| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.1 pm
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): I am aware that many of the measures outlined in the Gracious Speech fall within the responsibility of the Home Office, but, while not decrying the importance of any of the proposals, I shall restrict my comments to the promised
- "Bill to reform our electoral procedures to make it easier for people to participate in elections."
Participation in all forms of election--national, local authority and European elections and by-elections--has fallen alarmingly in recent years. Even more worrying is the fact that 18 to 24-year-olds are 10 per cent. less likely to vote than the national average. We each have our own theory about why that is the case, but the Government are surely right to act to halt--even to reverse--the trend.
It would be quite wrong to believe that the only reason for falling turnout is the arcane electoral practices that we currently employ in this country. To reverse the decline in participation requires both a political solution and practical improvements. We must demonstrate that the House is relevant to people and that its Members are not remote or out of touch, as we sometimes give the
impression of being. The problems facing our colleagues in local government and in the European Parliament are even greater. That debate must continue.
It would be foolish to ignore genuinely practical steps that can be taken now to ensure that participation in elections is maximised. The introduction of a rolling register is a simple but profound reform--no longer should the wholly arbitrary date of 10 October decide who can vote, and where. It is estimated that the electoral register deteriorates at a rate of about 1 per cent. a month. Given that the cut-off date is 10 October and that the register is not published until February, 5 per cent. of the population have already "dropped off" before the register is even published; and by the following February about 17 per cent. of those registered will have dropped off. That is a national average: many hon. Members will find far higher drop-off rates in their own locality. The population is far more mobile than ever before. A rolling register can meet the demands imposed by that mobility and make it easier for people to transfer their registration from place to place.
I am sure that there is a perfectly valid historical reason for elections always falling on a Thursday. Perhaps that is still the best day on which to hold them. I am sure that the millions of schoolchildren who enjoy an extra holiday when their school is used as a polling station will be vehemently opposed to weekend voting. However, the Government are right to give local authorities the go-ahead to experiment with days, times and venues for casting ballots. I have already written to the chief executive and the leader of my own borough of Merton to encourage them to apply to pilot such local schemes.
Although I welcome the measure to ensure that everyone who applies for a postal ballot is allowed one, we should consider going further. I can see no reason why we cannot have all postal ballot elections, although we must safeguard against fraud and cheating. Elections in Britain have been relatively free of serious electoral malpractice, but perhaps we have weighted the balance too far in favour of caution at the expense of encouraging maximum participation.
The Government's stated aim is
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
When in opposition, the current Home Secretary declared that he opposed any further restriction on the right to jury trial. He admitted that today, adding that, at that time, he had said that any further restriction would be unworkable. The previous Administration had a stab at imposing such a restriction, but stopped in 1993, in part because there was such huge opposition to the measure.
I, too, believe that such a measure would further erode a fundamental right, which, we learn today, has existed since the reign of Edward II. The mere fact of its having survived so long must be testament to the efficacy of trial by jury: it is trial by one's peers, free of any extraneous influences. I declare an interest, in that I am a practising barrister. I also declare an understanding of the system, which may put me at variance with certain Government Members.
Somehow, the system of trial by jury has become costly and unreliable. To the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I say, yes, I was in a magistrates court two or three weeks ago and I shall no doubt be in one in another two or three weeks' time--in a professional capacity, I hope. I have nothing against magistrates courts. However, I have yet to hear either a Labour Back Bencher or a Minister state what is wrong with trial by jury. The hon. Lady made a considered and eloquent speech, but she could not explain what is wrong with it. The Home Secretary did not even try, saying merely that the practice was a mediaeval one, which hardly justifies scrapping the principle or eroding it further.
I do not know what the explanation is, but an examination of the issue of cost might provide a clue. In The Guardian yesterday, there was an interesting letter from Professor Lee Bridges of the University of Warwick, who referred to an earlier report on the subject. He said:
It has been said during the debate that accused want to spin out the process before appearing before the courts. That is not true. A defendant is first told, "If you're going to plead guilty, do it today. Don't waste your own time, and bear in mind you get an extra third if you don't plead guilty." That is an important factor. I can tell the House from experience that that approach helps to concentrate the mind. If a small percentage of accused decide toreject that advice, fair enough--they will face the consequences--but in practice few adopt that approach.
I am fully aware that the kill-all-the-lawyers brigade is alive and well in Parliament. That is no wonder given all the Government's spinning against fat cats: indeed, they spin against silks who allegedly make huge amounts of money, before they ennoble them.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East obviously has considerable antipathy towards lawyers--and although I do not necessarily defend them, speaking as a lawyer,
I am pleased I never appeared before the hon. Lady. There was no possible justification for what she said: she had no reason to support the Government's line. If any hon. Member wishes to intervene to give me one reason why a jury trial is wrong, I shall give way.
Learning from the previous Government's experience, no doubt, the present Home Secretary has been careful to elicit the judiciary's support. We understand that the Lord Chief Justice, no less, is on board with a modicum of unenthusiastic support after the inclusion in the Bill of a right of appeal to a judge in either-way cases. That right does nothing to detract from the insidious nature of the measure. If the Bill is cost driven, I wonder what appraisal has been made of the inevitable appeals against an election. Surely the Crown courts will be hearing tens of thousands of extra appeals in a climate in which the courts generally are already heavily overburdened with work.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
There will be delay.
Mr. Llwyd:
That is another point. Justice delayed is justice denied, as we all appreciate.
One of the oft-repeated phrases in this place is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I believe that the individual's right to elect for jury trial is a constitutional safeguard which we should enhance: it certainly should not be eroded further.
The background notes state:
Some weeks ago on "Newsnight" a sample 12 members of the public were convened as a jury. They had to decide whether to support the Government's proposal. A new Labour Member, who is a barrister, appeared on-message on behalf of the Government. When he began, three of the 12 were in favour of the Government's proposals. When he finished, all 12 were against him. It is as well that he is making a living in this place--although he had the redoubtable Michael Mansfield QC on the other side, and no lawyer would much fancy that. On a more serious note, if the group of 12 had been a focus group, perhaps the Bill would not have seen the light of day.
Earlier, there was a considerable knockabout on police numbers. I am not convinced that they are dancing in the streets in north Wales. It is clear from the letters that I receive from the North Wales police authority that it is in a quandary.
Let me move on from those highly negative comments, which I think are justified. In due course, we shall see the contents of the relevant Bills and we shall be able to discuss them.
I wholeheartedly welcome the proposed race relations amendment Bill. I am pleased that the Government have decided to introduce it. As for mandatory drug testing,
no one in their right mind would ever justify the taking of illicit drugs, but is the test meant to introduce an aggravating feature in respect of the original offence for which the individual was arrested, or is it an entirely separate matter? If the Government's line is that mandatory testing will enable us to find more people in need of immediate help to deal with their drug habit, I am sure that we would all support it. However, if it is meant to tack on an added offence because the individual had drugs in his or her system, or it introduces an aggravating feature to the original offence, that causes me some worry. We shall wait to see what the conclusions are. I hope that the Government are considering the need for early intervention in a person's drugs life, in which case I think the Bill will be a useful step forward.
As for the reform of the probation service, I hope that the service will not go the way of other agencies in terms of access to justice. Magistrates courts are closing at an alarming rate. My constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy stretches 100 miles from north to south and a similar distance from east to west. When I first began practice in the mid-1970s, there were seven magistrates courts. Now we are down to one, and there are some rumours that even that is under pressure. That is an appalling indictment of any scheme of access to justice. I hope that we are not looking at an over-centralising of the probation service, as that could only be to the detriment of the service and its clients.
I have grave worries about local justice. Recently we read the Lord Chancellor's intention of having a working committee on magistrates vis-a-vis stipendiary magistrates, to examine variations in sentencing among lay magistrates. Forgive me, but I have always thought it important to have justice tempered with mercy; that no two defendants are the same; and ergo that there will be differences in sentencing. Surely that is plain and obvious. I hope that we are not seeing the commencement of the endgame of introducing stipendiary magistrates throughout the United Kingdom. That would be a grave mistake.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill on special educational needs. I applaud the Government for introducing it and I look forward to its implementation. The Bill on post-16 education is again to be welcomed. I am sure that it is something on which we can build. The new Bill will enable the National Assembly for Wales to put in place new structures on which it has already decided. I am proud to say that, for once, Wales has stolen a march. The primary legislation will make it possible for the Welsh Assembly to proceed, and obviously I welcome it.
All in all, this is a wide-ranging Queen's Speech. There are obviously very good things in it, but there are also areas of concern. We are all concerned about social exclusion, yet there is nothing to encourage us in respect of social housing and dealing with housing crises and homelessness. There is nothing of any great cheer for those who live in rural areas, which are suffering greatly in a deepening crisis. That applies not only to agriculture but to the entire rural economy. It behoves us all to impress on Government the need to examine the rural crisis. Swathes of rural areas in England, Wales and Scotland are under threat, and that problem requires special attention. For example, we should be considering our town and village centres and making it more attractive to renovate properties rather than to engage in new build, coupled with a tax to act as a disincentive to continue to
build on greenfield sites. For example, we need to consider lowering VAT on renovation as a positive step forward.
"to make it easier for people to participate in elections."
There are two ways to participate--as a voter and as a candidate. The Government have introduced a range of measures designed to maximise participation by the former but, alas, none for the latter.
"there are not 24,000 defendants who elect jury trial a year. The latest figure is just over 18,000, a number that has been cut by nearly half since the royal commission . . . reported . . . There is no home office research that shows that 'more than 70 per cent. of defendants who opt for jury trial' plead guilty. The research in question . . . is 10 years out-of-date".
Professor Bridges concluded:
"Jack Straw told me in July that the plan to restrict jury trial was not a cost-cutting measure. Now he claims it will save £100m."
I do not know what the real reason is, but it is clearly not that there is anything inherently wrong with the system.
"In deciding where the trial should be held, the magistrate would be required to consider the effect of conviction on a defendant's reputation and livelihood."
Perhaps I can assist the magistrates: it is not a very good thing for anyone to have a conviction, and clearly it is worse the first time round. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) asked earlier, why should we offer one level of justice to an unconvicted person and another to someone who might have been involved with the law many years ago? That approach would be a denial of natural justice and of standard justice for all.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |