| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.32 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth): I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the Queen's Speech, which introduces a number of important measures that will make a difference to the way in which the country operates.
There are still obstacles to all our citizens being able to exercise their right to vote. In the debate on social exclusion, democracy and other such matters, nothing is more important than the ability of all our citizens to engage actively in the democratic process. The Representation of the People Bill envisages several different mechanisms by which our fellow citizens will be able to do that. I highlight one of them: postal voting. In a little-noticed action at the end of the previous Government's term in office, the ability of our fellow citizens to register for postal voting was severely circumscribed. People now have to approach a medical practitioner who knows them and knows of their particular malady. In my constituency, that has resulted in fewer people being registered for postal voting and, therefore, a decline in the number of people voting overall.
In the parishes of Featherstone and South Kirkby, as a consequence of low turnouts, great efforts have been made to increase the number of postal votes registered.
In both areas, great successes have been achieved, with several hundred people in South Kirkby registered for postal votes. I believe that regulations requiring doctors and nurses to register people to vote by post not only waste the time of doctors and nurses, but deter people from seeking to vote in that manner, as they do not want to take up a doctor's time. Additionally, anecdotal evidence--to the Home Affairs Committee, and in my constituency--shows that doctors have been tempted to charge people for filling in the forms necessary to register for postal voting.
Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)
indicated assent.
Mr. Trickett:
Perhaps the charges are being imposed across the country.
Everything that can be done to encourage greater participation in the democratic process should be done, and I am delighted that the House will soon be considering relevant legislation.
I welcome the Freedom of Information Bill. Although the legislation could undoubtedly go further--I should welcome any concessions that the Home Secretary might make on that in our debates--it contains highly progressive proposals and will ensure long overdue change in the culture of our civil service and government.
Recently, I had the ridiculous experience of trying to obtain on behalf of National Union of Mineworkers members the minutes of health and safety committee meetings held, in the 1980s, at a local colliery which was closed some years ago. Work force representatives attended the meetings, of which notes were taken by the National Coal Board.
On privatisation, the minutes were placed at the Public Record Office, at Kew. Subsequently, it has become excessively difficult even for those who were present at the meetings--discussing their own health and safety--to obtain copies of the minutes. It has taken me several months to locate the documents, and I have still not gained access to them all. It is deplorable that people whose health and safety is still in question cannot gain access to the minutes of meetings that they attended.
I also had the bizarre experience of ringing up a civil servant who is custodian of the minutes, and being told, "I shouldn't even be speaking to you, because I'm a civil servant and you're an MP." Although I preyed on his goodwill and persuaded him to speak to me--he was helpful--even to this day, we do not have the appropriate minutes.
The culture of denial and secrecy has to be broken. Although nothing in law prevents us from gaining access to the type of document that I have been seeking, the current culture encourages denial before a gradual acceptance that access should be given. I hope that the legislation and our debates on it will encourage a greater and long overdue spirit of openness.
The Queen's Speech also mentioned the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and its aftermath. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Government's determination to root out institutional racism in all its forms. The House will be considering a Bill to make a welcome start on achieving that objective. As one who has spent most of his life in an inner-city
area in Leeds where the levels of racism and institutional racism were extremely high and one daily encountered problems caused by racism, I very much welcome that.
Legislation on the criminal justice system is the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech. In reforming the criminal justice system, however, we shall undoubtedly encounter the perennial problem of balancing the citizen's rights against enhanced powers for the state. I have no objection in principle to enhancing the powers of the state apparatus if those powers will be used to tackle crime and criminality. Additionally, the Government are taking other action--on employment generation and education--to help to tackle the causes of criminality in places where unemployment and homelessness are endemic, such as on the estates and in the coalfield villages that I represent.
I accept and generally welcome the measures that have been introduced. I have yet to be convinced that there should be an incursion into the jury system as has been proposed and will watch the debate with interest. I am prepared to be convinced, but have not yet heard the arguments to convince me.
I referred to the balance of rights between the state and criminal justice procedures on the one hand and the citizen on the other. I also mentioned the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Police complaints procedure was central to that inquiry. If the Government are to take anything from Stephen Lawrence it must be that that procedure has lost all credibility. Again, I have local experience of trying to deal with an individual who claims to have suffered at the hands of the local constabulary.
The police complaints system in its present form is unacceptable. The very constabulary against which the complaint has been made has the absolute right to determine whether the complaint is justified, or even whether to record the fact that there was a complaint. Therefore, the statistics, never mind the investigation process, do not give an accurate picture of problems that citizens encounter with the police force.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry strongly recommended that an independent system of complaints against the police be established. The Government said that they would look into the matter in April, when a further report will be produced, but there is no mention of that in the Queen's Speech. I gently remind the Government that many of us are very interested in this matter and will particularly scrutinise how they respond in April. If they do anything to strike a new balance between the citizen and the state, surely it must be to move on the police complaints procedure.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Government did move on that, the proposal would receive great support throughout the House? Opposition Members would work with Labour Members to achieve that aim sooner rather than later.
Mr. Trickett:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. No doubt the Government are well aware that there is a growing consensus in the nation and in the House that the present system is not working effectively and is losing credibility. The House needs to debate the matter again in April--in good time, when the Government have had a chance to reflect on the debate about Stephen Lawrence and, hopefully, to produce proposals shortly thereafter.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to resources and the cost of an independent police complaints procedure. Justice cannot easily have a price attached to it. I hope that resources are not a factor when the Government finally form a view on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who is sitting next to me, mentioned the legislation to protect wildlife and the countryside. I hope that everyone will welcome that legislation, when it arrives. In some ways, it is long overdue. It is path-breaking legislation and it demonstrates the Government's commitment to a radical and modernising agenda.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems that his constituency has suffered as a result of mineral extraction and opencasting and expressed the view that opencasting was coming to an end. I am not so sanguine as my hon. Friend. Recent secondary legislation has revised mineral planning guidance 3, but I am not optimistic about its effects. I am extremely disturbed about rumours of the likely results of various inquiries. I hope that, if necessary, time will be found to add to the primary legislation a further clause to circumscribe the ability of opencast extractors to rape the countryside. I do not refer to brownfield sites.
Mr. David Taylor:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly desirable to build an absolute presumption against greenfield opencasting into primary legislation as rapidly as possible, because mineral developers are ingenious in circumventing the regulatory framework?
Mr. Trickett:
My hon. Friend makes an important point on a matter about which there is great concern on both sides of the House. I do not advocate a total ban on opencast techniques for extracting coal because there are circumstances in which it is necessary. However, on greenfield sites, and especially in the green belt, there can be no possible justification at the turn of the millennium for extraction by those means, particularly when coal mines continue to close at an alarming rate. We were told that there was no demand for coal, yet the deep mines are closing with the loss of many jobs while opencasting continues to destroy the countryside without creating many jobs. I hope that, if MPG 3 as revised turns out to be weaker than anticipated, the relevant legislation can be modified to assist hon. Members who represent loyal communities that have been the bedrock of the Labour movement which created this exciting, modernising Labour Government, to defend them from the profiteers who are raping our countryside.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |