My Lord Mayor, My Lords, My Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Aldermen, 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.
Still Lord Chancellor. Still Cheerful.
In the 18th Century one of your predecessors on his mayoral procession through the streets of London was rudely interrupted by being pelted with rotten fruit, dead fish heads and other rubbish. When I read the newspapers I know how he must have felt. In this past year I have been described as fat, disheveled, disgusting, disgusting, balding, and an utter disgrace - but to be fair, I've had bad press as well.
My Lord Mayor this has been a year of great change.
But it has also been a year of great loss. The untimely and devastating deaths of Michael Hyam, and John Kay, deprive the law of two towering figures.
It is a great pleasure to have here Michael Hyam's family. We will miss him greatly.
Last year's announcements of the constitutional changes were sudden, surprised many and caused real concern. But they provoked a searchlight examination of those areas of the Executive and revealed that there was a consensus that some change was needed.
The focus of the activity over the last year has been in ensuring that the new arrangements which are put in place do reflect changes, where they are needed. But also ensure continuity when that is required.
The constitutional arrangements are means to ensuring we continue to have a respected and effective justice system. And that our society continues to be based on the immutable foundation of the rule of law. This is reform for a purpose: to deliver an effective justice system, able to meet the needs of all the people who use the courts every day, and in which the public have confidence.
The process of reform, after the announcements made on 12 June 2003, has been deliberate, and consultative. We have been able to consider whether each change is wise, and how best to implement the individual reforms. There are significant issues still to be resolved. We will continue to work these out. But in that there is also much agreement.
First, on a new method of appointing judges. We are a long way from the time in the 1950s when only 25 appointments were made in a year, almost all from the Bar, and almost all from a pool known personally to the Lord Chancellor of the day. The Lord Chancellor now appoints around 700 judges and tribunal members in a year, and is responsible in total for the appointment of 1500 magistrates.
That extent of personal decision making cannot continue. So yes to a Judicial Appointments Commission. But not one, which makes the actual final decision alone.
Only people who have been proposed by the independent Judicial Appointment Commission should become judges. But, there is an important role for the Minister to ensure that the State defends the quality and independence of judges. But that role must be constrained to guarantee no interference.
Whatever criticisms there may be of the current appointment system there is no criticism of the quality of those appointed.
Let that message be loud and clear.
There are real issues about the diversity of the judiciary. That problem cannot be solved by compromising on merit. But increasing the diversity of the pool, is vital. We must address this issue before the Judicial Appointments Commission is created.
The second major area of agreement is that the Lord Chancellor can no longer either sit as a judge or, as Harry has said, be the head of the judiciary. As head of the judiciary, he deploys and disciplines judges.
Over recent years, before 12 June, the Lord Chancellor and the judges had an understanding that he would not significantly discipline judges without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. Equally it would be wrong for the Lord Chancellor to determine which judge sits in which court in the country. Whilst the Lord Chancellor must determine the balance of need between family, civil and criminal appointments, he cannot and should not determine which individual judge sits in which court.
In these areas, I believe, there is a clear need for reform.
That need for change was recognised by the Lord Chief Justice, who, with me, negotiated the Concordat during the autumn of last year. It represents the new relationship between the Executive, and the judiciary.
The essence of the detailed changes in the Concordat is that deployment, training and education are properly for the judges and not for the Executive. Discipline will be a matter for us both - in partnership.
The Concordat recognises the reality, growing progressively in recent years, that there is so much that the judiciary and the Executive have to do together. The effective running of the courts; the development of policy in criminal and civil justice; support for the training of judges. All these must be the substance of partnership.
The partnership between Judiciary and Executive produces results, such as:
These are all recent examples of the partnership in action. This is a trend begun by the work Harry Woolf did on civil procedure, and continued by the work of Sir Robin Auld in his Review of the Criminal Courts. Policy changes shaped, and in some cases, driven by the judges, in partnership with the Executive in their areas of expertise.
The Concordat has not formed the stuff of major political debate. Probably because, despite its far-reaching effect, there is little dispute about it. As Harry has said, all political parties accept it, but it will be one of the most enduring and profound of all of the changes which have emerged out of the announcements of the 12 June.
The focus of the political debate has been on the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor.
The political controversy now surrounding the Lord Chancellor does not revolve around the role he should perform. There is no real doubt, as Harry has said, that the role must change, and what the new role should be.
The Ministerial role requires full-time commitment and leadership. As Ministerial Head of a significant Department of state, responsible not just for the administration of the courts and legal aid, but also for politically sensitive issues such as human rights, freedom of information, methods of election, devolution, and constitutional affairs, he should be free to concentrate on those very important roles.
But just as significantly, there is no doubt he has a special obligation to put the values of justice the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law above partisan considerations.
Those values transcend daily politics.
The function - as voice of the rule of law within the Cabinet - is critical. I have identified it as a function, but it goes beyond that. It expresses the values for which the role stands.
That voice is as part of government, not separate from it. It ensures there is a counter-weight to the pressures which come from other departments and Ministers. The rule of law must apply everywhere. There cannot be any no go areas.
In terms of judicial independence, it ensures that the judiciary has confidence their legitimate interests will be protected. For example, judicial pensions require very careful safeguards. The State must treat judges fairly.
The judiciary is one of the parts of the public service where there is no doubt that we have diamond quality. Whatever happens, we must neither lose sight of that, nor dilute it. We must recognise that the quality of our judges is what has made the rule of law so immutable and unchanging a part of our heritage.
However the issue about the role of Lord Chancellor is resolved, I believe we agree on the role which must be performed and we share the values the holder of that role must display.
The legitimate focus on the constitutional changes should not obscure the other important developments of this last year, and of the coming year.
Looking ahead we must continue our efforts to improve the justice system. In particular we must:
To achieve these plans we can only make progress if we work in partnership. We will only succeed if we work together on these issues. If there is genuine co-operation, listening and understanding.
The new unified Court Service provides a significant platform for partnership, including with the 30,000 magistrates who join us. I look forward to working with you all.
There is a fond farewell to be said tonight. For those of you who don't know - if, indeed there is anyone who doesn't - Sir Hayden Phillips retires this month after 37 tremendous years in the Civil Service. The first non-lawyer Permanent Secretary at the Department has served us all extremely well over the past 7 years. I, and my predecessor Lord Irvine, owe Sir Hayden an huge debt of gratitude. He will be a difficult act to follow. But I am sure his successor, Alex Allen, will rise to the challenge. I know Alex looks forward to working with you.
Could I also mention the person who has contributed so hugely to the development and delivery of so many of the achievements of this year. Harry Woolf. He has, with dedication, negotiated the Concordat, and in all circumstances and in all political weathers stood up not just for the independence of the judiciary but also for the values of justice and fairness which we all share.
All of us in this room owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
Now my Lord Mayor, I know that each year the Butcher's Company brings you a present in the form of a Boar's Head and the Fruiterers bring you a magnificent selection of fruit. It has always struck me as an anti-climax that I bring you nothing save this speech. But in so doing, let me also bring you some praise.
You have made a massive contribution this past year - your efforts on the international stage are testimony to your hard work, dedication and success. You have long been a proponent of the Commercial Court to safeguard the United Kingdom's position as a major centre for financial and legal services. I am in full agreement with you, and that is why we are moving to develop the site of the Queen's Building in the Royal Courts of Justice for the new Commercial Court. The Commercial Court building will help London keep its reputation as a first rate legal centre.
It is on this note of tribute - to three impressive and hugely successful people, I take great pleasure in asking everyone in the room to rise and join me in proposing the good health of -
"The Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress"