The creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs from the old Lord Chancellor's Department is a major reform of Government in action.
This important change refocuses the work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that it concentrates on driving improvements to the justice system, reforming the constitution to retain public confidence and safeguarding checks and balances now long established.
The focus of the Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer, now Secretary of State, is on the public, not just on the provider interests. The public needs an effective and dependable constitution and justice system. There is a need to bolster public confidence, understanding and consent to the manner in which our country is governed.
Ask anyone to define the British constitution and you will get a myriad of different answers. There is no generic description or definitive list of functions. But one of the beauties of the British system is its combination of statute laws, common laws, interpretations and conventions; it is a living organism, always adapting to new circumstances. I now believe that we need to adapt to modern standards, expectations & scrutiny.
Organic growth is something we should be proud of. But organic growth can also lead to anomalies & imperfections.
'Modernisation' is a word used frequently these days, but it applies perfectly to describe what is needed in some of the perhaps quieter corners of the constitution:
There is a lot of change that is evidently necessary, and change is about credibility;
So reform is necessary for reasons of high principle. But it is also necessary for more practical and pragmatic reasons.
As a Member of Parliament I feel the heat from the public on a daily basis - especially with a majority like mine! Delivering results and responding to their concerns is a major driver for change, and quite right too.
The public want to see Justice done;
Public hold elected representatives responsible, but the public also understands the need for independent judiciary and independent judicial decisions.
So continuously underscoring the delineation of responsibilities and safeguards is the task before us, and why we are introducing a clearer separation between the different parts of our constitution. Separating the judiciary from any perceived undue influences of the executive or legislature is the important message to convey in the work we're doing.
In the past, we have argued that a Lord Chancellor with a foot in all three camps was, paradoxically, the best way of protecting the judiciary. Indeed, for many centuries that was true. But I don't believe that's any longer the case. Modern politics, modern government has moved on and changed.
The different roles of the Lord Chancellor are now so great, so important and so demanding that they stretch capabilities very far indeed, perhaps too far. The second chamber needs a dedicated presider; the judiciary needs a distinct head; and the administration of the courts, criminal justice and constitutional reform needs a full-time Secretary of State.
So it is our concern to create a modern, transparent and accountable justice system which lies behind the reforms currently being proposed.
And it is also our intention to bolster and enhance the independence of the judiciary - not to jeopardise or undermine it in any way:
We will legislate to create our Supreme Court separate from one of our chambers of Parliament, thus putting an end to the untenable blurring of the functions of our most senior judges. I am aware that there are mixed views on that issue. The present system works well because the present Law Lords make it so. But that does not necessarily mean that it is right. Expectations have moved on and our institutions must move with them if they are to continue to command public confidence.
We are looking again at a vital element of our legal system - the way in which we identify our best advocates. The legal system must meet the requirements of the public. Any system for singling out advocates must be capable of recognising the wide variety of skills needed to provide the public with the legal services they deserve.
Clearer independence for the branches of our constitution is exceptionally important, then, but independence should not be mistaken for isolation or infallibility: just as we need safeguards to deter excesses in the executive, so too we need exceptional safeguards to maintain the high standing of our judiciary.
In my view, we can summarise our vision for constitutional reform as, reforms that produce greater clarity, and therefore understanding, and in turn confidence, as I'm sure you'll agree.
In conclusion, this is a major programme. With no doubt a wide array of differing opinions too. We have to preserve the best, and we need to strengthen the separation of powers. But the public demands a focus on their needs and that includes both constitutional & judicial needs too. They rightly hold representatives to account.
And we in turn need to prove that we can structure our democracy to both protect judicial decisions from populism and interference, whilst simultaneously raising public confidence and understanding in their constitution for which they hold us accountable.