Good evening.
Having had the Dalai Lama, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, now you must endure the law. I feel unworthy in following so luminous a line.
It is a great honour to be invited to give this important lecture.
It is also a great honour because of the impact the Foundation that Professor Makin set up has had over the years, both as a forum for debate and as a way of reaching into the community and putting ideas in practice. I'd like to pay tribute to David Alton [Director] and Barbara Mace [Manager] and everyone involved with the Foundation.
And it's an honour, too, because of the importance of the issue we're here tonight to consider: citizenship and the criminal justice system. Our communities thrive the more active the individual members of those communities are in contributing to their communities. We all know that from our own experience of being members of communities - whether those communities are our schools, our faiths, our workplaces or our neighbourhoods. We contribute where we trust our communities to treat us fairly. The contribution we make depends on the ability of our community to provide freedom and security. That is the central balance that has to be struck to promote strong communities: it applies on housing estates when dealing with burglary or anti-social behaviour, just as much as it does in the House of Lords when considering issues of security and terrorism.
The central balance depends on the citizen being treated fairly by the state. And being adequately protected by the state.
Tonight I want to talk about how the state provide that degree of fairness guarantee. And how the criminal justice system must respond to obtain the degree of active citizenship on which our communities depend.
The idea of citizenship matters to every one of us. Without citizens - without individuals who recognise themselves as parts of a larger whole - there can be no society. And, certainly, no society that is cohesive, progressive and prosperous. Citizenship is not docile or passive. It implies action, participation and co-operation. Citizenship is active, dynamic. It is important to emphasise that the framework of law provides only the landscape within which communities can prosper.
Citizenship carries with it responsibilities. That means responsibilities in a broad sense: not just to ourselves and to our families, but also to our friends, our neighbours and to the country. That means in turn communities and a country which is safe, secure, inclusive and participatory. Human rights and the rule of law as they inform our democratic institutions, are central to that.
But I repeat it is the contribution of the citizen that makes the community. If the law is not upheld, then the citizen cannot make that contribution.
Human rights is a vital part of the fairness assurance. Britain has a strong and proud record in this regard. At the moment, the very real threat of terrorism, in a form in which we have not seen it before, means we again face, though in a new way, difficult decisions about how we balance individuals' rights against collective rights. Striking that balance is fundamental.
Last week's moving commemoration of the relief of Auschwitz should remind us of the origins of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was formed in the wake of the Holocaust and the defeat of Nazism - perhaps in some small way a memorial to those whose lives were ended so vilely. That Declaration has in turn given birth to regional treaties, including the European Convention on Human rights, interpreting it so that democracy and freedom can flourish.
Britain was a key player in drawing up the Convention in 1951, bringing to Europe the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Underlining our commitment to these values, we were the first country in the Council of Europe to ratify it.
And, in 1998, this Government put the Human Rights Act on the statute book - one of the most important pieces of constitutional legislation that any Government has introduced since the achievement of universal suffrage. Enshrining in British law, through a framework of fundamental rights, the notion that all human beings, all citizens, should be treated with respect, equality and fairness. That commitment and people's belief that the state will treat them in this way is critical in establishing the relationship in which citizenship can thrive. It must be clear to all who live in and come to this country, that the UK is a country in which rules are respected and there are lines which will not be crossed. The state's side of the bargain with citizens is to provide protection in your home and your community, both from crime, anti-social behaviour and terrorism, but also from an over-intrusive state. And to ensure, in the way the state treats its citizens, is to treat each one of them with respect, equality and fairness.
I attended an event a week ago to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. Paul Oppenheimer described leaving Belsen to come to Britain. He said that he was so proud to be British, because he knew he would be safe because Britain is a nation that always plays by the rules.
The passing of the legislation is not the end of the story. The Human Rights Act is not to be looked on as a fine piece of legislation to be dusted down from time to time and admired. The Act must translate into a meaningful reality for all citizens.
So the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will, for the first time, provide institutional support, embedding and promoting a human rights culture in this country. Public services, whether in central or local government, in policing, in prisons or in health, must look at the effects of their policies on real people and real people 's lives - and make sure concern for human rights is an intrinsic part of policy, embedded in service delivery.
Because the effect of the Human Rights Act is not just about issues like terrorism (which are very important and to which I will return) but also about how the state treats people on a day to day basis.
These rights are the foundation of an equal, fair and civil society - they protect vulnerable people; the elderly, disabled people and children. They give a voice and redress to those who need it most. They are a force for positive change in the way services are delivered.
The Act has already been used positively, repreatedly, for example in the case of a vulnerable elderly person in a care home, who was held by the court to be entitled to a minimum standard of care. The Act was used to successfully secure better, more considerate care.
Critically, these rights are for every citizen. Nobody is more entitled to them than anybody else. They do not recognise popularity. You only have to be in this country to qualify for human rights protection under the Act: the very feeling that Paul Oppenheimer had in 1945 when he came to this country. To add other qualifications is to claim that one person is more human than another - something that is akin to the evils we fought in World War Two and that we continue to fight against today.
The Human Rights Act ensures that modern, progressive values - respect; equality; fairness - are the values that guide and shape the society we are and the society we will become. Human rights provide the foundation stone of citizenship. It tells us that citizens should have their lives protected by law and have a right to liberty, security and fair treatment. And there should be no punishment without law. And, equally, in return citizens should behave with respect for others. Not all behaviour is permissible in all circumstances.
As a society and as a country, we currently face some difficult challenges in dealing with the threat to national security. We have committed ourselves to dealing with that threat without breaching the Human Rights Act, if necessary by derogating in accordance with the Act's terms. How we respond to this challenge will be seen as a litmus test of our commitment to human rights.
Government - any Government - has a responsibility to defend its citizens against terrorist attack. It is one of the most basic parts of the bargain between the State and the citizen. Terrorism is an attack on our people, our rule of law and our values. It is an attack as much ona society that abides by the law, as on citizens of a law abiding state. It is saying that law can be swept to one side. And Governments undoubtedly have difficult decisions to make - particularly when the nature of the threat changes. The greater the threat, the stronger the response. The difference the Act makes, is that it provides a framework so the measures we take are consistent with the values we are defending. For the first time there are principles against which the state's response is to be judged. And it provides a method by which, the courts can judge the responses' compatibility with those principles.
That does not mean we fight terrorism with one hand behind our back. Far from it. It does mean that, because of the Human Rights Act, we have the scales on which we can weigh our decisions - balancing the arguments for and against a particular measure. It means any decisions we make as a Government can be tested against an objective standard. Fighting terrorism and the Human Rights Act are not incompatible, as some would have us believe. They go hand in hand. We fight terrorism to defend our values - human rights embody our values.
Clearly, there is a lot of interest at present as to how this will be applied to those individuals currently being held in Belmarsh or under house arrest under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Entirely consistent with the approach I have outlined above, the Government accepts the Law Lords' judgement on this matter. We are currently looking to see how best we can protect our national security compatibly with the HRA. The risks we face are real. We would be failing in our duty to protect the public if we did not act against those who threaten it. We must strike the right balance. We will only impose proportionate measures within the Act, which recognise the risks. We will act swiftly, but not hastily.
Parliament will have to approve the proposed newmeasures. The Home Secretary would have to have evidence on which he could act to seek a control order. And it would have to be approved by a High Court judge. Protecting our national security does place restrictions on what can and can't be said in open court. But scrutiny of the government's actions by an independent judiciary will remain.
We are, as a government, prepared to talk to those who have substantive and constructive proposals to make. That is what the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday. But let me be clear: however difficult the challenge, however hard the decisions, we are committed both to protecting our communities and our country, and our human rights. Striking that balance will not be easy. It will be difficult. But we are committed to ensuring it. We do not underestimate the difficulties of this situation. But neither do we underestimate the threat, or our responsibilities to the public to provide an environment of safety and security. Both sides of the balance are part of the bargain with the citizen.
This is what the human rights act is all about - protecting the principles of respect, equality, and fairness, providing the platform for citizens to become active, to participate and to be served by institutions which are responsive to them.
And we must too, look at this in the context of constitutional and democratic reform. In terms of citizenship, human rights sit alongside other measures based on the principle that our institutions of government should reflect the values and needs of citizens.
