Yes says Ceri Goddard, Chif executive of the Fawcett Society

The fact that less that 20 per cent of our parliamentarians are women is a huge democratic deficit. We are ranked only 70th in the world for women MPs — behind Iraq, Afghanistan and Rwanda.

That is bad for women because where there are not enough women in politics, issues of concern to women — such as domestic violence, childcare and equal pay — are less likely to be addressed. And it is not bad only for women, it is bad for everyone. At a time when we face big challenges, from loss of faith in our politicians to the economic crisis, we are simply not drawing on the full pool of skills and experience in our population. And it is bad for democracy. The system only works well if it is made up of the community it represents.

This democratic deficit demands measures that will work well and work quickly. We cannot afford to wait the 200 years — or 40 general elections — that it is likely to take to gain equal representation between men and women in Parliament.

Shortlists work. When Labour used them in the 1997 general election, the number of Labour women MPs leapt from 37 to 101. But when shortlists were temporarily banned, the number of women MPs in Parliament after the 2000 election dropped to 95.

The use of shortlists and other special measures is recognised all over the world as a key way to address women’s inequality and build healthy democracies. The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, to which the UK is both a signatory and promotes actively in work with developing democracies, provides for “special temporary measures” to overcome past discrimination and accelerate de facto equality between men and women.

The argument that women should get into Parliament on their own merit does not hold water. Firstly, it assumes that there is a fair and level playing field for women. But all the evidence would suggest this is just not the case, with far more men being selected where “all else is equal”. This argument also implies, wrongly, that there are not enough “women of merit” out there and ready to fill shortlists.

One of the characteristics I value in an MP is the ability to make good decisions in Parliament, not only the ability to rise to the top in a flawed and unequal system.

Women got the vote fewer than 100 years ago and nearly every big step we have taken since then has been greeted with cries of “it’s not fair”.

However, women-only shortlists need to be seen as part of a wider package. We need to look at other ways to get more women into all levels of public life, and we need to make practical and cultural changes to the way our decision-making systems work so more women can take part in them. We need to work towards a culture where all girls and boys grow up believing in their equal value and worth, and a society where we no longer need women-only shortlists.

No says Ann Widdecombe, Conservative MP for Maidstone and The Weald

Throughout the 22 years in which I have served in Parliament I have taken it for granted that I was equal to the male MPs because we had all got here on the same basis. If, by contrast, I had been a member only on the basis of a path especially smoothed for me then I would have been a second-class citizen and no woman deserves to sit on the green benches bearing such a tag.

The proposal for all-women shortlists insults women. It is profoundly undemocratic. It means that a man who has grown up in a town, brought up his children there, sent them to local schools, carved out a local career, served on the borough council and even become a mover and shaker in local charities cannot apply to stand as a member of parliament for that same town if it is reserved for a woman. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if it were the other way round.

Worse still, this dumb proposal is predicated on the assumption that the relatively few numbers of women in Parliament are entirely down to what one might call the “selectorate”, that is to say the selection committees, composed of local activists, who determine who stands. Yet my own experiences demonstrate what a fallacy that is.

In 1977 I was one of only two women out of 50 applicants who applied for Burnley and I won the nomination. In 1983 I was one of only six out of the scores who applied to fight David Owen at Devonport and in 1987 one of about ten out of the large numbers who were trying for the Maidstone nomination. When women come forward in those numbers the wonder is not that the statistical fallout is in favour of the men but rather that we ever get there at all.

Yet we do, performing much better at selections than our numbers warrant. The problem lies not with those who are selecting but with the numbers coming forward and that is what we should be tackling. We should be tapping good women on the shoulder and inviting them to turn their eyes in the direction of Parliament instead of devising ever more restrictive rules to try to force selection committees to select by category instead of merit.

The picture those who favour positive discrimination like to paint is one of a selection committee full of Colonel Blimps before whom a crocodile of bright, able women file to be overlooked in favour of the trusty white male in the pinstriped suit, accompanied by a pretty wife and two clean, well-behaved children. Rot.

The reality is a selection committee of young and old, male and female united by a wish to choose someone who will do the job properly. They are frustrated by a Central Office agent who doesn’t give tuppence whether the candidate is meritorious as long as she is female, young and doesn’t believe in anything which might make others uncomfortable. Give it enough time and we will have a parliament of bland, inexperienced babes being sweetly patronised by a load of career- politician males. Heaven help Britain.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive