» A new Department
» Justice
» Rights
» Democracy
» A Department which delivers
We were created on the 12 June 2003. We are a new Department.
Our purpose
Our role is to drive forward the reform and improvement of the justice system, and to reform and safeguard the constitution so it serves the public effectively.
We must also ensure that the faith the public have in government and politics is improved. There must be an active process of re-engaging the trust of the public in the institutions of government.
A break with the past
The new Department represents a wholesale change from the work and priorities of the old LCD. The new Department is no longer built around the needs of a Cabinet Minister who was also head of the Judiciary, and presided over the Lords.
Now it is a mainstream public service delivery Department, delivering a court and justice system which provides people with security that the system will fight crime effectively. Our Department is charged with delivering the public's civil and political rights, including the right to a constitution that serves the need of British citizen's in the 21st century. That does not mean ensuring it never changes. Instead it means being prepared to initiate change for a purpose - where it will enhance democratic freedoms and improve government - whilst at the same time ensuring that those elements on which our society is based are preserved and understood: the right to a fair justice system; the right to live in a safe and secure society, whoever you are and wherever you live; and the right to participate in political processes and institutions that are democratic, transparent and accountable.
The public not the providers
The new Department starts from the simple rule that it is there for the public - not for the judges, or the lawyers, or the constitutional thinkers. But the public for which the justice system and the constitution exists.
For too long the courts, the law and the justice system, and constitutional issues have become the preserve of the professional. They are not. They are areas which have a vital effect on the daily lives of the public. That does not mean there is not a vital role for the judges, lawyers and the constitutional thinkers. What it does mean, though, is that all changes to the justice system, and an examination of that system and the constitution have to be measured by reference to: how do they serve the public?
Just as reform must be for a purpose, so must conservation. We must be astute to preserve that which works well. But we must, perhaps much more than we have in the past, measure our institutions against the needs of the public, in to-day's circumstances.
Security for the public
We must ensure that the citizen is protected not just from crime and anti-social behaviour, but also from the disempowerment which comes from feeling that whatever rights and interests they have are inadequately protected.
Reducing and fighting crime and anti-social behaviour
First in the roll call of those things which threaten security are crime and anti-social behaviour. The forces of law and order include the courts, the legal aid system, and the legal profession.
We have, as a Government, an obligation to ensure that the forces of law and order provide proper protection and security for the citizen. And justice must be seen to be done. Those in communities that suffer the most from crime must be shown that justice can be achieved.
The message must be as clear as possible that court attendance is compulsory not optional. Where the court grants bail, if the defendant does not surrender to bail on the day set, he should expect to be picked up by the authorities and punished as soon as possible for his failure to appear. If conditions are set for bail, the defendant must expect that those conditions will be enforced. If the defendant commits an offence on bail he must expect his bail will be revoked. If the defendant is fined, that fine must be paid. Fines are not optional. If he is given a community penalty, the conditions of that penalty must be enforced.
It must be clear that what the court orders happens. A system where there is doubt about enforcement is one which will lose respect everywhere, but particularly in the places that respect is most needed, namely amongst deprived communities where most crime is committed. Those who commit crimes will not fear the courts, those who are the victims of crime will despair, and the public confidence that they will be protected by the system reduces.
Making the criminal justice system properly a system
The public know that every crime will not be prevented, nor every criminal caught. But they expect the court system to be a public service which can be relied on, and respected. It must deal with cases efficiently.
And we will only fight crime effectively if all the criminal justice agencies work very closely together. A new approach has been adopted in delivering a more co-ordinated criminal justice system. Local Criminal Justice Boards provide a driving co-ordinated force to fight crime in each of the 42 criminal justice areas in the country.
The National Criminal Justice Board provides the co-ordination at central government which is required to ensure that it occurs throughout the system. Local co-ordination will be most effective if the front line deliverers have leadership and example from the centre.
We can only make our contribution effectively if we do it jointly with the other agencies and departments. We must plan, budget and work together and this must be prioritised across the whole criminal justice system. The public, rightly, have no time for disagreements between those they look to for delivery and protection. The new Department must ensure that the demands it makes on the agencies for which it is responsible are consistent with and complimentary to the demands other agencies are making on their front line deliverers.