We have already taken a number of vital steps. We have fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state by introducing the Freedom of Information Act. For the first time, there is a presumption of openness and individuals can request information held by over 100,000 public bodies. We have introduced citizenship classes into schools. We have protected personal information from misuse through the Data Protection Act. We have devolved power from the centre to Scotland and Wales, and to the Assembly in London, to give citizens a louder local voice. We have introduced reform of the House of Lords to improve representation. And we are committed to engaging as many people as possible in the democratic process.
Taken together, we see a quiet revolution that is shifting institutions quite significantly in favour of the citizen. The citizen is, more clearly than ever, at the heart of our democratic response.
This brings me on to the second area I want to talk about - the citizen and the criminal justice system, and the interaction between the two. The way in which the criminal justice system exists for the citizen, but it is also dependent on the citizen.
Just as citizenship depends on good human rights practice - the citizen will respond if the state treats them with respect -socitizenship also depends on confidence in community safety. That is beyond argument. An effective criminal justice system is one of the defining characteristics of a modern, progressive society.
It must have integrity. It must be respected. It must be effected - and it must be connected to the citizens it serves.
People mostly play by the rules. They want others to do the same. They depend on it for their security. The justice system must convince the community it understands that and must be able to enforce the rules.
The citizen who plays by the rules needs to understand and connect with the justice system. The citizen must believe the system listens, connects and understands the needs of society. How does a system do this? By the individuals who work in it being of the community, and also understanding they are not for the State but for the community - that depends on their effectiveness.
The justice system does not operate in isolation. The system is reliant on the very people who it serves. Whether as a magistrate, or serving as a juror, or being a witness, or simply as an individual that goes about their business within the confines of the law: Justice cannot be done without the involvement of the citizen, honouring their civic duty. And we cannot expect people to honour their civic duty - to be an active citizen - if we do not provide a criminal justice system that is responsive to their needs and their concerns. These include low-level crime - such as anti-social behaviour, as well as serious crime.
Just like the health service or the education system, people are likely, one way or another, to come into contact with the criminal justice system at some point in their lives. Whether you phone the police, are called to serve on a jury, or go to court to give evidence, you will be in first-hand contact with the criminal justice system. This is important. First-hand contact with an efficient, effective system can do so much to improve people's confidence in that system. And I believe that ensuring the provision of that effective system is vital to create the environment where human rights are upheld, civic renewal is a reality rather than just a buzzword and citizenship is an active, dynamic, flexible concept.
This is a responsibility for Government. But it is also the task of the citizen. Let me give you some examples of how citizenship underpins our criminal justice system. Our magistracy, often overlooked, are one of the most significant manifestations of active citizenship in the country, with over 28,500 people sitting as magistrates. Dispensing truly local justice, they are on the front line of the struggle against crime and anti-social behaviour. The cornerstone of local justice is people freely giving their time to serve their communities as magistrates - not everyone realises 95 per cent of criminal cases are dealt with in magistrates courts. This is citizenship in all its senses.
Broadening this theme out further - just as important to the criminal justice system, is the voluntary effort of jurors. When a jury reaches a verdict, it is not only making a decision that affects the individual defendant, it is also making a decision that affects the community. It is for this reason that the Government regards jury service as one of the most important civic duties that anyone can be asked to perform.
We recently removed almost all of the categories of people who previously did not perform jury service. I believe everyone has something unique to bring to a jury, and the pool from which our jurors are drawn must be representative of all sections of society. It is only right that such an important civic duty is performed by all.
But there is a more profound sense that the system depends on the citizen - it cannot function without the contributions of witnesses and victims, who come to court to relive traumatic moments and be subjected to detailed questioning. We know this will rarely be a pleasant process. It is not something that any person engages in with enthusiasm. But the system is reliant on people coming forward, recognising the part they must play. In turn, we are doing all we can to make the experience as tolerable as possible - for example, having separate waiting rooms where possible, and using video links for witnesses who feel vulnerable or intimidated.
There must, in all we do, be the most profound sense that the system is rooted in the law-abiding community. It acts for that community.
Supporting the criminal justice system is a civic duty placed on all of us. Without lay magistrates, juries, victims and witnesses, volunteers who work for Victim Support playing a part, the system cannot work properly. The government is working to support those who contribute. And employers, friends and families must support them too.
