I want to talk to you tonight about constitutional affairs. Not so much about the structure and fabric of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which I head, but about constitutional affairs as we define them: about justice, about rights, about democracy.
So I want to talk about three things: what we're for, what we do and where we're going. Because I believe that the work this department is engaged in is vital:
vital for the Government, in both carrying forward real, radical reform and in reconnecting and re-engaging with people
and vital too for the country, in making sure that in the key areas of work in which we are engaged - justice, rights and democracy - that the way we do things both serves the public and is fit for purpose for 21st century Britain.
The DCA, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, was created on June 12 this year. We've got a great deal to do, but I believe we have made a good start with a range of specific and detailed policy proposals on which we've been consulting - on the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, the creation of a supreme court, a new way of appointing judges, the role of QCs and further reform of the House of Lords.
That's a fair amount to be getting on with, and what I want to do this evening, all but six months on from the creation of the department, is now to stand back a little and make sure we are broadly where we need to be.
As a Secretary of State, as a set of ministers, as a department, we are here to address two distinct agendas: public service delivery, and a wider notion of safeguarding and modernising the constitution and how we do government and democracy.
The first is clear enough. Justice for all is as central to this government as education for all and a national health service for all. That was the ambition of the post-war Attlee government. It remains the ambition of this government.
That means a justice system which works, and a justice system in which people have faith: a justice system which delivers for victims, for defendants and for the community. And, frankly, that means a justice system which needs radical reform.
The second is less immediately tangible, but no less important. We know there has been a decline in confidence in politics and in political institutions. Falling participation levels in elections and falling levels of trust are only two of its manifestations. Restoring trust, restoring faith, restoring confidence in politics will be a long haul, in which every element not just of government but of political life must play its part. But given the remit of my department, which includes issues like freedom of information, human rights and electoral reform, I believe that the DCA has a particular responsibility in this area. A difficult responsibility: but one we are determined to discharge.
Both of these objectives - better service in the justice system, better government and democracy in the political system - are driven and connected by one overriding point: serving the public. And especially ensuring that it is the public, not the providers, who are at the heart of what we do.
For too long, the courts, the law, the justice system and constitutional issues have been seen as the preserve of their key interest groups. They are not. They play a vital part in everyone's daily life.
That doesn't mean there isn't an important role for judges, lawyers and constitutional thinkers. That doesn't mean there isn't an important leadership role for politicians and civil servants. But what it does mean, though, is that all our changes to the justice system and democratic system have to be measured by how they serve the public, and that those who run or work in the system are there to give service to the public. This is a simple change in the work of my department - but a fundamental one. It governs all that we do.
As I say, we've characterised what we do into three broad areas - justice, rights and democracy - and I'd like now to touch on each.
Let's take justice first. Providing security for people is a central role for government. Security against danger through the defence services. Security against ill health through the NHS. Security against disadvantage through the welfare state. And security against crime through the criminal justice system.
Crime and anti-social behaviour corrupt communities, eating away at the fabric of the way we all want to live our lives. People in all communities, but especially in communities suffering the most from crime, must have faith that measures and systems to combat crime and anti-social behaviour will work. That justice can be achieved. And that they can enjoy the security we all want to see.
For too long and in too many cases, justice has been seen to be optional. We cannot accept a criminal justice system which operates this way, even at the margins. Instead, everyone involved in criminal justice must know that the justice system works. That court attendance is compulsory not optional. Where the court grants bail, if defendants don't surrender to bail on the day set, they should expect to be picked up by the authorities and punished as soon as possible for their failure to appear. If conditions are set for bail, defendants must expect that those conditions will be enforced. If defendants commit an offence on bail, they must expect their bail will be revoked. If defendants are fined, that fine must be paid. Fines are not optional. If a community penalty is given, the conditions of that penalty must be enforced - and I'm heartened by recent and real improvements in fine enforcement. But the overall point remains: when a court decides, it decides. It must be clear that what the court orders happens.
Continuing reform in the operation of the courts will be matched by reforms to other parts of the system: the abolition of my office of Lord Chancellor, the creation of a supreme court to replace the final appellate committee in the House of Lords and the establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
I believe we are fortunate in Britain. Our judges are of exceptional ability, independence, and probity. People recognise that and we must do everything we can to preserve it.
But judicial selection must be based on an open transparent, accountable system - one which can be scrutinised and be found to be based on merit alone.
Judges need to understand the problems of the communities their judgements will affect. The justice system must convince all of society that it serves their needs irrespective of gender, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. I think an important signal on this has been sent with the appointment of the first female law lord.
The system of one politician being pretty well solely responsible for all these appointments does not lend itself easily to the degree of transparency, accountability and public scrutiny required.
The creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, represents an opportunity not only to create 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.
I know that some of the judiciary have concerns about our reforms. That was clear a few weeks ago when different groups of judges made public their range of responses to our proposals.
But in their varying responses, the judiciary was in my view entirely right to concentrate on one central issue: judicial independence. The independence of the judiciary is of course an important issue for the judges, but that is not the primary reason why it matters. It matters because it matters to us all. A free and fair society needs an independent judiciary, for the protection it offers us all.
We don't need convincing on this. Indeed, a central purpose of our reforms is precisely to provide for judicial independence. Imagine the outcry if what we were proposing was in fact the system we now have: imagine the appalled protests against overt politicisation of the judiciary if we were proposing taking the head of the judiciary into Cabinet. That is the position we have now. That is what my job currently is. And that is wrong.
So what we are going to do instead is to ensure judicial independence precisely by separating out the fundamental pillars of state of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
That is implicit in all our reforms. But I believe we need to do more than that. I believe we need to make that explicit: fully transparent, fully open.
So tonight I can tell you that we intend to enshrine the independence of the judiciary in statute. For the first time ever in Britain, the independence of the judiciary will be provided for explicitly by law. The Constitutional Reform Bill we announced in the Queen's Speech last week will include the independence of the judiciary on the face of the bill.
I recognise this is radical. I recognise this is a break from the past. But judicial independence is too important to this country and to this government to be any longer left unspecified, uncodified, unwritten. We want to guarantee judicial independence. And that's what we're going to do. Explicitly. Judicial independence - guaranteed.
I believe this will be an enormous benefit. I believe this explicit declaration is vitally important. We are working closely with the judiciary, at a range of levels, to tackle their concerns. And I am confident that, whatever the difficulties, we will reach agreement with them in a way which brings benefit to the process, the courts and the justice system, and to the people.
I've dwelt for some time on justice because of its immediate and practical importance to people's lives. Ensuring proper good justice is a clear responsibility upon government. And we all, as individuals, whether as juror or witness, magistrate or citizen, have a clear personal responsibility towards proper justice.
But it has been and remains a central tenet of this government that responsibilities go together with rights. That rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, that rights coupled with responsibilities are the basic bedrock of citizenship - how we all live with one another in a fair and decent society. Human rights together with responsibilities are essential to a fair and prosperous country.
Fifty years ago, the UK government and British lawyers helped to enshrine British liberties into the European Convention on Human Rights. But they could only be claimed in the European Court in Strasbourg. That was wrong: wrong in principle, and wrong in practice. So we brought in the 1998 Human Rights Act, so that for the last three years people in Britain have been able to safeguard their rights in the UK.
Like so much in this area, the dark and dire forecasts of trouble and difficulties haven't come to pass. We haven't seen an avalanche of mad, marginal claims. We haven't seen a lawfest, or a lawyer's feeding frenzy. What we've seen instead is what we thought we'd see: yes, a fundamental shift, to a system of rights, but at the same time, quiet, steady progress, with judges and public authorities using the provisions of the legislation both to help people in practical ways and to improve the delivery of key public services. Putting into place in practice the fairness guarantee set out by the legislation, and enacting in practice our promise to respect people's basic human rights.
People have a right, too, to information - about themselves, about their government, about democracy. That right is now enacted in our freedom of information and data legislation.
Vigorous commitment to freedom of information is essential to the renewal of trust and to the right in a democratic society of people to know. But access to information is not just about papers on big policy choices. It is about the way personal information is handled.
So the Data Protection Act is not some sort of nanny state monster, but a clear obligation on all of us to show that we handle individuals' data responsibly. And that the information held is readily available to the people to whom it relates. Real rights of real value.
So: justice, rights - and democracy. Renewing our democratic frameworks and structures has been and remains a hallmark of this government.
Devolution in Scotland, and in Wales. Local mayors. Changed voting methods. Reforms in Parliament, in both the Commons and the Lords, with the removal - to be completed in this new session - of the hereditary principle from our legislative process. No longer will the power to decide on the laws which govern us all be vested in some people wholly and solely because of their birth. That has long been an objective for the parties of the centre and the left. This party will deliver it.
This has been an extensive programme of constitutional reform. I will be saying more about constitutional reform specifically in a separate speech next week. All I want to do tonight in this area is to set out three fundamental points.
The first is that we must find ways to renew and reconnect our democracy and our politics. We must bring government closer to people. We must connect with everyone's lives. We must give people more opportunities to influence the decisions which affect their lives. An effective dialogue between governed and government is essential to deliver better government and build trust.
The second is that is that what governs our approach is a clear desire to place power where it should be: increasingly, not with the politicians, but with those best fitted in different ways to deploy it. So political decisions about Scotland, for example, are made where they should be - in Scotland. Interest rates are not set by politicians in the Treasury but by the Bank of England. Minimum wages are not determined in the DTI, but by the Low Pay Commission. The courts here, not in Strasbourg, will decide on human rights. Membership of the House of Lords will be determined not in Downing Street but in an independent Appointments Commission. This depoliticising of key decision-making is a vital element in bringing power closer to people.
And the third is that improving our democracy, improving our politics, improving our constitution is now a permanent goal. The perfect democracy, perfect politics, a perfect constitution doesn't exist. They have to be constantly sought, constantly reached for. Does that mean constant change ? No. Democracy, politics, the constitution all need stability, too. But the old notions of a constitutional 'settlement' almost certainly now no longer applies. Change in the world, in globalisation, in technology, in media, means that such notions are no longer valid in the way they were.
So what must endure is our values. What we are, what we do: but crucially, what we do it for. It is that perspective, it is our values - of fairness, decency, justice - which will continue to inform what we as a department and what we as a government do now.
We have set out in the Queen's Speech our legislative programme for the coming year. For this department, the agenda is huge. Legislation to abolish my role as it now stands as Lord Chancellor. To create a proper supreme court. To establish an independent judicial appointments commission. To remove the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords. To take the power of patronage away from prime ministers and instead place the creation of members of the second chamber in the hands of an independent commission. To improve the criminal defence service. To provide for a referendum on the Euro. To pilot new ways of voting in next year's European and local elections. And other measures we haven't yet announced.
Even on the measures we have so far announced, this is a big programme - for this department, a fifth of the entire bill list, and the single largest number of bills in any department in Whitehall.
I believe this demonstrates clearly that what the DCA is about - justice, rights and democracy - is central to what this government is about. That our agenda is at the centre of the government's agenda.
But as well as the specific measures for this year, we are also now starting to set out our thinking for the future beyond that. Now no government is going to set out its stall too early. But again, in terms of openness, in terms of trust, in terms of re-engagement and reconnection, I believe we are starting to set out where our thinking about future work is heading, and I want to finish by saying something about that now.
In the DCA, as in the rest of government, we are looking and thinking ahead on a range of issues.
So on crime, we need to take our reforms to the criminal justice system still further:
We are investing £1billion in modern technology for the criminal justice system, and we need to make sure we use that investment in innovative ways which benefit the public
We have to ensure that the £1.9billion we spend on legal aid is spent wisely, and targeted to ensure that those who need it most receive it
We have to take further steps to rebalance the system even more towards victims and witnesses
We need to keep improving our enforcement of penalties and especially fines, and indeed to ask whether fines should be linked more closely to income so that those who can pay more do pay more. Whether, indeed, the whole matter of fine enforcement would be better handled on a contracted-out basis rather than current provisions. And whether more money collected through fines should be retained locally to provide for further investment in tackling crime.
On rights, we need to continue to press ahead:
we need to right some wrongs - civil partnerships, for example, and gender recognition
we need to make sure that what we're proposing for Whitehall, a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, gets properly up and running
And we need to make sure that when it does, it makes a real and positive impact on people's lives and advances equality.
And on democracy, we must take forward further reforms as part of that continuing process:
we have to take the lessons learned from devolution in Scotland and in Wales, and apply them as appropriate as we extend the option of devolution in England
we have to embed properly freedom of information, and take on the pretty daunting but essential task of changing the culture in Whitehall, so that when decisions are tight - disclose, or not disclose - the balance of presumption is always that we do disclose, that we are open, that we are transparent
we have to take the principles at the heart of freedom of information - the right of access, and the responsibility to be accountable - and make sure that they are applied wherever they can be throughout our institutions and our systems
we have to find ways of ensuring that reform of Parliament, and particularly reform of the second chamber, does not stop where it is now
we have to ask what should be the role and functions of a second chamber ? What should be its composition, and its powers ?
we have to take further steps towards new voting methods and practices, including all-postal ballots, e-voting and so on, so that the right to vote fits more closely with the opportunity to vote
we have to think whether our current electoral legislation excludes too many - particularly young people, who currently absorb the democratic and political process in a range of ways, but who are until the age of 18 pretty well shut out from it.
I can't tonight do more than sketch in this agenda. I certainly can't tonight give you any answers to these and other questions. But I'm absolutely certain that we should be asking them. I'm absolutely certain that these and other, parallel issues in others areas of government and politics are essential to the future of the government and the future of the country. I know it's a big programme of work. But it's a programme for a purpose, and I believe a programme of vital importance for Britain.
So: justice, rights, democracy. Big words. Big ideas. A big agenda. A big programme.
But big though they are, they are notions and issues which matter. Matter hugely. It matters hugely to victims of crime that wrongs done to them are righted. It matters hugely to defendants that things of which they accused are examined and judged fairly, impartially and independently. It matters hugely to people seeking resolution to their family problems, of divorce, of custody, of property, that these issues are settled speedily and properly.
So we have an agenda which counts. An agenda which I recognise will be tough to deliver. And we're facing the challenge of doing so whilst changing ourselves as an organisation.
I'm not, either, talking about the sort of change that management consultants come and hold up diagrams about. I am talking about an organisation which, following the creation of a single courts administration, will be employing and managing a far larger group of people than before. I'm talking about an organisation which will have restructured its relationships with just about every important stakeholder. I'm talking about an organisation which will have radically restructured its finances and focus.
We are creating a department and an agenda explicitly based on safeguarding and modernising the constitution and delivering better public services. We are driving through change - not for its own sake, but in order to preserve and enhance those fundamental principles on which our society is based:
the right to participate in political processes and institutions that are democratic, transparent and accountable
the right to live in a safe and secure society, whoever you are and wherever you live
the right to a justice system which is, and is seen to be, fair, effective and accessible to all.
I think those principles are worth pursuing. I think those principles are worth fighting for. They are the objectives for which we're striving. And they are the objectives I'm determined to secure.