Good evening. Thank you very much for the introduction.
I am delighted to be here today to celebrate one hundred years in the history of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. I am grateful that you have asked me only to discuss the next five years of democratic reform and not the next one hundred.
The Trust's contribution to public life over the last one hundred years has been truly remarkable.
Look at the issues the Trust has fought for over the years: the alleviation of poverty, promotion of human rights, bringing an end to apartheid. Look at the organisations that it has supported: the Child Poverty Action Group; Amnesty International; the Institute for Citizenship; even the Labour Party.
The story of the Trust is a story of reform and of progress. The Trust has been in the vanguard of the struggle for equality, freedom, and democracy not just in this country, but across the world. The Trust - on the side of solidarity, opportunity, democracy and freedom - has won more times than it has lost.
I am therefore honoured to have been asked to speak this evening to mark these achievements. And I am glad to do so - there is a deep affinity between the objectives of the Trust and the values of this Government.
As a government we have embarked on, and delivered, a substantial programme of constitutional reform. This may not catch the headlines in the way that crime does, nor is it a vote-grabber like health or education. But it is no less important.
We have no written constitution. As a nation we approach constitutional reform pragmatically. No limits to reform. Reforms have been shaped by the mood of the times and the needs of an ever-changing society.
Where we need them, our reforms should be bold. But the lessons from history teach us we should go with the grain of the age.
Female suffrage came about because of the changing position of women. The Reform Acts of the 19th century expanded the franchise to meet the demands of an industrialising society for wider democratic participation.
We need to be alert to breakdown between citizen and state, and act to rebuild the connection between the two, or to prevent it happening in the first place. The driving force behind our reforms is the need to make connections with people and ensure their voices which were not heard, are heard.
When we came to power in 1997, constitutional change was urgent and vital. Before 1997 there had been little constitutional change for some time. The consequence was increasingly loose connections between citizen and State in many areas - the absence of a voice for many people in the running of the State. And the existence of too many areas where the views of the few could frustrate the legitimate voice of the many.
This is not an abstract programme - it's not change for the sake of change. Constitutional change will rarely stick if it is for reasons of constitutional purity alone. Instead the changes are designed to increase confidence in government and to build a platform from which the Government can deliver the policies that people want - whether this is the way a school is run, how hospitals treat their patients or how a court dispenses justice.
Inevitably, this means doing things differently. If political and constitutional institutions are failing, we must change them. If they are inaccessible, we must open them up.
Let me outline what we've done.
We were the first government to devolve power - real power - to the people of Scotland and Wales.
We have bridged the divide between the people of Scotland and Wales and the institutions that serve them - we have made a better connection. We need to look at whether we can make the arrangements better. There is a need for debate about the voting systems - does the top-up system work? In Wales, people can be rejected in the first ballot, but elected by top-up. Does it confuse or provide for better representation?
These are questions we need to resolve. But we shouldn't underestimate the fundamental progress devolution to Scotland and Wales represents.
We have given the people in those nations a louder voice.
In London, the Assembly has had the same affect.
We have made the connection between government and the governed closer. It is better for it - policy can now properly reflect their priorities and the circumstances of the nations.
We are making reforms to local government. And we'll shortly be holding a referendum in the North East, asking people whether they want a new regional Assembly.
Greater connection leads to better policy formulation. Think of three policies devolution has brought about - higher education, and long-term care in Scotland, congestion charging in London. The quite difficult policy areas come together with better-connected institutions, producing results acceptable to the governed.
See also Northern Ireland, where the long-term future of Northern Ireland is closely connected to the need for a successful and stable Assembly in the Province. Connection is vital.
These principles - of better connection, a louder voice, ensuring the few do not frustrate the wishes of the many - are being applied elsewhere.
Look at the reforms of the House of Lords. Many of the heridtary peers have gone.
We've made good progress. My Department is turning words into action and commitments into a reality.
But I'm clear that this is unfinished business. We need to continue with the reforms we started in 1997. There is a growing consensus that our institutions need more reform, not less. We need to go further.
One example - this year's State of the Nation poll, commissioned by the Trust, showed that there is an overwhelming demand for a more democratic second chamber.
What should we do? There are two issues to address: powers and composition.
The second chamber should have the power to revise, to amend and to scrutinise. This makes for better legislation. It is right and proper that the second chamber provides the necessary checks and balances. But the Second chamber should not be able to frustrate the programme of a legitimately-elected government. That's not the job of a Second Chamber. And under our reforms, it won't be. Powers should be to delay, not to frustrate.
On composition, we have removed most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. And we will remove the rest. To be credible, the chamber needs to be more representative - it needs better to reflect the make-up of the people it serves. Not just for the sake of it - but because a diverse, representative Chamber will bring forward better policy and will scrutinise better legislation.
If the Government is returned to office, we will reform the Lords in relation to powers and its composition early in our third term. We have learnt lessons - we need to be specific about our intentions in the Manifesto. We will need to do it early in the Parliament, as Parliament shifts to other issues near the end of its life.
We are also taking forward the important changes in the Constitutional Reform Bill. There has been much debate about the announcement of the reforms in June last year, and what they will mean. But we should not let the method of the announcement cloud the significance of the proposal.
The Bill will make fundamental changes to the office of Lord Chancellor. He will no longer be a judge, nor will he be Head of the Judiciary. His role will be a ministerial one, focusing on delivering important services like the courts and legal aid.
The Bill will implement the Concordat agreed between the Government and Judiciary - clearly setting out a disciplinary process, how judges are deployed, who is responsible for training. That agreement marks a fundamental change in the relationship between these two arms of the State. It provides clarity, transparency and a guarantee of judicial independence. It gives a clear example of disciplinary procedure and training.
We will also put in place an independent Judicial Appointment Commission. A single Minister will no longer be responsible for making all judicial appointments. The Commission will provide the transparency that the public expects of a modern appointments system. And crucially, it will also drive an increase in judicial diversity. It will open up the system, and widen the pool of applicants - without diluting merit in any way.
Increasing diversity will make a real difference. Not immediately in the decisions reached in individual cases, but in both the confidence the country has in the judges, and in their outlook. It is inconceivable that over time a bench of 50/50 gender balanced judges would not make a difference to the decisions made by the court. I recently visited Canada, and saw the progress that can be made when there is a strong will: four of their nine Supreme Court Justices are female. In the UK we have only recently appointed the first female to our highest court. There is more work for us to do.
The Bill will also establish a UK Supreme Court. It is fundamental in a liberal democracy that the highest appeal court is separate from the legislature. The Supreme Court will be demonstrably independent - a court that all citizens can look to in vindicating their rights and freedoms.
It is critical that these arrangements are clear. Judges appointed by a member of the Cabinet, and sitting in Parliament, decide whether the detention of 12 Muslims in Belmarsh is lawful.
Everybody in this room knows that there will be no political bias in the decision reached by those judges. But we need to make that clear. The Supreme Court will do that.
These changes to the role of the Lord Chancellor and Supreme Court are welcome, because they are right. They involve taking the appointment of judges, and the resolution of legal disputes out of a confusing constitutional position, and making them utterly clear.
Although there are important issues about the site of the Supreme Court, there is much less controversy about the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Concordat, the fact that the Lord Chancellor should no longer be a judge or Head of Judiciary, and about the principle of Supreme Court. This is a revolution whose time has come.
A final issue on the Constitutional Reform Bill. In making the changes we must be clear that the reform must preserve important values. We are a country that plays by the rules, nationally and internationally. Adherence to the rule of law is a critical part of the constitution of country. Independence of the judiciary is vital to that. The Lord Chancellor embodies the values of judicial independence and the rule of law. We must be clear that the protection of those values is not lost. The message to the world that we continue with that commitment must be clear.
Just as important is freedom of information. If Government is perceived to be run secretively, then connection with citizens is broken, and the voice of the public cannot adequately be heard. If I do not know, as a citizen, what the internal conversation is about, or is driven by, I don't know what to say to have my point of view prevail. The public accept the need for some degree of confidentiality. But they expect to see government being as open as it can be consistent with good government.
Openness breeds better government. To disclose the factual basis on which decisions were made, to set out clearly in public the approach that public institutions take forces those institutions to have good evidence-based reasons for what they do, and forces them to behave consistently with the reason they give for acting.
In just 70 days time the Freedom of Information Act comes fully into force. After generations of secrecy, from the 1st of January 2005, we are giving people the right to know more than ever before about what public authorities are doing on their behalf, how their money is being spent and how decisions are made.
There has been debate about whether the Act goes far enough. Questions about whether there are too many exemptions and the ministerial override.
The criticisms are unfair. The Act compares favourably to other countries. It is a wide-ranging regime. It applies not just to central Government but to over 100,000 public authorities. Exemptions are on sensible grounds - to protect national security or to ensure collective responsibility. The override will be rarely used and there will be a full report to Parliament. The courts can police the use of the override.
