Bill as amended by amendment No. 4. He refers to the votes cast in an individual constituency—that is the determining factor in any system adopted in the Conservative party—but that is not the same as an assessment of the merits of the candidates and their specific personal circumstances.

Under my amendment, a court would not only have to consider the preferences of members of an association—that is one factor—but assess whether a candidate who had a close relationship with an area and had substantially better merits than anyone else but who had been debarred from selection had had his merits objectively assessed.

Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey)

I am in my hon. Friend's debt, because he has tabled an important and interesting amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Members have not understood the significance of the amendment because—I do not wish to be provocative—the Labour party's tradition is much more authoritarian? The trade union culture of imposing rules and regulations is very different from the Conservative party's tradition, which is much more liberal, much more permissive and much less likely to be imposed from the centre. In the past, the Labour party had a serious problem because it was so dominated by the trade unions. It was very male and very white. However, using a pretty authoritarian approach, it changed the rules for women, and denied the interests of individual members in doing so. Is it not the different traditions that explain why Members on either side of the House have misunderstood each other?

5.15 pm

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I expect that our different traditions do explain some of the attitudes prevailing in each party. The response of the Labour party to any problem is to create a central directive that will remedy the matter. The intention in the Conservative party was always to try to work with the most relevant local organisation in order to secure the objective through consent.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Lansley

I will give way when I have responded to my right hon. Friend.

The objective in the Conservative party will always be to work through consent and in a democratic process involving members of local associations. I know that if my party responds positively to the legislation, it will do so in a way which none the less retains the ability of a constituency association to judge individual candidates on their merits. The system about which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I spoke earlier this year would allow a man who had a specific connection with a geographical area and substantial merits leading to his possible selection as a candidate in that constituency still to be considered by the association, regardless of shortlists.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has been patient. I give way to her.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Setting aside the extraordinary intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about the structures and mores of my party, and given that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attempting to preclude my party from advancing the cause of women and has been silent about whether his party has any plans at all for the advancement of women, may I return him to his point about regional links? The Bill will apply also to candidates for the European Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman define the piece of the infinitely larger European constituency with which any potential candidate would have to prove a specific relationship before selection?

Mr. Lansley

I should chide the hon. Lady. I am the last person who can be accused of being silent about what my party should do. Some months ago, before the Bill was presented to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and I set out from our personal perspective what we thought should be the position. I cannot say what my party will do. That will be decided by the board of the Conservative party, not by me. In due course my hon. Friend will no doubt chide the Minister who I am confident will not tell us what the Labour party will do using the powers under the Bill.

On the hon. Lady's substantive point, selection of candidates for the European Parliament would not be affected by the amendment. It would remain, as the Bill intends, entirely open for gender balance to be achieved in selection. The amendment makes it clear that the section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party … in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area". We are indeed speaking about a specific geographical area, but the amendment refers to the election of a single representative for that area, whereas in all regions there are a number of Members of the European Parliament.

Llew Smith

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understands how the twinning system worked in Wales for the election of candidates for the National Assembly. There could have been a situation in which someone had spent their entire political life in a particular constituency, held high office in the local council and achieved the overwhelming vote of that constituency, but still would not have been elected or put forward as a candidate because he or she was the wrong sex. is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is acceptable under his amendment?

Mr. Lansley

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There was some discussion in Committee about the twinning arrangement. Clearly, I have not participated in such an arrangement, as it has not been applied in our party. None the less, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to my amendment to remove the possibility to which he refers, I must say that I am not sure whether it would serve him. In the circumstances that he describes regarding a twinning process, men in the two constituencies would have had the opportunity for an assessment to be made of their specific personal circumstances and of their relationship with the geographical area in question. The simple fact that a larger number of members vote for a man would not necessarily convince a court that that should override the positive action measures that are being taken generally to deliver an outcome. There must be a subjective judgment about what is proportionate, and there is no way out of that.

My point is that it is disproportionate and unacceptable, prior to any assessment of whether a man can be considered, to apply to any constituency a bar on even assessing a man. In those circumstances, under all-women shortlists, a man would not get to a point at which members could vote for him at all. He would simply be excluded from consideration in individual constituencies. Those are the circumstances that the amendment is intended to prevent.

Julie Morgan

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of twinning in general. Certainly, my experience of twinning was different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). Throughout Wales as a whole, the proportion of women representatives achieved by twinning has been a big boost to Welsh politics, so I want to put it on record that the twinning arrangement has been good for Wales. I cannot understand, however, what he has got against the principle of dividing the seats in a region between men and women, which seems a very proportionate response to ensure that we have equal numbers of candidates.

Mr. Lansley

For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that the hon. Lady should interpret my remarks as meaning not that I am in favour of twinning, but that I would interpret my amendment as not precluding the possibility of twinning being one of the positive action measures that could be taken under the legislation. We know that the purpose of the legislation is permissive, but the question is what limitations the amendment would set upon that power. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) rightly probed that issue and sought to identify the limits. It is precisely the situation that the hon. Lady described in her last point that I am setting out to try to prevent—a situation in which, in an arbitrary fashion, a given number of constituencies are told that somebody cannot be considered because he is a man, before any assessment has been made of the merits of male candidates who live in those areas. Those are the specific circumstances that I am trying to preclude.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is contesting that the amendment is required to bring us into conformity with European legislation. If that is the case, however, it means that that European legislation exists and is binding, and that the amendment is otiose. I am also concerned about his suggestion that somebody's local connection is the key issue. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has a local connection, although it cannot be said to be more local because he talks about it all the time, and he used to have exactly the same degree of connection with Basildon. I am concerned that the amendment suggests that locality, rather than any other qualification, is appropriate for an assessment. I think that he is wrong about that.

Mr. Lansley

There are two points. First, on the latter point, the hon. Lady elevates the local connection as if it were the only part of the assessment. The assessment relates to specific personal circumstances, including a person's relationship with a geographical area. The point of focusing on that aspect is not that it is the connection that matters most. It is not necessarily that merit, but one of the lesser issues, that matters most. However, if it is important to individuals to be elected for a specific geographical area where they live, all-women shortlists could bar them arbitrarily. That is unacceptable.

The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) should check the second point with Labour Front-Bench Members. I do not believe that the Minister will consider the amendment otiose simply because the equal treatment directive or the Human Rights Act 1998 will make the test of proportionality in the amendment redundant. I think that the Minister will argue otherwise.

The Minister's view may be wrong. I am not a lawyer. and perhaps I am the last person to judge precisely whether he is right, but I suspect that he is wrong. Given the merit of the argument and the undesirability of arbitrarily barring men from standing for constituencies where they live, it may be better to include the test in the Bill rather than leave the measure open to legal challenge, which will mean uncertainty and cost for the political parties that try to deal with it.

The hon. Member for Slough appeared to be under the misapprehension that the measure applies only to selecting parliamentary candidates. It also applies to other bodies, but not to the European Parliament because we are not elected in single-member constituencies. Single-member wards are common in local government. The residence qualification for a local authority is based on living not in the ward but in the local government area.

Whatever we believe about the desirability of a Member of Parliament's prior local connection with a constituency, it is incontrovertible that such a connection is important for local government candidates. Introducing all-women shortlists to create gender balance, but, in the process, saying to a man who lives in a specific village in, for example, my constituency, "You cannot stand for election as district councillor because your ward will be used to achieve gender equality on our local council" is unacceptable.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he appeared to introduce an interesting variation on the definitions in the amendment. He said that a local government candidate, who seeks election for a single-member ward, would not necessarily have to live there, but would have to be resident in the local authority area. How does he justify that in the context of the amendment, which clearly does not allow for such an exception? It would provide that the relationship of a candidate who seeks election for a geographical area had to be with that specific geographical area".

Mr. Lansley

I am not talking about a legal qualification for selection. Local government and representation legislation provide that. One should be able to assess a candidate's merits. In the context of a local government election, the candidate's residence in the area will form a substantial part of the assessment. An assessment of a candidate's personal merits should also be made. That cannot be done if a political party imposes all-women shortlists on specific wards in a local authority area to try to achieve gender balance.

Joan Ruddock

The hon Gentleman is beginning to confuse us all. He appears to place incredible emphasis on exactly where a male candidate lives. He asks why a man should not be able to stand in a specific area. What is the hon. Gentleman's motivation? He has absorbed the culture of the favoured son who serves on the council and is being prepared for a seat. That is the implication of his defence of the amendment.

5.30 pm

Mr. Lansley

I like to think that I am being generous in giving way, but at this point, rather than my being confusing, it is the hon. Lady who is deliberately confused, unless the Labour party is going to introduce all-men shortlists and debar women under this legislation. I am talking about men because, in reality, all-women shortlists are the measure that the Labour party appears to be contemplating.

If the Labour party is contemplating all-women shortlists in specific local authorities to secure gender balance, it might say that, in the election of a member representing a single-member ward, men should be debarred from standing in that ward. I want to enable the Minister to be clear about this. A man could, therefore, be debarred from standing in the ward in which he lived, even though he might meet the local authority's residence qualification and could therefore seek election in that local authority area, somewhere other than where he lived. That seems an absurdity.

It has been entertaining to test the resolution of Labour Members to pursue all-women shortlists, even under what appear to be untenable circumstances. They appear to be set on that course, even though it seems undesirable. The pursuit of equal treatment is important and necessary, and the Conservative party can and should achieve greater equality in its selection processes. We know, although Labour Members may not, that to do so by using overt discrimination against men, even in exceptional circumstances, is a denial of our democratic processes of parliamentary representation and of representation in local government.

This legislation should not be the way forward for political parties. Regardless of whether the measures would, in practice, be circumscribed by the courts in terms of a test of proportionality similar to the one that I have described, hon. Members should accept the amendment to demonstrate that they are willing to apply such a test to the measures used to deliver this worthwhile objective. I look for support in the House.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for moving the amendment. I suspect that when he stood up to do so, he little thought that he would be on his feet for quite so long as he was because of the number of interventions that he took, especially from Labour Members. I found some of those interventions a little strange.

One of my hon. Friend's reasons for tabling the amendment is the importance of ensuring that whatever action is taken by political parties under the Bill—when it becomes an Act, as we assume that it will—it will be action that can be supported not only under this legislation, but under European Union legislation. As we have discussed in Committee, action taken by the Labour party is the most likely to be challenged, because the Labour party is the party most likely to move down the route of all-women shortlists, as opposed to the more proportionate attempts at positive action favoured by other political parties.

It is necessary to probe this issue because when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, most of us expected political parties to be free, under the permissive nature of the Bill—which I entirely support—to introduce whatever positive action they chose to achieve the aim of getting more women selected and then elected to the House and to other elected bodies.

However, the Minister brought us up a little sharp, as did the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, with a number of references to the importance for political parties of seeking legal advice before taking action. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire quoted the Minister directly when he said that the Government expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding. There was a considerable point in the Minister making those remarks and, I suspect, some feeling in respect of his own party because, as many hon. Members have said, if any action is to be challenged, it is most likely to be that of creating all-women shortlists. The party most likely to go down that route is the Labour party, so the Minister's party is most likely to be subject to a legal challenge and to require that advice.

I want to explore an aspect to which my hon. Friend referred but which has not been dealt with as explicitly as other aspects. It concerns the way in which the European Court of Justice has interpreted the law surrounding positive action. The Amsterdam treaty, which amended article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome, provides for positive action to be taken in circumstances where no gender balance exists in a particular area of representation. However, in interpreting the law in a number of cases, the European Court of Justice has tended to suggest that the positive action system should not be so rigid as to bar men totally from access to particular posts.

My hon. Friend made a valid point when he questioned the Minister on the differentiation between a post and selection for election as a.representative on an elected body. I looked at cases that tested the original 1976 European Council directive. We should look not just at the Abrahamsson case, but at others such as the Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen case—I apologise to the House for my pronunciation—in which the court ruled that on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment … as regards access to employment, vocation training and promotion, and working conditions precludes national rules such as those in the present case which, where candidates of different sexes shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified, automatically give priority to women in sectors where they are underrepresented". In the Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen case, the court made specific reference to the phrase that my hon. Friend has put in amendments Nos. 4 and 3. It said: where there are fewer women than men at the level of the relevant post"— the court was looking at public sector service— and both female and male candidates … are equally qualified … priority be given to promotion of female candidates"— under various conditions— provided that: in each individual case the rule provides for male candidates who are equally as qualified as the female candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be the subject of an objective assessment which will take account of all criteria specific to the candidates". That was again tested in the case of Georg Badeck and others v. Land of Hesse. The same phrase was used in the judgment: provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the specific personal situations of all candidates". The issue was tested again in the case that we tend to quote in this context because it was the most obvious challenge to positive action—the Abrahamsson case. It was held in that case that an automatic preference for an inferior candidate solely because of sex was precluded by the directive, and that application of article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome did not overturn that particular judgment.

As all those cases show, the issue of positive action cannot be addressed in isolation. The issue is set against the background of the need objectively to assess a candidate's specific qualifications and personal situation in relation to the positive action that is being sought. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) have therefore specifically included in amendments Nos. 4 and 3 the words specific personal situations of the candidates". There were many interventions and much discussion on the issue of locality and whether a candidate should be required to live in a specific locality. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made clear, and as anyone reading the amendment would see, the issue of a relationship with a specific geographical area may be encompassed by the "specific personal situations" mentioned in the amendments; it is not an exclusive requirement.

The distinction may deal with the point that the Minister made in his intervention on the legal qualifications to stand for local authority office and the requirement to live in a local authority geographical area as opposed to a specific ward in that local authority. Nevertheless, living in a specific ward may be part of the "specific personal situations" that could be taken into account in assessing the candidates.

Various hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), in various interventions—have speculated on what the Conservative party will do. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, he and I are perhaps the two Conservative Members who least deserve to be challenged on the issue by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate because we have proposed to our party a positive way forward on the issue. Although it is, of course, for our party to choose which route to pursue, we have made positive proposals.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham for tabling their amendments, which are intended to test the issue. Case law sends a message on the issue. If the legislation does not incorporate amendments to reflect that case law, it is possible that a political party—we assume that it will be the Labour party—that chooses all-women shortlists will find that its all-women shortlists are challenged. I apologise to hon. Members as I have not seen the reference, but I understand that Mr. Jepson, who took the Labour party to an industrial tribunal when it first introduced all-women shortlists, has said that he would consider challenging, on the basis that I have outlined, the party's decision to reintroduce such lists.

In a sense, therefore, the amendments have been introduced to help the Government to operate the legislation and to address the issue of what positive action the political parties can take. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. If he is concerned about the possibility of legal challenge to certain types of positive action, as there most likely will be to all-women shortlists, he should very carefully consider accepting the amendments. They attempt specifically to ensure that the legislation clarifies the types of allowable positive action, thereby reducing the likelihood of legal challenge to political parties that try to take such action.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

The hon. Member for South. Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has done us a favour by moving amendment No. 4, if only because this debate allows us to test on the Floor of the House some of the proportionality issues that we did not fully explore in Committee. He described his amendments as a pre-emptive test of proportionality. I think that such a test is valuable and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

It is slightly ironic that, in legislation that is short, simple and permissive, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire wanted to be more restrictive. Having described the Labour party as much more centralist and directive, he tried to represent the Conservative party as more decentralised and liberal. That is not a description that I recognise, having fought the Conservative party for over 30 years.

Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has done us a service by raising the overall issue of proportionality. As was constantly made clear in Committee, it must be true that however permissive the legislation is in allowing the parties to adopt their own response to the situation that they face, they must do that in a proportionate manner. The Minister was constantly telling us that.

As both earlier speakers said, at several points in Committee—and, indeed, on Second Reading—I was at pains to point out that there was already evidence suggesting that the Bill was likely to cause more legal wrangling rather than less. Knowing the sort of expense that the parties might have to incur, I felt that the House had a responsibility to try and pass legislation that was, as far as possible, invulnerable to excessive legal challenge and interpretation. The issue of proportionality is clearly the key issue in terms of interpretation.

5.45 pm

My normal response to legislation is this: the simpler it is, the less likely the lawyers are to get at it. That is why I have a real problem with the amendment. For reasons with which the Minister may, I suspect, agree, it is likely to cause more trouble rather than less. The references to legal advice made this afternoon and in Committee are entirely appropriate—and, as I said on Second Reading, Labour is likely to be first in the dock. Although the party may have access to a certain distinguished lawyer at No. 10 Downing street, which may give it preferential terms, the process will still be expensive. Nevertheless, I think it right for us to consider the question of balance.

We should pay particular tribute to all the preparatory work done by Meg Russell and the constitution unit. Meg Russell's 2000 and 2001 reports set out, in effect, the options open to Parliament and Government. I am struck by the fact that she even anticipated this issue in dealing with the Badeck case, mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She stated succinctly—how beneficial it is to learn of the feminine attitude to these matters: This case found that national rules which gave priority to women when men and women had equal qualifications were acceptable in areas where women were under-represented provided that the rules guaranteed an objective assessment taking account of the specific personal situations of the candidates. The amendment is very much a response to that.

The Minister has a problem. He must try. either here or in the other place, to give some assurances that his party—and perhaps others, in due course—will not run into difficulties. I think that we were led down a false path, and that the issue of locality was a red herring. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not bring out as vividly and as succinctly as the hon. Member for Maidenhead the inclusivity. as opposed to exclusivity. I happen to live about 500 yd outside my constituency, but I have spent all my adult life in Cornwall. Indeed, where I live used to be in my constituency before the boundary commission came along and moved the boundary. Does that still give me a geographical connection?

I feel that the amendment lays too much stress on that issue; there may well be others just as important. For that reason, I suspect that, in due course, we shall find that the amendment does not really achieve what we wish to achieve. That, however, does not absolve the Minister of his responsibility to deal with a specific problem that his party and, no doubt, others may face. I hope that he will give us reassuring answers.

Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham)

I support the amendment, which, indeed, is in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).

As was established in Committee, there is widespread support for the Bill's principles, and its attempt to improve women's representation in Parliament. It is important that we get it right, however. The amendment reflects the series of cases, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that established the basis on which positive action could be taken.

One of the cases that gave rise to the Bill was Mr. Jepson's legal action against the Labour Party. In Committee, there was much discussion about whether a legal challenge to the Bill could succeed. In this month's edition of The Parliamentary Monitor, Mr. Jepson raises his head again, saying that he believes the Bill will

collapse if it could be proved it is a vehicle through which to introduce controversial all-women shortlists. He dismissed government claims that there will be no legal problem providing 'positive action is proportionate to the issue'. He went on to say: Excluding all men or all women has no element of proportionality. The government is claiming this is positive action when it is actually positive discrimination. There is a difference—positive action, such as advertising in women's magazines, is legal—whilst positive discrimination is not. Clearly, those issues will be dealt with in a court of law if he challenges the Bill, but it is important to introduce some proportionality now.

I want to refer to my experience in finding a seat before the general election and the issue of people with a local link. Contrary to what Government Members have said about their experience of being selected, I know that some people put forward their name to represent solely one seat, and no other. When I was selected to fight Fareham, there were people who wanted to represent only that seat.

In taking any measure to increase the representation of women in Parliament, we should be careful not to exclude people who want to represent the seat in which they live or for which they have another criterion that makes them especially suitable. In my area, someone with a military background might be highly appropriate to stand in seats in Portsmouth or Gosport, but might be precluded from doing so by the adoption of a particular kind of shortlist.

We need to have an objective assessment of who should be considered for adoption as a candidate and there should be guidance in law to ensure that parties can frame their procedures to take proportionality into account. It is not Parliament's job to frame laws that will lead people to incur unnecessary legal costs because the drafting has not taken into account the full range of circumstances that might exist and the framework of recent European Union legislation. The cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead set a clear trend: we must consider objectively the merits of all candidates when taking positive action, and we should not prefer a female candidate if all the other criteria match. All candidates should be able to set out the criteria that make them suitable to represent a seat.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I apologise for coming in late, but I have found the arguments fascinating and that is why I have stayed. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but are the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues saying that preference should be given to local people? It seems that one of the factors in the amendment is that those with local links would be given preference, and I would have thought that most undesirable.

Mr. Hoban

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have benefited from being here to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who gave a clear exposition of the case. We are saying that, in any attempt to redress the gender imbalance in the House, we should not prefer female candidates in all cases, and that where candidates are ostensibly of equal merit, we should think about objective criteria that make one of them more particularly suited for the seat. That is not solely limited to the fact that someone is local, but that may be a factor. We are talking about selecting a candidate for one seat, not a group of seats, and we need to be proportionate in our response.

Mr. Lansley

Selection for parliamentary constituencies often consists of national candidates and local candidates. We do not say that local candidates should be given preference: the issue is whether they are to be debarred from being considered.

Mr. Hoban

Indeed. We should certainly not, by any measures that we take to change the composition of the House, debar local candidates from selection. That is the crucial point of the amendment. The Minister should take it seriously, to ensure that the Bill is not subject to legal challenge once it is enacted.

Glenda Jackson

I felt I must speak against the amendment and Opposition Members' arguments, which have demonstrated a failure to remember why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It is not dedicated to absolute equality of opportunity: it is designed specifically to redress the gross inequalities that prevail against women who believe that they have a part to play in the political life of their country and find that the selection processes—even before we get to a decision by the electorate—preclude them from stating their case.

It took the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire a long time to get around to the basis for the amendment, which is to stop the Labour party adopting all-women shortlists, but that is something for the Labour party to decide. If we waited for the proposals that the Conservative party has been pushed kicking and screaming into acknowledging that it has to introduce in relation to the selection of women, there would be even fewer women on these green Benches.

There is something fundamentally confused in the thinking on this subject, as we saw when the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) referred to the necessity of selecting candidates with a military background for constituencies close to his. Such thinking may be replicated throughout the House. The obvious response is that he does not seem to realise that there are women in our armed forces—some in positions of great responsibility. The assumption is that if it is military it is automatically masculine.

Mrs. May

If the Bill is enacted as it stands and the Labour party adopts all-women shortlists that are successfully legally challenged, what will the hon. Lady say to Ministers in her Government?

Glenda Jackson

I can only say to the hon. Lady that I was selected from an all-women shortlist, before the idea of making that part and parcel of my party's structure was voted for overwhelmingly at two successive party conferences. There was no challenge. It was a decision for the individual constituency party.

In my experience, when I was privileged to campaign in seats where women had been selected under our all-women shortlist procedure, admittedly the individual constituency parties were somewhat chagrined in the first instance that they had been chosen for this groundbreaking development in equality for women, but their subsequent response, without exception, was that they had never seen candidates of such quality and their real difficulty was in selecting only one from four excellent women. With one exception, I believe, all the women selected to fight the election in 1997 were returned in 2001, because they are excellent.

It is interesting that the hon. Lady automatically presupposes that a legal challenge would win. I see no reason to suppose that, but if it did, presumably my party, along with others, would have to exercise a little more imagination. The basic issue is that the Bill was introduced specifically—with, up to now, the unanimous support of all political parties—to redress the gross inequities that still work against women who want to participate in the political life of this country, be it on local or central Government level. That is why, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall certainly oppose it.

6 pm

Mr. Raynsford

We have had a long and somewhat convoluted debate on what has been almost universally recognised as a short and simple Bill. The danger is that we will lose touch with the fundamental issue and we would perhaps have run that risk but for the appropriate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that concluded the debate, in which she rightly drew attention to the main reason for the introduction of the Bill—to remedy the chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies, including the House, local government, the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament.

The fact that the imbalance is less in the devolved bodies is an interesting reflection of the fact that when the parties were selecting candidates for those bodies, the issue of gender balance was on the agenda and specific positive measures were taken to try to ensure a more balanced outcome than happens at Westminster. In terms of the representation of the parties at Westminster, the fact that we have a significantly larger—but by no means adequate—representation of women on. the Labour Benches is the result of the measures that were adopted by our party before the Jepson judgment. Those measures allowed a substantial increase in 1997 from the position of the early 1990s. As I commented in Committee, the fact that post-Jepson it was not possible for similar measures to be used by the Labour party when selecting candidates for the 2001 general election meant that the representation of women on the Government Benches was marginally less than before. The momentum had been lost.

The issue is crucial and one that we cannot avoid. It requires urgent action, and the Bill will achieve that. When the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) moved his amendment, he said that the Bill risked reintroducing the uncertainties caused by the Jepson judgment, but he is wrong on that point. The Bill is designed to remove the uncertainties caused by Jepson, which, as I have already conceded, led our party not to adopt similar measures—to those we had adopted before 1997—before the 2001 general election. It is precisely for that reason that we have framed the Bill so as to make it possible for political parties to adopt measures that will make it more likely that the outcome—in Committee, we focused on outcomes rather than on processes—would be a significant increase in the proportion of women candidates elected. The Bill would achieve that aim, and the amendment would not be helpful. Indeed, it would be disadvantageous in several ways.

Before I deal with the disadvantages of the amendment, I shall discuss the legal issues which rightly pre-occupied many of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire drew extensively on the Abrahamsson case in the way he presented his case and in the very wording of his amendment. I remind the House that that case was brought in relation to the appointment of a candidate to an academic post. Indeed, all the cases from the European Court that have been cited in the course of the debate have all been related to the appointment of candidates, not the selection of candidates for election. As I stated on Second Reading and in Committee, in our view there is a clear distinction, in terms of European law, between the appointment process and the selection of candidates for election. Our view is that the latter does not fall within the ambit of Community law.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred, appropriately, to the report, "Making It Happen", by Meg Russell from the constitution unit. The report, which relates to the Bill, makes a relevant and well expressed point that: it is extremely unlikely that the European Court of Justice would (as UK courts have done with respect to the Sex Discrimination Act) outlaw positive action for women in the party selection process by ruling that it is covered by employment provisions. The European Commission has twice stated a clear belief that selection of candidates by political parties does not fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive, in answer to questions in the European Parliament. If the court were to rule that EU law extended to candidate selection by parties, this would create chaos for those many parties all around the EU which use quota systems. As described in Appendix 2, strict positive action measures are now even enshrined in domestic law in some states such as France. In practice it would be politically impossible for the European Court of Justice to overturn these systems, and it can easily be argued that selection of candidates for political office is outside the competence of the EU. In the course of our considerations we have obviously referred to people expert in such matters, and those comments are apposite and should guide our judgments.

If we were to accept the amendment, we would introduce a limitation into the Bill that is unnecessary and which would limit political parties' freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to use the provisions of the Bill. We have stressed throughout that the Bill is permissive and the amendment strays away from that by seeking to dictate limits on the kind of measures that could be considered by political parties. It is not appropriate for the House to impose such specific restrictions on the way in which political parties order their selection criteria. It is right that the legislation should allow political parties to adopt measures that seek to meet the objective for which the Bill was introduced, but it is not right to prescribe in detail the measures that parties can adopt.

Mr. Lansley

The Minister has sought to reassure us about the application of European Union law, but he has not touched on the question of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and whether the argument about objective and reasonable justification for the measures, as a departure from what would otherwise be equal treatment, might apply.

Mr. Raynsford

As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we covered that ground on Second Reading and in Committee, but I shall present the issues once again. The first principle is that the concept of candidate selection differs from the concept of appointment of a candidate to a post of paid employment. I have already made that distinction. The second issue, which we have considered in some detail, is one of proportionality. Measures that seek to remedy a wrong must be proportionate to the wrong that they seek to redress. We have considered that principle and the Bill contains a sunset clause so that the impact of any measures that might be introduced under the Bill can be reviewed at a future date when the imbalance that exists in all elected bodies in this country will have been reduced, if not eliminated. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that issue of proportionality when he considers the issue of human rights.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have made it clear that I do not intend to be drawn into the respective merits of specific measures that political parties might take under the provisions of the Bill. Parties themselves must have their own discussions, and decide internally which measures, if any, they wish to use. It was a little rich of the hon. Gentleman to chide me on the fact that I would not suggest what measures the Labour party would introduce when he made it clear that he could not say what measures the Conservative party would introduce, even though he and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) have been almost lone voices in their party in pressing for positive measures to further the cause of women's representation.

Mr.Lansley

The record will show that I was not chiding the Minister, but predicting that he would not be able to say what action the Labour party would take. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) chided me for not being able to say what the Conservative party would do. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have aired our views and if the chairman of the Labour party were here, we might chide him. As he often shares the Front Bench with the Minister, perhaps he will have something to offer us.

Mr. Raynsford

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the chairman of the Labour party, will indeed want to consider the scope that the Bill, as and when it is enacted, offers our party and all other parties, and introduce appropriate measures to increase further the representation of women here and in other elected assemblies and local authorities where the Labour party puts up candidates.

I will reiterate: our view is that the candidate selection process falls outside the ambit of EU law and, as such, the equal treatment directive does not impose limits on the measures that political parties can consider. With that in mind, I firmly believe that the Bill should remain permissive and set no limits.

The amendment, apart from potentially confusing a Bill which is essentially simple, risks making it much more prescriptive, and we disagree with that.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to geographical areas. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that that was something of a red herring. Although we would not want to underestimate the fact that people may wish to select a candidate who has a local link, that is only one of many factors that parties will want to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made the very valid point that he does not fall within the remit of the amendment because he lives just outside his constituency.

Mr. Lansley

I am sorry to be tedious and intervene again, but both the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the Minister are wrong. The amendment is perfectly clear. It refers to a connection with a specific geographical area; it does not state that candidates would have to live within a specific geographical area and it is only one factor that might be taken into account in considering a candidate's personal situation. I would be grateful if the Minister would not misrepresent the amendment even if he objects to it.

Mr. Raynsford

I was simply picking up the points that were forcefully argued by the hon. Gentleman. Many of his hon. Friends referred to the merits of parties being able to select people who lived within certain areas. If he is now saying that his amendment would not achieve that effect, what is its purpose if it would allow someone to use the obscure reference that they happened to have passed through the constituency of South Cambridgeshire in 1937 to claim a local connection with the area?

Mr. Tyler

rose—

Mrs. May

rose—

Mr. Raynsford

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Maidenhead.

Mr. Tyler

In order to avoid further misrepresentation and confusion, let me say that I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. However, this discussion illustrates how dangerous it would be to go down this path. It happens that my ancestors arrived in Cornwall in 1066. Is that a connection with the constituency?

6.15 pm

David Winnick

Can the hon. Gentleman prove it?

Mr. Tyler

Yes, I can. Is it more significant than the fact that I was not born there and I live 500 yd outside my constituency? Adding extra burdens to legislation will inevitably lead us to such confusion while keeping it simple will, I hope, keep the legal bills cheap.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who has told us a most interesting fact about his own ancestry, makes an extremely sound point and I could not put it better. The amendment would add an unnecessary complication which would add all sorts of arguments over interpretation and ambiguity to what is in essence a simple Bill.

Mrs. May

I merely wish to point out yet again that the Minister's suggestion that the amendment stands or falls on the issue of locality and whether somebody has a relationship with a specific geographical area is a complete misreading and misinterpretation of the amendment. As he has already acknowledged, the amendment is specific in that it would introduce into the Bill wording that has been used in the European Court of Justice cases which specifically say that positive action can be taken in certain areas, provided that there is an assessment that takes account of a specific personal situation. That is what matters. A relationship with a specific geographical area is merely one factor that could, but would not necessarily, be included in that assessment.

Mr. Raynsford

I understand clearly what the hon. Lady is saying, but I put it to her ever so gently that Conservative Members have placed considerable emphasis on the geographic issue and that is why I have tried to respond to it. I take her point that the wording relates to cases that have been heard before the European Court of Justice, but I reiterate that all those cases related to employment. It is our contention that employment is a different issue from candidate selection as quite different criteria apply. That is the key point.

The amendment also refers to personal situations. We had an interesting debate in Committee in which the hon. Lady quite rightly and very graphically described the kind of problems that arise in the selection process when women are asked inappropriate questions.

Introducing the concept of personal situations risks legitimising exactly the undesirable questions that she was at pains to criticise in Committee. If it is legitimate to delve into personal situations, how can it be wrong for parties to start asking awkward questions about women's availability to carry out certain functions or the impact of family responsibilities on their ability to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities or other such entirely inappropriate questions which the hon. Lady and other members of the Committee said made it very difficult in some cases for women candidates to be selected?

I am afraid that the introduction of this concept into the Bill would tend to legitimise a process that we all accept is undesirable.

Mr. Lansley

I am afraid that this is the Minister's most bogus argument so far. By switching off the application of the Sex Discimination Act 1975, the Bill opens the door to such a possibility which the Minister says should not be happening. In any case, the procedures applied by political parties should avoid that.

Mr. Raynsford

I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if he put that concept into the Bill, it would be impossible to prevent the kind of malpractice that he and his colleagues rightly criticised in Committee.

For the following reasons, therefore, I believe that the amendment is inappropriate. It is unnecessary because it misconstrues the impact of the cases in the European Court of Justice that hon. Members have quoted. It unnecessarily complicates a Bill which is clear and simple and it introduces potentially undesirable elements which could work against the Bill's very purpose. We do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable and I trust that the House will reject it.

Mr. Lansley

I take entirely the Minister's point that complicating the Bill should be avoided in all possible circumstances. If it can be simple, so much the better, therefore in this context everything rests on the validity or otherwise of his assertion that the equal treatment directive and the application of European Union law will not impact on candidate selection and that. effectively, EU law will not apply to the activities of political parties. I hope that he is right. It would be reasonable for the Government, and subsequently political parties, to try to sustain that in courts and to try to keep the EU out of the legislation. I suspect that he will be wrong and that, as in so many of these issues, European legislation will creep in.

I do not accept the Minister's other arguments about introducing undesirable features. The amendment would have done precisely what it was intended to do and in a targeted fashion, but as the Labour party appears set on allowing itself the opportunity of all-women short lists, there is little benefit in pressing the amendment to a Division. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall was generous enough to say, I hope that by raising the issues in this way, we will at least have exposed to the House and perhaps to a wider public that what might otherwise seem a simple Bill raises important issues that people should examine carefully. They should understand the nature of what is intended by the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

6.20 pm

Mr. Raynsford

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have heard some interesting and useful contributions during the debate, and there were many more in Committee. Women make up just under one fifth of hon. Members, and we all agree that that is not acceptable in 2001.

The under-representation of women in politics at all levels requires urgent attention. Political parties must ask themselves why so few women successfully come through the selection process.

Recent research by the Fawcett Society confirms that women face discrimination in the selection process. I shall not go into detail, as we heard enough evidence in previous debates. The lack of women in politics, however, deprives our political processes of many important contributions; women have much to contribute in a huge variety of ways. They are grossly under-represented in the House, as they are to a lesser extent in other elected bodies, and all those bodies are the poorer.

Since 1996, when the employment tribunal in the Jepson case ruled that the Labour party policy of all-women shortlists was illegal, parties have been wary of using positive measures to reduce gender inequality. The Bill is designed to remedy that problem and to give parties the confidence to use positive measures again.

I repeat that the Government believe that all political parties must decide for themselves how to make use of this permissive Bill. We believe that it would be prudent for all parties to take legal advice about the measures that they propose to adopt before they put them into practice. That is not a sign that we lack confidence in the Bill. Offering that advice is a measure of the Government's prudence, and I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit.

Political parties will have different views about how best to increase women's representation. The Bill gives them the freedom to decide the right way to proceed, but they must take responsibility for their decisions.

I am delighted that there is broad commitment to the Bill's principles. Contributions to the Bill's consideration have been constructive, and its central tenet has not been questioned. No one doubts that something desperately needs to be done to reduce the imbalance in the numbers of men and women elected.

I hope that the Bill will redress a fundamental imbalance and go some way towards making our democracy more representative, effective and reflective of the population at large. In the end, however, that will depend on outcome and what happens at the ballot box. We shall be able to judge the Bill's success only when we see what happens in elections to this House, local government, the European Parliament and the devolved Assemblies in the future.

I hope that the measures taken by all political parties will increase substantially the number of women candidates, and that the electorate as a result will be in a position to elect many more women to Parliament and other elected assemblies in this country.

I commend the Bill to the House.

6.24 pm

Mrs. May

I shall be brief, as we have already heard many contributions.

I repeat that the official Opposition support the Bill's aim, which is to get more women elected to Parliament and to other elected bodies. We also support the fact that the Bill is permissive, and allows political parties to make their own judgments about the action that they should take to ensure that more women are selected, and then elected. In an earlier debate, the Minister rightly said that we were interested in more than the process of selection, and that the outcome of the Bill's enactment would be that more women would be elected to representative positions in elected bodies.

The Minister rightly said that all political parties must ask themselves why so few women become elected representatives. We in the Conservative party have been doing just that. We are very aware that there are very few women on the Conservative Benches, and that our party must act to improve that.

Women must be encouraged to see election to this House as a career that is open for them to pursue. Showing that political parties are serious about enabling women to be elected to the House is an important part of the process of encouraging women to come forward for selection in the first place. If women outside do not see a significant number of women in the House, they will consider that the job is not for them, or that they will not succeed at it. If that is what they feel, they will ask why they should bother to go through the hassle and possibly even the trauma of a selection process that ends only in rejection.

I pay tribute to all the women in my party who put themselves forward for election and go through that selection process. Many of them would make excellent Members of Parliament if they could succeed in getting elected. We support the Bill and want there to be more women in the House, but not for any tokenistic reason. We support it because it will enable us to take the positive action of our choice to ensure that women of talent—who would make a good contribution to the House and represent their constituencies well—are able to strengthen Parliament and improve our debates and our discussion of legislation. It is important therefore that we ensure that the Bill is allowed to proceed.

The Minister said that many women feel discriminated against in the current selection processes. The MORI report on equal opportunities interviewed 400 female candidates, and four out of every 10 said that party selection committees favoured men over women. We want candidates in the future to be selected on their merits, and not because of their gender.

I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said earlier, when he talked about the suitability of individuals for particular constituencies. I know that the actions of political parties are not a matter for the House, but I contend that my party—and I suspect others—needs to adopt a more professional approach to selecting candidates. Such an approach should take proper account of the skills needed by Members of Parliament, or by members of the other elected bodies to which the Bill applies. A more professional approach in that respect would also help constituencies.

The job of a Member of Parliament has changed over the years, and political parties should reflect that change in their selection processes. We must recognise the different abilities that hon. Members need today, compared to what was required in the 1950s, or in earlier centuries.

The Opposition support the Bill. It is important that women are given a proper opportunity to be selected to stand as candidates in the name of political parties and to gain election to the House. Women should not be debarred, effectively, from election to the House because the selection process discriminates against them.

The Bill will enable each party to make its own judgment about what positive action to take. The Bill is permissive, and I welcome that. I support the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that more women are elected to this House and to other representative bodies.

6.30 pm

Joan Ruddock

This is a night for real celebration, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister wholeheartedly on bringing forward the Bill and on having conducted our proceedings in such a helpful and consensual way.

I have a particular interest in this matter because I was once a Minister with responsibility for women. At the time, there was considerable controversy over all-women shortlists, which were defeated by the tribunal judgment. Sadly, without a challenge—although I had hoped for one—the decision went against such shortlists. I was certain that our political party would return to type.

There was also the difficulty of a possible challenge over twinning in Wales and Scotland in selecting candidates for the devolved Assembly and Parliament. Fortunately, with a great deal of pressure from Labour Members, particularly our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, those measures were passed. The all-women shortlists adopted by the Labour party for the 1997 elections and for the devolved Parliament and Assembly in the twinning procedure were hugely successful, not only in bringing greater numbers of women into our elected bodies but in bringing women's views and contributions to those legislatures in ways that had never been seen before.

Sadly, many people regarded the presence of a greater number of women in this House as a means by which to totally transform it. That was never possible, but perhaps some of the aspirations that were dashed led to people believing that female Labour Members had not made as big a contribution as had been expected. The fact is that the women who came through the all-women shortlists have proved themselves to be superb contributors to the House and very popular in their constituencies. It has been pointed out that, with one exception, they were all returned at the last election. There can be no doubt about the worth of bringing women into this Parliament through the mechanisms that we have adopted.

As I said, we were certain that the party would return to type. That is what happened in the selections that preceded the elections to this House in 2001. We must remember that, and accept that it can only mean that there is deep prejudice in the selection of candidates for elected office. That discrimination is against women and, of course, people from ethnic minorities. It is true of all parties. Only mechanisms such as those in the Bill will change that pattern of behaviour.

For those parties that have not had the courage of ours, the challenge, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, is to find mechanisms that can produce the appropriate outcomes. Nothing that we have heard so far in our debates has led me to believe that, in selections for local government and Westminster, other parties have in mind mechanisms that will deliver. If we fail to deliver in introducing mechanisms that lead to proper outcomes, we will continue to have an extreme democratic deficit in this place.

More than 80 per cent. of our Members are men. That cannot be effective representation. There are two ways in which groups can be represented—one is to have their own Members speaking for them, the other is to have Members speaking on their behalf. I know which option women would prefer, and I know which is most effective. If I can say that for my gender, I am quite sure that it is even more true for people of ethnic minority backgrounds.

The time is right. This is the 21st century, and we have to produce a Parliament that better reflects our population. That can be done only if our political parties enthusiastically grasp what I hope will become an Act and thereby offer them, and us, the opportunity, once and for all, to begin positively on the road that will end the democratic deficit on gender. Furthermore, although there is no such provision in the Bill, we must also deal with the selection of people from ethnic minorities.

Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who looks as though he might want to intervene. No, he is just encouraging me and listening with attention, for which I am grateful.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) who, along with a number of her female colleagues, has made serious attempts to change the culture in the Conservative party. That change is long overdue and difficult to make. and I congratulate her on her efforts.

This is an historic occasion. I hope that the Bill will be very speedy in its passage through the other place so that it becomes an Act in time for the new selections in our political parties.

6.37 pm

Mr. Tyler

I, too, congratulate Ministers on introducing the Bill. To echo the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the Bill also has a number of godmothers, including the hon. Lady herself, and we thank them.

Let me follow the hon. Lady by putting this in historical perspective. It has taken an awfully long time just to get this far. It is important to remember that women got the vote as long ago as 1918, when the first woman Member was elected to this House. It took until 1928, of course, for the restrictions that had previously been imposed to be removed. Until then, a woman had to be over 30, a householder, or wife of a householder—that must have stuck in the gullet—a university graduate, or rent property of a certain value.

The Minister and other members who served on the Committee may recall that my mother appeared briefly in our proceedings. She is celebrating her birthday today, and I am not there to assist. She had to wait until she was 27, in 1928, to involve herself fully in the political process. Before then, she drove cars at Cornish elections and got excited about them, but she could not take part. Therefore, it is important to bring a sense of humility to the legislation. We are taking a step forward but, my goodness, it has taken a long time.

We discussed outcomes on Second Reading and in Committee. We cannot be satisfied with the legislation if it does not produce results. That is why there is a responsibility not just on the parties to look at the legislation carefully but on the Government of the day and the House to monitor the success with which it is applied. I have frequently drawn the Government's attention to the fact that legal advice will undoubtedly be required by all parties. The Government owe it to the House, quite apart from individual parties, to ensure that the legislation is effective. That is why there is a role for Government legal advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who took part in proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, is unable to be here because this debate coincides with our party meeting. I think that she would agree that women Members bring to the House an ability to be rather more succinct, sensitive and, occasionally, consensual than their male counterparts. I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will not take offence when I say that his 40-minute contribution this afternoon was admirably summarised in about eight minutes by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) from the Front Bench. Therefore, I intend to be as brief as I can to show that we all have a feminine side.

The progress of the Bill in Committee has been a model of how best to exchange views in a consensual rather than a confrontational manner, and that is partly a result of the fact that the legislation is more permissive and less prescriptive. We need to study the way in which legislation is applied and it will stand the test of time better if it has that feature.

The Bill also contains a sunset clause, which Members on both sides of the Committee recognised as being of real value. It will concentrate the mind of Parliament to look again to see whether the outcomes have been achieved, rather than simply letting the legislation sit on the shelf gathering dust and saying, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter if we're not getting anywhere."

My leg has been pulled at various stages about the way in which the Liberal Democrat party conference approached this issue. Those who want to read the motion that was passed will find it in the Library guide to those proceedings; they will not then have to contribute to party funds by buying a conference report.

Clearly, my colleagues were apprehensive about going so far as to put in place a system before the legislation was enacted, but we do not rule out the need for action in our party. Goodness knows, we are not proud of the fact that we have not succeeded in getting a reasonable proportion of women Members of Parliament—only 10 per cent.

We have been much more successful in local government, and the Minister will recall that at the European elections we put in place positive action—zipping, as it was then called—with the triumphant conclusion that we elected five Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament of each sex. We achieved total equality. Since then, I am afraid, a number of other parties have lost Members to us and we have lost that equality, but that is the name of the game and I cannot complain. We recognise that this permissive legislation may well be required in our party and we welcome the fact that it has been left in a format that will enable us to make maximum use of it.

There was only one element of the contribution of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that I would not want to endorse. I would look at the matter from a slightly different angle. It is very important that we all recognise that the Bill is not intended to favour women or to help them; it is intended to favour Parliament and the nation. I do not say that all women want women to represent them, but if Parliament is not fully representative of the majority of the population and there are clear obstacles to effective representation of all parts of the community, that is a weakness.

Joan Ruddock

rose—

Mr. Tyler

I am about to complete my speech, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I want to be succinct and, in this respect, more female than male.

Parliament as a whole will benefit from the way in which the legislation rolls out and the parties respond to it. As the hon. Lady said, there is a democratic deficit, but that is not a gender issue as such; it is a parliamentary issue. This Parliament is weakened by the fact that it is not as representative as it should be of all the community that we serve.

6.43 pm

Julie Morgan

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to be a member of the short Standing Committee and by the all-party support for the Bill.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I think that this is a day to rejoice. Eventually, this legislation will transform politics in this House, so it is a historic day.

I am glad that all the political parties have woken up to the fact that it is beneficial to have women in Parliament and at all levels of government to ensure, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, that our laws are better. That is the crucial point. We need women here to ensure that our laws are fully informed by different sections of the population. That is the ultimate end. We need women if we are to make better laws and we are taking a big step towards that goal today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on leading us so ably through the Standing Committee debates and this debate today.

When we have resolved this issue, I would also support measures to tackle the under-representation of black and ethnic minority members at all levels of government. The National Assembly for Wales has no black or ethnic minority Members. That is the necessary next stage after this legislation.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the article in The Parliamentary Monitor about Dr. Peter Jepson, who challenged the Labour party's all-women shortlists in 1996, in which he said that if Labour proceeded with such shortlists he would put himself forward as a candidate in an all-women shortlist seat. That would paint an interesting picture in Wales—someone putting himself forward for such a seat—as I think that we may well adopt all-women shortlists. I am mystified by Dr. Jepson's attitude. He seems to want deliberately to wreck the plans of the party to achieve fair representation.

It is interesting to think of all the women who were excluded from all-male shortlists for so many years. They found other ways to contribute to the community and Government, in all the different ways that women do contribute. We should remember the all-male shortlists that existed for so many years. On Second Reading, I said that in Wales we have only had seven women MPs since 1918. We cannot get away from those facts, which is why I am so pleased that the Bill is proceeding today; I am glad that all the parties support it.

It is right for the legislation to be permissive. Now, it is up to all of us to sort out this problem in our parties. I think that there is no option other than all-women shortlists or twinning, but the latter is difficult unless one is setting up a new type of legislature.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster)

I visited Stockholm city council recently., which has just over 100 members, 51 of whom happen to be women. I asked what they had done to achieve that and was told that they had done nothing: it had happened spontaneously. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have a long way to go with our national, psyche and our understanding of equal opportunities and gender equality—but, happily, not in Upminster?

Julie Morgan

I happily agree with the hon. Lady. Many systems used in the Scandinavian countries are of enormous benefit to women, for example the child care there, which I studied with the Welsh Affairs Committee. Many aspects of their societies are conducive to allowing women to progress. We need developments in all such areas too. The Bill alone will not achieve the representation of women that we want. We must tackle many other issues. For example, recent surveys have shown that women find it expensive to stand as candidates for Parliament. It costs a lot of money to put oneself forward to be selected. We must consider that issue as well as child care.

This Bill is a good step forward, but it is only a step and there is a long way to go. It is up to individual parties to sort out where we go from here.

6.48 pm

Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey)

I once more declare my interest as vice-chair of the British Council, which does a lot to promote and involve women in government throughout the world, and chair of a not-for-profit practice of headhunters, where much of my work involves finding talented women and encouraging them to put their names forward.

In congratulating the House on reaching a conclusion, I must confess to an on-going note of disquiet, and I say that with some regret. I warmly commend my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and many others. They all know that, shortly after the 1997 election, I produced a paper on what the Conservative party should do to secure the election of more women Members of Parliament. I did so not because I thought it a matter of human rights and equality, but out of enlightened self-interest. It is clear that women are popular with the electorate. Many women have been chosen at by-elections, as I was, when selection committees think not, "Who is the favoured son?" but "Who is likely to win in difficult circumstances?". My message is: "If you want to win, choose a woman".

Mr. Tyler

Has the right hon. Lady noted the gender of the candidates in the current Ipswich by-election?

Virginia Bottomley

I have not, but I have noticed that, today, no woman Liberal Democrat MP has been in the Chamber during our debates on the measure—nor, I think, on the last occasion when we debated this subject, which is fascinating.

Mr. Tyler

Yes, there were.

Virginia Bottomley

There were certainly none today.

Many questions have been asked about the measures that hon. Members would take. I want energetic recruitment, mentoring, coaching and monitoring. I want best practice guidance. Selection panels should be required to undertake training and outsiders should monitor their activities. I want vigorous positive action.

I should find an all-woman shortlist extremely invidious in constituencies—whether parliamentary, European or council—where there was only one elected representative. The person who most persuaded me of that was the late Baroness Seear—a most distinguished woman. She pointed out that once we say that there must be a woman, next we shall say that there must be a disabled person, an ethnic minority person, somebody aged over 60, or somebody in their 20s.

Above all, we are elected to represent all the people, whether or not they voted for us, and whatever their gender, race or age. I find all-women shortlists, or indeed twinning, extraordinarily invidious. Were they to apply, I should have to think carefully about my interpretation of the role of a Member of Parliament.

I remain concerned about why we should want such different arrangements for Members of Parliament compared with other occupations and professions. The Minister did not adequately address that point in his brief summing up on Second Reading, or in his remarks in Committee and the debate today. The point about redress through employment law is one element, but it is not a complete answer.

The House will be aware that, at present, the civil service is, rightly, making a great effort to try to promote diversity, so that public servants reflect the Britain of today. I strongly welcome that, but few permanent secretaries are women and few come from ethnic minorities.

The majority of medical students are women, but the majority of consultants are not. I gave an example on Second Reading—about which I have received an enormous amount of correspondence—of a primary school with an all-female staff and asked whether an all-male shortlist would be permitted. The answer is that it would not.

The issues arise in other sectors. Last week, black police officers met in Manchester. There are real issues about ethnic minorities in the police force and the services. In social work, there is a real desire to appoint more black and ethnic minority social workers and inspectors. In all these sectors, positive action—legal or illegal—is under way. Coaching and mentoring are available. People are being encouraged to come forward. As long as an appointment is made on merit, people in the public services have become fairly vigorous—rightly so—in saying that the public face of those services should reflect the diversity of Britain today.

I fail to understand why Members of Parliament are such a different case. We should reflect the diversity of Britain today. We should take all the steps taken by others and we should not be thought to be legislating for ourselves in a vacuum, as though we were blinkered.

Similarly, I find it difficult to support measures relating to women rather than considering other ways to make us look as though we were more representative of Britain. At a time when 40 per cent. of the electorate fail to vote, we are missing out. We are not registering with the public—whether that is about gender, or age, none of us really knows.

I commend those who have worked so hard on the Bill. I worry whether the ends justify the means. It seems like a form of social engineering to treat politicians as a special case. I continue to find that disturbing, but I, with others, will continue to do everything in my power to encourage more women to come forward, more selection committees to choose women and more members of the electorate to vote for them.

6.55 pm

Mr. Lansley

I shall try not to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) by being too long-winded on this occasion.

In contrast to my earlier remarks, I do not want to cavil about the Bill, to question it or even to oppose it. As the Minister for Local Government and hon. Members will know from Second Reading, my intention is to support the Bill. I hope that my effort to amend it was understood as an attempt by the Opposition to strengthen and validate the purposes of the Bill.

I share the questioning approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley). That is why I question the Labour party's desire to go all the way to women-only shortlists. The way in which the Government have structured the Bill suggests that we may be able to switch it off by 2015 and that there will have been a culture change: but how do we get to that point? Can we reach it without the imposition of women-only shortlists? Many Labour Members think that we cannot: Conservative Members think that we can.

As my right hon. Friend said, such change is happening in other professions. She rightly drew attention to the fact that, in 1975, 16 per cent. of hospital consultants were women; at present, the figure is 34 per cent. More to the point, over 50 per cent. of those entering the medical profession are women. By 2015, it would not surprise me if more than 50 per cent. of consultants were women.

Nineteen per cent. of the accountancy profession are women, but 45 per cent. of current entrants are women. Women make up 51 per cent. of current entrants to the legal profession. However, there is a difficulty—a culture problem. As a House, it is not merely the fact that, historically, we are overwhelmingly male, and that if those entering it are disproportionately female the balance will shift over time: we have to deal with the beam in our own eye. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) is in the Chamber and offers abundant evidence of the merits of women candidates, but she is the only woman among the 35 new Conservative Members elected in 2001. That is not remotely acceptable.

We should have changed that situation and might have done so if more of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey had been taken on board. However, although I cannot go along with my right hon. Friend's view that measures such as recruitment, mentoring and training will be sufficient, there is a large gap between her proposals and women-only shortlists. That is the area of balanced shortlists.

As a party, we insist on going out from the centre and recruiting in the expectation that constituencies will be obliged to select from balanced shortlists. Given the nature of the system that we have adopted, even if constituencies do not deliver the necessary outcome, they will increasingly see more suitably qualified women candidates than men. By the expedient of not reaching the point where we insist that an individual constituency cannot consider the merits of a male candidate, we shall not undermine the case for the positive measures that we in the Conservative party should take. My hope and belief is that we can achieve the necessary change in culture relatively quickly and demonstrate that the form of discrimination by which some Labour Members seek to achieve that objective is counter-productive and unnecessary.

At the risk of delaying the House for a second, I want to mention another issue. The Bill is intended to apply to a specific range of elections, and the Minister has made it clear that it will also apply to elections to the House of Lords. I look forward to that, not least because the House of Lords is intended to complement the House of Commons, yet in this respect it does not—only 16 per cent. of peers in the other place are women, as are only 22 per cent. of life peers created since 1997.

Leaving aside elections, the White Paper provides that at least 30 per cent. of the new life peers will be women, yet in the same paragraph it states that at least 30 per cent. of those appointed will be men. By extension, if we start with 22 per cent. and the fact that at least 30 per cent. of the new appointments will be women, it will be many years, perhaps decades, before the House of Lords approaches anything like a gender balance under such a dispensation. That is absurd, because the House of Lords should recruit from the professions and the walks of life that are under-represented in this House. Talent could be brought into the House of Lords that has not been accessible previously in our law-making procedures through election to this House. That will, if anything, disproportionately involve women on the basis of historical experience and the current situation.

I do not understand why the Government have not been bolder in the White Paper and said that, from the beginning, at least 50 per cent. of those appointed to the House of Lords will be women; nor why they have not made it clear that the Bill will allow political parties similarly to take positive action to secure the election of women to the House of Lords in due course.

Finally, I have tried to work out what has restricted the selection and election of women to the House. I listened to a description of research into why something of a glass ceiling still exists in relation to the promotion of women in business and industry. There is probably a parallel, in that those involved in the selection of women to sit on the main boards of companies are not keeping up with those who genuinely select people on merit, as seems to be the case in the professions and with qualifications.

Researchers concluded that men were, by and large, assessed on their potential. That happens in constituencies. where people look at candidates for selection, such as hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and say, "This man will go far." However, women are selected on performance. Women candidates will be asked, "What have you achieved? How can you prove that you are good enough?" We have to change that culture, and I hope that in the three-year run-up to the next election the Conservative party will use the Bill to change the culture and use women's potential to boost the standing of the Conservative party and the reputation of the whole House.

7.4 pm

Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)

I am pleased to have a few minutes in which to contribute to the latter stages of the consideration of the Bill. It is interesting that we are debating the Bill on a day of very fast-moving geopolitical events. The question of female representation in a new Administration in Afghanistan has formed part of the discussions that have taken place today. That geopolitical context is pertinent to this debate, for General Musharraf reminded hon. Members at Westminster last week that a third of the Members of Parliament in Pakistan are female. We are contributing to the debate in the knowledge that the mother of Parliaments perhaps has a little catching up to do.

I entirely take on board the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about being adverse to the concept of social engineering, but I would say to her that the Bill is perhaps more about gearing up. In the same breath, I thank my right hon. Friend personally, because one of the first conversations that I ever had about embarking on a parliamentary career was with herself. The encouragement that I received set me on my course to the House.

The purpose of these debates has been to refine the Bill and make it more robust. I pay tribute my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) for undertaking the lion's share of the work. I have read the reports of the debates in Committee, and I have felt that my hon. Friends have definitely borne the brunt of debating the workings of the Bill in practice. Many of the attacks that they bore in those exchanges were about history and the way in which things have been done in the past, but the fact that the Bill is permissive enables the political parties to look forward. Although what has gone before guides and chastens us, we shall see a great deal of change in every party as a result of the way in which we have chosen to interpret the Bill.

The Minister said that he could not give an absolute guarantee about the robustness of the legislation if it were challenged in the European courts, but the right hon. Gentleman was a little churlish towards the Opposition, especially in relation to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Government, with their greater resources and the civil service at their disposal, were surely better placed to undertake an absolutely thorough investigation into the legislation's robustness. However, the debate has teased out the fact that the Labour party is most likely to bear the brunt of the challenge. As other hon. Members have said, Dr. Peter Jepson has made an advance declaration of war on that point.

I certainly should not like to conclude without paying tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has done over many years. It is relevant in that context to say that, not content with trying to advance the cause of women at Westminster, she is very active in trying to advance the cause of women's representation in Afghanistan. That is a good illustration of how current political events tie in with what we are attempting to do in our own national Parliament. We will rise to the hon. Lady's challenge to achieve the outcome, which she describes as resolving the democratic deficit, of seeing more women on the Conservative Benches. That is the fundamental reason why we support this change in the law.

We need to remind ourselves of the stark lesson that the overall turnout at the 2001 general election was only 59.4 per cent. Although there is no specific research relating the small number of women in Parliament to voter apathy, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that that is a very important factor. That is why we share the common goal of succeeding in attaining more women representatives at Westminster. We all have a duty to encourage them to come forward, and the Bill should tell women that we want them.

7.8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead)

I concur with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has an enormous amount to celebrate tonight because of her inestimable role in securing the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that the Bill is a cause for celebration, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan).

As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, there is also cause for a little humility, given the amount of time that we have taken between us to reach this point. As a result of the Bill passing into law, we can look forward to a far more balanced representation of men and women on these Benches than has ever been the case in the history of the House.

Until about two minutes ago, there was an exact gender balance in the Chamber. This is probably the first time that that has happened, but I hope that we can look forward to it in years to come.

It is a cause for celebration that the Bill's Third Reading will not be subject to a Division. That shows the strong commitment from all parties that they will take action to ensure that the House is properly representative of everyone in the country.

We recognise that there is much to be done. I have just referred to the temporary gender balance in the House, and I have another small statistic. I noted that, until a few minutes ago, 30 per cent. of the Conservative party's women Members of Parliament were present, whereas only about 2 per cent. of its male representatives were here. I did not have the opportunity to turn round to make a similar calculation for Labour Members, but I suspect that the result would not have been much different.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) challenged Ministers to ensure that elections to any future elected Chambers would be subject to the Bill's provisions. The Bill refers to the elected Assemblies that are already in place, so it would not be appropriate to write into it reference to something that does not exist. However, in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said that we intend to apply the principle in the Bill to all future bodies that come into existence and are elected."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 November 2001; c. 51.] That is a firm and clear commitment from the Government that that will happen in the future when relevant legislation comes before the House.

I am delighted that the Bill's simplicity has been maintained throughout its various stages in the House. It is a simple Bill embodying a simple principle and it achieves a simple outcome. It allows for political parties to introduce methods of selection which they consider—I accept that there may be differences between the parties—will enable more women candidates to be selected for election to the House and to other elected Assemblies. We face a simple challenge: to make that happen.

I look forward to the day 15 years hence when we ask ourselves whether we should renew the sunset provision currently provided for by clause 3. When we look around these Benches, I hope that we shall say, "No, we should not renew that provision because, at last, the talents of all our people are fully represented on the Benches in the House."

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.