My Lord Mayor, My Lords, My Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.
My Lord Mayor, it is a great pleasure and honour to come to the Mansion House to propose a toast to you and the Lady Mayoress.
A personal pleasure because this year the office of the Lord Mayor has been discharged with conspicuous skill and effect by a practising Member of the Bar.
A pleasure too, to join with you, Lord Chief Justice, in paying a tribute to my friend and predecessor Lord Irvine of Lairg.
In his six years in office, Lord Irvine presided over major constitutional change introduced by this Government.
He was a force for good and a big and brave man. I am sure that he will come to be regarded as one of the great Lord Chancellors.
Lord Irvine leaves a very strong and able judiciary.
In all areas of work our nation is well served by judges of the highest calibre.
My predecessor saw the independence of the judiciary as essential to the Rule of Law. So do I. He saw the fundamental principle in appointing judges as selection on merit. So do I.
But the time has come for a clear break with the past. A minister able to focus on delivering a better justice system for all.
For a long time now, fundamental constitutional reform of the office of Lord Chancellor has been urged not just by academic writers but by practising lawyers with senior judges in the vanguard.
Indeed so many people have been thumping on this particular door of reform demanding admittance that it is frustrating that now we have opened the door there are some who have tumbled through claiming we have opened the door too quickly.
The Supreme Court means that the highest appeal court will no longer have a Cabinet Minister eligible to sit and it will no longer operate as a committee of the second house of the legislature. We can not allow in our courts what we would condemn in the courts of other countries.
In June 2000 Lord Bingham made a statement in the Lords that the Law Lords did not think it appropriate to engage in matters where there was a strong element of political controversy and they would also bear in mind that they might render themselves ineligible to sit if they were to express an opinion on a matter which might later be relevant to an appeal. This was sensible advice seeking to deal with the problems of judges who are in the legislature. We all recognise the dangers of judges perceived to have a view sympathetic to one side of the debate who then have to enforce the law. Authority is undermined. Far better that the two roles are not confused.
The Government believes that the time has come to establish a new court regulated by statute as a body separate from Parliament and from the Executive.
The Government's intention to establish an independent Judicial Appointments Commission is also designed to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
In a modern democratic society it is no longer acceptable for judicial appointments to be entirely in the hands of a Government Ministers. The suspicion that the Government might use this ability to create the tone of the judiciary by senior appointments is all too obvious. We need to guard against that risk in a way the public understand.
The appointments system must be, and must be seen to be, independent of Government. It must be transparent. It must be accountable. And it must inspire public confidence.
There is a second point. As the existing Commission for Judicial Appointments pointed out in its first annual report, the current judiciary is overwhelmingly white, male and from a narrow social and educational background.
The fundamental principle in appointing judges is and must remain selection on merit. The system must afford equal opportunities to all suitably qualified candidates. This requires fresh approaches and a major re-engineering of the processes for appointment. Those new processes must be resourced with the appropriate professional skills and expertise and underpinned by modern Human Resource best practice.
This is not about political correctness. That would quickly undermine confidence in the judiciary. It is about judges of the highest quality who reflect the community they serve.
I do not believe that a wholly career judiciary on the continental model would be appropriate for our system. But I do believe that new career paths should be looked at to promote other opportunities and diversity in appointments.
Developing a judiciary more broadly reflective of society at large will not be easy and the introduction of an Independent Commission will not be enough in itself to bring about change. It will need a close partnership with the current judiciary and the legal profession, as well as the Government to examine fresh ideas about the nature of judicial careers
These constitutional reforms occur at a time when the standing of our judiciary is high. They occur before confidence has been undermined. The Minster as judge, the judges as legislators, and the politician as a Gilbertian polymath able to resolve conflicts of interest within himself that any of his courts would condemn, is not sustainable. We should make the break and move forward from strength it is not the Lord Chancellor's office which should be preserved, it is the separation of powers. That separation must be delivered in a way that the public understand, not in a way in which special knowledge is required to grasp it.