Joining with the wider world to fight and reduce crime
The close connection and co-ordinated delivery required by the criminal justice agencies must also be reflected in the recognition that the effective fight against crime depends on connecting the criminal justice system to the wider world. If people's communities are dominated by the fear of crime and drugs, there is little hope of community renewal. Many people living on run-down estates say that, whatever their housing problems, what's even worse is the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour and the fear that their children will fall prey to drugs. So to help our communities, we must fight crime and drugs effectively.
The street crime initiative, which had led to dramatic falls in street crime, shows what can be done where not just the criminal justice agencies but the wider public service deliverers and voluntary sector organisations co-operate to fight crime in a co-ordinated way.
Community justice centres represent a tangible way of making those wider connections. Based round a court centre, a building can contain not just the criminal justice agencies - Crown Prosecution Service, police, probation, Youth Offending Teams - but also other bodies such as social services, housing, education all of which have a vital role to play in fighting crime, and reducing offending and re-offending.
The role of the civil courts in fighting ant-social behaviour
The role of the civil courts in combating anti-social behaviour is vital and we must focus the civil courts on doing all they can. The availability of housing injunctions, eviction orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, domestic violence protection, neighbour nuisance protection, and noise pollution prohibition orders all make a significant contribution to the fight against anti-social behaviour, and to the strengthening of communities.
The role of the family courts is vital in protecting children, putting their best interests first, and - in deciding arrangements for their future - helping to provide the stable and loving homes they need. The family courts help to focus parents on what is best for the child, putting children's needs above their own. The courts look to enhance children's life chances by promoting arrangements that will reduce family conflict. By speeding up decisions on care and adoption we will minimise the number of changes in foster care arrangements that children go through.
Children who are the subject of court proceedings, whether in care cases or where decisions are being made about their future welfare in adoption or following the relationship breakdown of their parents, should have a voice in those proceedings. In all proceedings, the welfare of the child is paramount.
In all it does, the system must be just. A system without justice is one for which there is no respect, and one which provides insecurity for the citizen. Justice means a fair process for defendants. But it also means justice for victims. We will be looking to redress the balance between defendants and victims where it is appropriate to do so.
Making the immigration system fair and effective - control over our borders
The way the immigration system operates effects people's sense of security. Inadequately controlled immigration creates fears amongst those communities where resources are scarce and there is competition for state funds to regenerate and support public services. The immigration system has to be fair, efficient and accurate in identifying who are genuinely entitled to stay - whether because they have a well-founded fear of persecution, or for some other reason - and then effective in enforcing whatever conclusion the system has reached.
The public needs to be confident that we have control over our borders. We are making progress in achieving this. But we need to be constantly seeing how we can improve and speed up the system so that the justified applicant is identified, and the unjustified applicant identified and removed before the system loses sight of him or her.
A crucial part of the process is judicial. We need to ensure that the judicial process is as efficient and fair and quick as it can be.
The judges and the communities they serve
There is faith in individual judges within the justice system. But there is not widespread faith that the justice system is either efficient enough, or understanding enough of the problems which communities face. The justice system must deliver for all, in particular for the deprived community and the victim. They are the groups which most need the justice system. Equality before the law means above all that the system will deliver just as much for the socially excluded, the poor and the victimised as it will for the rich and the powerful. The test of any effective justice system is whether, in practice, it does that.
The reform in the method of appointing judges is a vital part of the delivery of a new system for the public. Our judges are of exceptional ability, independence, and probity. We must preserve that. But the current system is suitable for an earlier time. Judicial selection has to be based on an open transparent, accountable system - one which can be scrutinised and be found to be based on merit alone. The system of one politician being responsible for these appointments does not lend itself easily to the degree of transparency, accountability and public scrutiny required. Until there is that degree of accountability, transparency and scrutiny some people will be put off from applying for judicial appointment, and the public's confidence in the appointment's system will not be strengthened.
But it is about much more than throwing light on the system, important as that is. It is also about changing over time the make-up of the people who hold judicial office in England and Wales. The diversity of the nation needs to be reflected in the diversity of the judges.
The legal profession is diverse, and has become more so over recent years. But that diversity has only slowly reflected itself in judicial appointments. Whilst the change in the make-up of the judiciary will take place eventually, the solution does not lie simply in the passage of time. The numbers entering the profession by reference to, for example, gender may reflect the diversity of the nation generally, but, by the time lawyers are looking for judicial appointments that diversity has reduced. The attrition rate for woman in the profession is much greater than for men. Similar statistics apply to black and minority ethnic groups. Judges need to understand the problems of the communities their judgements will affect. The role of the judge is to enforce the law. The more there is an understanding of the needs of the communities, the better the community will be served, and the greater the faith the community will have in its justice system.
The Judicial Appointments Commission represents an opportunity not just to establish better transparency and accountability in the selection of judges, but also to open up the bench to candidates who might, in the past, either have not thought it worth applying or whose merit might have been overlooked by judges.
The justice system and race
The justice system must convince all of society that it serves their needs irrespective of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Of all the areas where constant vigilance is required, it is in attitudes to black and minority communities shown by the criminal justice system. The black and minority ethnic communities have a vital interest in seeing the criminal law enforced effectively. They, more than any other groups are the victims of crime. They are more dependent for protection on the law working effectively. All too often they have seen the system work in a way which has been unfair to their communities, often at a time when they needed the system to provide them with protection and justice.
The Stephen Lawrence Enquiry made all of these points with clarity and accuracy. The courts and the judiciary need to give the clearest possible lead that law enforcement and justice are the exclusive drivers of the criminal justice system, not racial prejudice or political correctness.
Much has been done since the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry reported. But it is an agenda where trust is easily lost, and hard to regain, and where progress depends on both appointments and attitudes. Unswerving commitment is required. Bishop John Sentamu's report into the trial of those accused of the killing of Damilola Taylor identified that progress has been made in the agenda, but also described how trust was lost throughout the post-arrest investigation and trial phase amongst the communities which the trial could so easily have helped. The parents of Damilola Taylor have seen their son murdered and nobody brought to justice. We cannot afford anything other than total vigilance on the issue.
Justice for all
An effective justice system is not just about the courts and the judges, it is also about the extent to which the public genuinely has access to the justice system. Access depends first on knowing that there are rights which can be enforced, and then having the resources to seek to exercise those rights.
The people who most need that access are the poor, the vulnerable and the victimised. Making their rights a reality can help prevent or reduce social exclusion. Solving debt or welfare problems or preventing homelessness stops problems spiralling out of control. This is the role of the Community Legal Service.
Access to the justice system has been provided over the years by legal aid, and by a range of voluntary sector providers, partly or wholly funded by public money from various sources.
The system is far from fair. The rich can litigate at will and those on limited means can get legal aid - if their case is strong, they pass the means test and their case is covered by legal aid. But those in between often cannot afford to use the law even if they have strong cases. We are not living up to the vision of the Attlee Government which set up legal aid and wanted to ensure that everyone had effective access to the law to protect their rights.
Part of our role is to help people find early, quick, and accessible information and greater use, where appropriate of low cost ways to resolve justiciable disputes. Current legal systems do not provide this. Most people are scared of using the courts or tribunal but lack information and advice on what they can do. These are limited alternative non-adversarial options available to the public, including advice, public or private ombudsman schemes, mediation and arbitration.
We are committed to improving access to justice especially for the socially excluded. This requires us to explore how to develop alternatives to court and tribunal based systems which are quicker, cheaper, less adversarial and better at addressing behavioural changes.
Tribunals handle about one million cases every year. We intend to improve the services provided for tribunal users by bringing together the largest, central government tribunals into a single service within the DCA.
Lawyers serving the public
Poor access to the justice system is in part a "market failure" problem. formality and expense attend all aspects of the justice system. The "popular" end of the market is limited. Conditional Fee Agreements - "no win, no fee" - have started to increase access for all, so have moves to increase out of court settlements and alternative dispute resolution procedures, both aimed at earlier and cheaper outcomes for users.
But we need to go much further. In July 2003 we announced a wide ranging independent review of the regulation of the legal services market aimed at promoting competition and innovation and improving services for the customer. Led by Mr David Clementi, Chairman of the Prudential plc and former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, our review of legal services aims to promote a market where everyone, except those with limited means who get free access, can get access to legal services at affordable cost. We will drive the creation of a popular end of the market so that legal services are there for those who need support in dealing with "neighbours from hell" or in a family dispute where the means of looking after their children will be resolved for the rest of those children's childhood.
The provider driven nature of the market is well illustrated by people's complaints of poor service by the legal profession taking too long to resolve. I have appointed a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to raise standards. All of this is part of driving a fundamental change in the way legal services are provided.
The rank of QC raises similar issues: the continuation of the rank must depend on whether its continuation brings identifiable benefits for the public. In determining the way forward on that issue the most influential arguments will be those which seek to identify how the public benefit from the system.
Again at the heart of the change are two clear propositions: we are a Department to serve the public, and second the groups which most needs real access to the law are the poor, the vulnerable and the victimised.
Reform of the constitution for a purpose
The Department is also the reformer and guardian of the constitution. The Lord Chancellor historically defended the independence of the judges. I will continue to do that, both whilst I am Lord Chancellor, and when that office is abolished.
But that is only one aspect of the constitutional reform agenda the Department must pursue. We need to embed fundamental political and constitutional change to achieve better government for the public, and to strengthen their democratic rights. We want to develop public trust in the constitution - and in the way we reform that constitution and we will explain clearly and explicitly our plans for future constitutional change.
Greater public trust
Mutual trust between public, and government is vital. We need more open and more trusted government. Government must trust the public to know. The public must trust the government to be doing the right thing for them. They may disagree with the individual policies adopted. But they must be confident that an honest and competent government is properly analysing the options, and doing the best by the public.
To achieve this mutual trust needs a fundamental change in the way government provides information to the public. There can be a real openness about the conduct of government.
We need to approach this in a number of ways. First, the public must feel able to trust what the government tells them. We need explicit standards for our communications with the public. Second, we need an effective freedom of information regime. Not a half-hearted implementation of the Freedom of Information statute but vigorous support for greater openness. The spirit of the law as well as the letter. Led from the top. Third, we must develop a more inclusive policy process - listening actively to the wishes of the public from the outset. Fourth, we must show to the public that we will handle their own personal information in a way which inspires trust. Accurate information. Up-to-date information. Handled responsibly. And readily available to the people it concerns.
A human rights culture based on acceptance of the principles not increasing the litigation culture
The Human Rights Act has not resulted in the sharp increase in litigation which some had predicted. However its objectives need fulfilling. It should change the way that public authorities treat individuals. An understanding of human rights should drive up our standards for public services, contributing to broader public service reform. A culture of human rights will help us understand the values we all share irrespective of our background, and that with human rights come social responsibilities.
Empowerment and democratic change
We must bring government closer to people, listening to them and giving them more opportunities to influence the decisions which affect their lives. This Government already has a strong record on this front, having created the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and the people of the north of England will have a say in referendums in 2004 on whether they want regional elected assemblies. Now the DCA, including the Scotland and Wales Offices, has an important role to play in fostering the devolution settlements.
But we must not rest there. We need to explore other avenues for empowering individuals and communities, not least because their engagement will add impetus to the renewal of our public services. We must make it easier to vote. We must deliver a voting system which is relevant to lifestyles of the 21st century and which gives everybody confidence in its security. Pilots of innovative voting methods have been successful at local elections and we are now looking at how we can translate that success to the national stage.
The new supreme court
We will separate the highest court of appeal from the legislature. Judges appointed to the highest court of appeal to decide cases, should not also take part in the process of changing the law itself.
So the new Department has a busy agenda. Whilst it has a role to preserve fundamental constitutional principles, it has an immediate and urgent task to drive real change through the justice system to make it more effective in contributing to the security of the public and to reform the constitution to produce greater clarity and therefore understanding, and greater accountability, and therefore confidence.
We need to be able to deliver change in ways which improves things for the public. As a Department we must be capable of promoting change in the organisations for which we are responsible in a way which allows the frontline staff to improve the lives of the public. Change not for the lawyers, the judges or the Whitehall watchers, but for the public. We must connect with the people. We must be on their side. We must prove to them that the new Department does make a difference to their daily lives, and their personal security. We know that is a tough and difficult challenge, but it is one which the Department accepts and is determined to fulfil.