The more people trust the criminal justice system and are confident it will act, the more they are likely to come forward to give evidence or to participate in other ways.
Crime, of course, has many faces. Murder, rape and fraud rightly make the papers. But so-called "low-level" crime can, for those who suffer from it, have serious consequences too. It can have an impact that is disproportionate to each, individual act. It has different names - anti-social behaviour or yobbishness or nightmare neighbours. But whatever, we call it - this is the sort of behaviour that can erode all that is good about a community. It can truly bring misery and can have a depressive effect on an area. The regeneration of deprived areas requires participation - and participation requires safety and security.
Anti-social behaviour is not a victimless crime - far from it. Individual neighbours and local people are clearly victims. But the abstract victim - the "community" - also suffers. Across the country, courts in areas where anti-social behaviour is a problem have been setting up dedicated response courts to deal properly with behaviour that blights their particular community. We now have over 100 of them.
For example in Brighton, which I visited last week, court orders combined with action by the community safety partnership has achieved a turnaround in a public square and church which previously had been frequented and blighted by aggressive street drinkers, stopping members of the public both from using the space and going to church. The response for the street drinkers was, by using new Orders, getting them into treatment. The response for the community, was a belief the rules are being enforced.
Here in Liverpool, magistrates have received training about issues such as crime at certain taxi ranks and food stalls in the city centre, which we know is linked to alcohol misuse. And, in north Liverpool, a Community Justice Centre is being set up. This is the first of its kind in England and Wales. It is a community centre and a justice centre - the correct link is made. We already have the courtroom up and running, and later this year, the full centre will open. It will offer on-site services, such as advice on drugs, debt and housing. It will offer activities - and work with schools and youth groups to increase their understanding of the justice system. The Community Justice Judge, David Fletcher, will work with members of the community to help tackle the issues that local people face. And local people will be able to influence criminal justice priorities by identifying the things that are most important to them, and put forward ideas for unpaid work for community punishment such as graffiti that could be cleaned up. The Community Justice Centre truly does bring justice into the heart of the community - and citizenship into the heart of justice. I am delighted that the people of North Liverpool are making this happen. I hope you will take the opportunity to visit it when it is fully up and running. And I am sure it will make a real difference to the lives of those in the local area: citizens who have suffered from crimes against their communities for long enough; citizens who can now be truly involved in the justice system working for their communities.
Communities want solutions. They want the system to listen to their concerns, and to act on them. They want the system to ensure that people play by the rules, and also that there are permanent alternatives to those who break the rules.
Not just prison - yes, if serious or persistent. But also a long-term solution to drug dependency, or places for young people to go in the evening. Community justice is just as much about diverting the defendant from crime as it is about providing protection for the community. Diversion and protection both enhance the strength of the community.
So I hope I have made it clear how the modern criminal justice system in this country relies upon the good citizenship of us all. How it must be rooted in the community and how it must listen. How it must respond to the demands of the community it serves. Justice is not simply done to us by professionals or by agents of the state. It is done for us, by us. And it is essential that we understand that this is so - that effective criminal justice is necessary to create a safe and secure society, the environment within which citizenship can flourish. And the system must listen to what its communities are saying.
I have spoken this evening about citizenship and human rights and how these rights provide the foundations of a good and progressive society. How they cement the bargain with the citizen. I have also explained how the relationship between the criminal justice system in its many guises and the active citizen, is a crucial one. Crucial for the courts in ensuring effective and timely trials can take place and ensuring they respond to local people's concerns. Crucial for the police, crown prosecution service and support services who rely on the assistance of individual members of the public in order to do their jobs. And crucial for public confidence in the criminal justice system. For if people have greater confidence, this frees the communities we care about, to do so much more.
The system must respond. Good citizenship and an effective justice system are two sides of the same coin.
The system works if it reflects effectively the concerns of the community and produces solutions the community respects and understands. The community knows every crime will not be stopped and every criminal convicted. But, they will respond if the system listens and understands and is manifestly wrestling with the same problems as them.
We will only succeed if we recognise that the citizen is part of the system.
But, above all, that the system is there for them.