The announcement on 12th June allows us to move ahead swiftly but with proper consultation on the "how". I believe that the well being of our State is much better served by a clear decision to reform our constitutional arrangements. Because there is no dispute that those reforms have as their aim the preservation of judicial independence. Because no-one seriously defends the existing method as the best way of doing it. And because by making the decisive move, we can move swiftly to new arrangements, avoiding a long and debilitating period of uncertainty.
It is no longer possible to say one thing to others about the separation of powers and do another at home.
Nowhere is the desire for co-operation between the Government and the Judiciary felt more strongly than in the fight against crime and anti social behaviour. The public rightly look to the State to fight crime and anti social behaviour with all the strength they can muster. They know that not every crime can be prevented nor can every criminal be caught and convicted. But they do expect that the system should be good at what it does where it does engage. The Criminal Justice System does not work well enough. The public have a right to expect better.
A successful criminal justice system depends on proper co-operation between police, prosecutors, courts, probation, prisons, youth offending teams and defence. That co-operation is all the easier if independence is transparently embedded in the system.
The Criminal Justice System must serve the community. The public must have confidence that it understands the needs of victims and witnesses. The public must know that the Criminal Justice System is good at what it does. That the system is good at judgements about bail, that cases take place when they are listed, that defendants turn up on the day and if they don't they pay a price. That the prosecution case is properly prepared, that sentencing connects with the community and that sentences are enforced - fines paid, community punishments complied with, prices paid if those conditions are not met, if necessary by custody.
The Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament is a key element of our reform programme and I welcome the support the Judiciary have offered on many of the reforms outlined in that legislation.
Our criminal justice reform programme demands a central role for the Judiciary and the magistracy in ensuring that all the criminal justice agencies are working more effectively together. This will require an active and, where necessary, interventionist approach to judicial case management. While it will - and should - remain the responsibility of parties to prepare cases properly, the judge will oversee this preparation from a case's first arrival in court until it is ready for trial.
I understand that there are those who disagree with the addition of non-judicial members to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I fully appreciate that the Council must carry authority with sentencers. I do not doubt that it will continue to do so, not least because the judiciary and magistracy will continue to be in the majority and because of the level of experience and expertise members of the Council will bring to the debate.
My Lord Mayor I am proud to be the first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.
I believe our proposals for change and reform bring clarity to our system and strengthen the independence of the judges.
The replacement of the Lord Chancellor with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs does represent a significant change. A minister focussing on the executive role of improving the courts and the legal aid system, and being the minister for the constitution. No longer judge, speaker and minister. But minister alone. Like all his fellow ministers driving change for the public good.
The role of any politician in driving change in the public sector is utterly vital. And that change, to be effective, must be driven by someone external to the public service to be changed.
But the drive for change does not involve rejecting the basic principles of our constitution. As the active guardian of our constitution I will continue to sustain it. For some there is a belief that only a lawyer can discharge that job. For many of the public there is the sense that if a lawyer fulfils that role the drive for change will never be strong enough - it will always be a minister speaking in the interests of one group.
I don't accept either viewpoint. Ministers and judges do entirely different jobs. Everybody understands that. The sooner we make it clear that you cannot combine being a judge with being a minister the better. That you cannot combine the two jobs does not mean that the judges do not understand the need for ministers to set policy, and that ministers do not understand the need for judicial independence. They do understand it. And they recognise that our constitution is based on it. But what we need to emphasise as loudly as we can is that the Lord Chancellor and thereafter the Secretary of State in his executive function is there for the public. He serves their needs. He is one of their ministers.
This does not represent a threat to the judiciary It is, in fact, an opportunity for a much clearer and firmer partnership between the executive and the judiciary where we accept and strengthen independence with a view to seeking solutions to problems we all recognise and want solved.
TOAST: My Lord Mayor I have detained you too long; let me at once thank you and the Lady Mayoress for this delightful dinner and the pleasure of your company.
I ask everyone to rise and join me in proposing the good health of
"The Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress"