Last week the Speaker’s conference concluded its investigation into parliamentary representation. What they found may not have been revolutionary: we need more women, black and minority ethnic, and disabled people in parliament. But its conclusions only reinforce that action is needed now.

The report considered the introduction of quotas for women and suggested that there might be a case for making all women shortlists compulsory. But is this the right way to successfully increase the number of women in Parliament?

Women face both supply side and demand side barriers to being first selected and subsequently elected as MPs. Traditionally the element of ‘cost’ is seen as the main supply side barrier to becoming an MP. Whilst there is a cost barrier for men, the cost for women is seen to be greater due to the gender pay gap, women being more likely to work in lower paid sectors of the economy, and the increased likelihood of women having caring responsibilities.

However, cost is not the only consideration; demand side barriers also exist. These factors now dominate with women experiencing both a lack of support and a lack of confidence that they can indeed stand for office and take their place in what is often perceived as a ‘male’ House of Commons.

Putting supply and demand factors aside, discrimination also has its part to play in preventing women from becoming MPs. There is plenty of evidence showing that selection panels, which tend to be run by white, middle class men, are biased towards other white, middle class men, and women are unlikely to get a look-in.

The combination of all these factors led to the introduction of all women shortlists. There has been much criticism of these, with a multitude of complaints on two levels. On one side is the argument that they are unfair because they are biased towards women and, on the other side, is the view that shortlists merely make the success of women appear tokenistic.

Yet, what we fail to fully appreciate is that all women shortlists have been successful in achieving their objectives: the Labour party has substantially increased its number of women MPs. In 1992 Labour had 37 women MPs, but following the use of all women shortlists at the 1997 general election this rose to 101. Without them the Labour party would not see the current numbers of women sitting on Westminster benches.

But is it necessary to make all women shortlists compulsory across the board to increase the number of women in parliament? I believe not. So long as all political parties are aware of the need to have more women MPs, and are committed to doing so, there is no need for a legal requirement. Used in the wrong way, such shortlists will only act to reinforce the idea that the election of women is a form of tokenism and continue to encourage snipes that women are only promoted to the frontbench because they are women.

Instead, we should be using all women shortlists as they currently are. It is then up to them to prove that they deserve their place and win promotion on their own merits, not because they are women.

The fact that the Speaker’s Report reinforces the need for more women and recognises that there are not currently enough means that we should not let our efforts fall by the wayside. We must remain wary. The next general election is likely to see the number of women in parliament decrease. Huge numbers of Labour women are likely to lose their seats if the polls are to be believed and, despite Cameron’s A-list, it is unlikely that the Conservatives will provide enough women to match the Labour party’s present numbers.

Instead of compulsory quotas, we need to tackle the root causes preventing women from becoming MPs. This may include providing financial support assisting them to stand, making the selection process more transparent and fair, and providing the right guidance and mentoring to encourage more women to stand. All women shortlists might not be the ideal solution to the problem but, whilst parties work to tackle the root causes, the results of all women shortlists speak for themselves.