Freedom of information is a fundamental democratic reform. It is a great opportunity. It will mean nothing short of a culture change in the way public authorities operate. Connection between individual and institution depends on the flow of information. People have the right to know why decisions have been made. Decisions about your local school. Your local hospital. Your local council. About planning. About transport. About education.
Already we are seeing real examples of reform:
the Department of Health now publishes information on local MRSA rates;
the Department for International Development now routinely publish the Memorandum of Understanding that forms the basis of our relationship with partner governments in the developing world;
and my own Department has now published, for the first time, its evidence to the Senior Salaries Review body, which makes recommendations about the pay of the judiciary.
We do need to strike a balance, in individual cases, between disclosure and the need for confidentiality. But the more there is a culture of openness, the better decision-making will be. Good government is open government, but good government is effective government too.
And the right to know will not be the preserve of the privileged few. On Monday I announced that for the vast majority of cases there will be no charge for information supplied under the Freedom of Information Act. Freedom of Information really will mean free information.
In the coming months and years, we need to ensure the right to know is well-established and works for members of the public. My Department will continue to drive this work, not just within my remit, but making sure it applies across Government.
And we will ensure that people will be able to exercise these rights freely.
The same is true of the Government's commitment to human rights. The Human Rights Act provides the bedrock of democracy and for public accountability. They give guarantees of fairness and protection for the most vulnerable members of our society.
This is not something new. We have long-recognised basic rights. They are as old as the Magna Carta.
The Government and the state should accord people dignity, respect and freedom from discrimination.
But, again, we are going further.
The relationship between the state and the individual since the introduction of the Human Rights Act has changed fundamentally. Now public authorities have to be proactive in their dealings with the public in order to ensure that all these basic rights are respected.
The Human Rights Act is not about litigation. It is about developing better policies and practices to improve the delivery of services to the public.
The next five years will present challenges to our understanding of human rights. And at no time is the issue more important than when the state comes under threat from the forces of terrorism and insecurity.
But what we have delivered provides an objective basis on which to frame legislation. Laws need to change when the threat from terrorism increases. We all recognise it. So does the Human Rights Act.
But it says the laws need to change to the extent necessary to protect the state. It enables the courts to judge whether the right balance has been struck. And it recognises the rights of citizens to be afforded proper protection from terrorism.
These rights are key to citizenship. An informed citizenship; bolstered by the information they need; made secure by enshrining their rights in law.
Engagement between citizen and state is vital. That is why we are taking steps to make voting easier, more convenient and accessible.
Using technology, we have piloted voting via interactive digital television, the internet, telephone and SMS text messaging. All-postal voting was trialled in the European and local elections earlier this year.
We need to look at the results and decide how these pilots will shape future elections.
We also need to grapple with the issue of voting amongst young people. 60% of 18-24 year-olds didn't vote at the last general election. Are we doing enough to inform young people of their voting rights and the significance of these rights?
To promote engagement we have introduced citizenship studies into the school curriculum: to help engage the next generation with political life and guard from the danger of alienation from the democratic process.
But schools should not be the only forum for helping citizens to develop their political literacy. Government should not be the only provider.
The Citizenship Foundation, the Hansard Society and the Institute for Citizenship - as well as this Trust - have been playing their part in promoting electoral reform and effective engagement. We share common ground - we all have a responsibility to promote this agenda.
We need to communicate our fundamental values more clearly and drive home the principles that underpin all we will do in the coming years.
We must continue to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of our public institutions;
We must continue to strengthen our democracy and public engagement with decision-making;
We must continue to increase trust and accountability in public bodies.
These are the foundations of the reforms we are making. They are far-reaching and radical. But we have more work to do - in implementing the Constitutional Reform Bill; in making freedom of information work for citizens; in further entrenching respect for human rights; in further reform of the House of Lords; and in promoting democratic engagement.
Constitutional reform is not an optional extra - it is a fundamental part of shaping a government able to deliver for its citizens. The relationship between citizen and state is a relationship that will affect our whole public sphere.
Across Government - in health, in education, in criminal justice - we are making progress towards a fairer, more equal society.
These reforms, taking place across Government are a sustained attempt to revive and redefine the relationship between our institutions and the people they serve. All the time, applying the tests of whether we are giving people a louder voice, making better connections and delivering change for the many.
Of course, Government shouldn't seek to do this on its own. And we don't plan to.
The Trust has been a progressive force for a hundred years. You have an important role to play and I know you will continue to rise to the challenge.
The ideals of the Trust have lasted a century. They have endured through testing times and have shaped the world around us. They will be tested again. But I hope, for the next hundred years the Trust will continue to work to realise the vision of a modern, progressive and vibrant democracy.
Thank you.