Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen
I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me here today to your Annual conference. I greatly value the invitation.
I would also like to wish you, Peter, a successful year in office as President of the Law Society and I look forward to working with you on the many important issues which face us. We both started in office at about the same time but you have had two immediate advantages. First you are not trying to abolish yourself and secondly you do not seem to have a clothing problem.
Could I say a few words about Janet Paraskeva. She has headed the Law Society Organisation for the last 3 years, I have dealt with her in a number of capacities in that time, she has steered the organisation over those years in a way that has made the Society the envy of all other professional bodies, times have been difficult for all professions you are lucky indeed to have so formidable a Chief Executive.
When I looked at your programme, I was pleased to see that the theme for the Conference was 'Legal Services - A Future Framework'. Today I want to give you some of my thoughts on the future of legal services and the themes which will guide my attitude to policy.
But first of all let me put what I am about to say in context. On 12th June this year the Government announced a further programme of reform to make the constitution more relevant and effective for the needs of today.
The abolition of the Office of Lord Chancellor will put the relationship between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature on a modern footing, and imbed the independence of the judiciary. The Office of Lord Chancellor has been the subject of criticism for some time. In particular by combining the three primary roles of Minister, Judge and Speaker of the House of Lords, these distinct functions have become obscured, even confused.
It can no longer be appropriate for a senior judge to sit in Cabinet or for a Government Minister to be our country's senior judge. I have myself made it clear that I shall not sit judicially, but it is now time to bring the legal arrangements to an end.
As Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs I shall continue to have a duty to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, both within Government and outside, and to ensure proper consideration of judicial concerns.
As Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor I am in charge of a major Department of State with large spending and public service delivery responsibilities. The public should expect, rightly, that I devote my full-time attention to these duties and I intend to do so.
And so the new department created in June represents a wholesale change as it becomes a mainstream public service delivery department. It will uphold the rule of law and deliver civil and political rights to all, whoever you are and wherever you live. It will provide a court and justice system where the independence of the judges is protected, fair to all, but which will play its part in safeguarding the community from crime. We will also seek to enhance democratic freedoms and encourage and support participation in political processes and institutions.
So what does this mean in practice?
A justice system is not effective unless there is access to it for all, not just the wealthy or those who obtain legal aid. And rights are not effective unless they can be enforced.
There are still far too many of those who are socially excluded, poor and vulnerable whose problems go unresolved. Many do not know what can be done or believe that nothing can be done about their problems. Many others take no action because they are too scared to do so. Some make attempts to get advice but fail.
Ethnic minorities, those with low education or on benefits are amongst those least likely to take action often when there is an opportunity to get something done.
I want to redouble our efforts to secure justice for all. It was a concept introduced by the Atlee Government of which we are justifiably proud.
Almost £2 billion pounds is spent on legally supporting those who need protecting most. I have a responsibility to ensure that the best value possible from that £2 billion is realised. We have to review and refocus our approach to legal aid and to relook at the relationship between Criminal and Civil Legal Aid. But I cannot hold out any hope of the overall budget being increased in the near future.
This Government is committed to legal aid - criminal and civil - as a fundamental public service. We want to maintain and develop a service which enables people to protect their rights and tackles social exclusion.
I agree things cannot stay as they are.
For that reason the Government is carrying out a review of supply demand and purchasing arrangements in order to establish how we might buy legal services in future and what we might need to pay. We have kept the Law Society informed of this review and will feed in Law Society ideas of funding arrangements.
We will look in particular about the differing nature of practice in different areas.
I know lawyers complain about remuneration rates but may I point out that over the last ten years the average cost per family case in civil representation has gone up by 91%. Inflation in the same period was 30%. I do not argue that this is all to the benefit of lawyers. But it does show that arguments about rates are not as straightforward as they first appear.
I am committed to maintaining civil legal aid and you can have my assurance that I will make every effort to maintain services.
But there are pressures from criminal legal aid budget. We are taking vigorous steps to reduce that pressure for example by rolling out the Very High Cost Case regime. We have also put forward a package of possible changes to criminal legal aid schemes to raise efficiency.
I will endeavour to make sure that we properly cost and budget for new measures that put pressure on the legal aid budget. But additional resources - which different funding arrangements would require - will not be easily available over the next few years.
We need to make sure that the costs of those legal processes which legal aid supports are examined and where possible reduced. We have started with the Case Preparation Project and the Protocol in Public Law Children Act Cases. They have wider aims but we believe they will bear down on costs. There is more to do.
I am very aware of the contribution made by legal aid lawyers. They reflect the core values of service to the community which lie at the heart of the legal profession.
Many of us who chose the law as a profession did so because we wanted to help people resolve their difficulties and to defend their rights when they are wronged.
Many lawyers voluntarily give up much time to offer free legal advice enabling people to benefit from the valuable expertise and knowledge that they have gained in private practice. Pro Bono is a perfect example of this. Lawyers demonstrate their dedication to pro bono in law and advice centres all over the country. I recognise the commitment this requires and salute the lawyers who undertake it. I am proud of those who give selflessly. But more needs to be done. Pro Bono work is a small, valuable supplement not an answer in itself. I believe structural change is needed to expand the private sector's contribution to this provision of legal services.
Now as far as structural change is concerned you will know that last July I announced a wide ranging independent review of the regulation of the legal services market. I hope that following this review any new framework will support competition and innovation leading to an improvement in legal services for the customer in ways which have not been explored before. Today the customer is King or Queen. He or she wants more choice and more flexibility. Long gone are the days when anyone in the legal profession dares to say, "the only problem with law is the client." I want us to adopt the Heineken approach and find legal services which reach parts of the community that no other services have reached.
Led by Mr David Clementi, Chairman of the Prudential plc and former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the review of legal services aims to produce a framework of regulation that can support innovation in the supply of legal services which will increase the choices available to consumers appropriate for todays world. We recognise that the market is not static and the terms of reference for David Clementi are designed to produce regulation which gives flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions. I want to see a market where everyone, except those with limited means who get free access, can get access to legal services at affordable cost in a modern setting. Shopping centres are the most obvious example of this, where clusters of problems such as employment, housing, debt and family problems can be dealt with together. And this leads to the use of employed solicitors by other businesses. I am well aware that when considering changes to the regulatory framework any resulting increase in competition must encompass the fact that the public interest must be safeguarded and consumer protection must be kept very much in mind, but for the legal profession to thrive and survive we must continue to be competitive in the legal market of today and we must not be frightened of innovation and change. There are new opportunities for all of you in this and I hope you will welcome the review and contribute to it in a constructive way. What your President said yesterday leads me to believe you will and I know work is already underway to see what can be done now to respond to market demand. This is another area where we can work constructively in partnership.
And just as we must find more ways of empowering disadvantaged citizens to protect their rights so we must protect the whole community from crime and anti social behaviour.
In fighting crime the message must be as clear as possible that, in the administration of criminal justice, 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 the defendant is given a community penalty, the conditions of that penalty must be enforced.
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. I hope you will support their work. The role of the defence solicitor has always been constructive, helpful and cooperative whenever engaged in these arrangements and I want us to continue in partnership.
We, in my Department, must plan, budget and work together with other agencies 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.
I know that the Law Society remains deeply concerned about certain aspects of the proposed criminal justice reforms but they have been conceived in the best interests of the criminal justice system as a whole.
You have also expressed concerns about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have made it very clear to the US that we want the process to meet internationally accepted standards of a fair trial.
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 over time, the solution does not lie simply in the passage of time. The numbers entering the profession by reference to 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 women in the profession is much greater than for men. Similar statistics apply to black and minority ethnic groups. This is not good enough and we all have to find answers because it is a problem which faces your profession too. You are losing too many people of real talent. And judges need to understand the problems of the communities their judgments will affect. The role of the judge is to enforce the law. The greater the 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, have not thought it worth applying or whose merit might have been overlooked by the appointments system. Specialist advocacy is not an axiomatic requirement for a good judge and I want to see more solicitors regard themselves as potential judges.
As far as the future of Queen's Counsel is concerned the fundamental issue is whether the current system is objectively in the public interest and whether it commands public confidence. I know you have views on that and I look forward to hearing them.
Over all our justice system must convince the community that it serves their needs irrespective of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. 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. We must always remember that in this area trust is easily lost and hard to regain.
Many of the steps the Law Society has taken in promoting legal services are very much to be applauded, I would like to mention in particular a few of the changes you have made which I consider significant. Over recent years you have established stable and respected leadership of the organisation. This has provided the necessary platform to make other key changes. I know that you have provided a significant increase in the resources you devote to complaints handling. I am only too well aware that those resources have had to come from increases in the Practising Fee Certificate - it is all of you, solicitors, who have paid for the changes that have been made. You have ensured an increasing role for lay people in the organisation especially in your regulatory function and appointed an independent commissioner Sir Stephen Lander. I welcome too, the establishment of the Practice Standards Unit which intervenes proactively in failing firms to help them improve their standard of service to the public. So far so good, but in my view it is not enough. You, yourselves have recognised that you need to do even more. You have decided to establish a discreet Consumer Complaints Directorate which will allow you to focus more clearly on customer service delivery. I have been considering how I can assist this process.
In refocussing my department I always put the customer at the heart of what we do and I know you want to do the same. It is not just a question of modernising, of finding new market opportunities to serve the customer, it is also how you deal with customer complaints. Unfortunately in spite of all your efforts I have concluded your complaints handling has not shown sufficient improvement to an extent and within an acceptable timescale, and, as you, yourselves have said, is still not efficient and effective. There is more room for improvement.
So, I cannot stand by and do nothing, despite your best efforts to improve. The solicitor's role as the conduit between the public and the legal system is vital, but it will only continue to work effectively if you ensure that your services and subsequent complaints handling processes are carried out to an a high standard. I know that you are aware of this and that no-one is keener than you are to provide a high standard of service to the public. I know we agree that customer service must come first. A customer complaint unresolved is bad publicity for the firm concerned and conversely a complaint resolved results in good public relations.
As I have said the work undertaken by the Law Society to improve customer service matters is warmly welcomed and is a step in the right direction. You have sent a clear signal that you are committed to making real improvements to the service you provide to your consumers. But you know it is still not enough. The services must improve. I know you accept that. I have thought hard about the ways in which we can achieve that improvement together.
In the circumstances, I have concluded that I must appoint a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to assist in that. This is without prejudice to the outcome of David Clementi's review. I have a responsibility to ensure that the public gets the services that they are entitled to expect and must therefore do everything I can to help you. In making this appointment I am sure that the respective bodies will work in a spirit of cooperation to achieve real improvements for the benefit of the customer. I shall in the coming days and weeks, be directing the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to work co-operatively to build on the work you have started. I will also consult with the Law Society on the precise terms of how the Customer Complaints Director will collaborate with the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner. Any targets which are set will encourage improved standards, improved performance and support the Law Society in its aim to ensure a high standard of service for the public. They will not divert attention away from that important work. I look forward to our working together to realise our vision to provide the quality service I know you are seeking to achieve.
The publicity pack for delegates to this Conference said that in attending this Conference you would be able to contribute to the fundamental question: How will solicitors deliver legal services in the future while retaining the core values of integrity and independence which are the hallmarks of the profession?
I hope that I have shown this morning some of my ambitions for the profession and the framework in which you will operate. In so many ways we already work constructively together. I want to build on this and work with you to create legal services which like our law become the envy of the world and which helps voters become citizens with a renewed respect for ourselves and for our institutions.