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 pleasure and an honour to be here at the Mansion House to propose a toast to you and the Lady Mayoress.
May I thank you for hosting this evening, one of the highlights of our judicial year. Of course here tonight you are also a member of the judiciary having served as a magistrate since 1996.
I had the pleasure of proposing your health at your first dinner as Lord Mayor, last November. Once again, your hospitality is kind and generous.
Lord Mayor, you and your wife Fiona are known for your interest in heroes and their families, and for your support for many charitable causes in this area, as well, of course, as the Lord Mayor's Appeal. You have been a splendid Lord Mayor. You and your family have brought life and commitment to the Mansion House.
We meet, this evening, in sombre circumstances: less than a week since the terrorist attacks in London, a very short distance from where we are tonight.
It is not the first time that London, and indeed the City of London, has faced attack. We can learn a great deal from the way the people of London, of the City of London, with their Lord Mayor, have persevered through difficult times.
But this attack is a new situation. This attack is different. We now know that. We now have to think what that means - for us all.
Our first thoughts are with the bereaved. Our hearts go out to them, to the injured, and to the families and friends of those affected, and to those who do not yet know what happened to their friends or family.
Can I, as others rightly have, pay tribute to the emergency services, who have impressed the world with their commitment, their courage, their skill and their compassion. They gave confidence to the capital and to the nation.
Can I as well pay tribute to the extraordinarily impressive work, in very difficult circumstances, which the police and the security services have done.
And can I pay tribute too to the way everyone involved in the justice system in London responded. The judges, magistrates and court staff faced the disruption and difficulties on Thursday with a 'matter of fact' but determined resolve.
Nine members of court staff and people from the wider DCA family were directly involved in the four explosions - showing individual bravery and courage. Some are still in hospital - I am sure you will join me in wishing them a speedy recovery.
(Applause)
And despite the great difficulties just getting home and returning the
next day - every court in London was open to some extent on Friday. Let
me take this opportunity to thank everyone who made sure the courts continued
to operate on Thursday and Friday.
What was displayed by everyone - by the emergency services, by
the police and security services, by the courts, by the people of this
capital - was unity: a real unity of purpose, not to be defeated by the
appalling outrages the terrorists had inflicted.
Unity of purpose - expressed in words by some, and in their actions by many - is of crucial importance as we respond to these murderous and indiscriminate attacks.
The bombers reminded us that we are one community united against the common threat. We retain our cultural, religious, racial, political and regional differences. But we share a unity of purpose to face down those who seek to terrorise us.
As a nation, as a capital, we join together.
Black or white. Muslim or Christian. Judge or politician. Labour or conservative.
We are united in our determination to defend the values of our society:
a democratic and free society based on the rule of law.
Terrorism seeks to destroy those basic principles. It did not do so on
Thursday. And it will not do so in the future. Nor will our society provide
anything other than full protection and support to the Muslim community.
Since the attacks of 9/11: we have, through democratic debate and decision, responded to the terrorist threat. We have shown we will not compromise on the need for security. And that we will not give up our basic freedoms.
Look at people's response to these atrocities.
People rightly want security and safety. That was what was challenged last week. That is what our people are understandably concerned about now.
But they want too their freedoms. Freedom to go on with their lives. Freedom to maintain their values - decency, honesty, tolerance. Last week, and now, the determination of the nation, and of this capital in particular, not to be cowed, not to be terrorised, not to be divided, was palpable.
In their responses, in their reactions, in wanting both security and freedom, I believe the people of this country perfectly encapsulate the arguments which always surround the issue of terrorism.
People want protection. And they look to their institutions, including both Parliament and the courts, to help provide that.
And people want freedoms too. And they look to their institutions, including both Parliament and the courts, to help provide that too.
They want to be secure, and they want to be free; and they want to know that the institutions of this country which help provide both those essential ambitions are properly working to achieve them.
Judges, lawyers and politicians need to face these challenges together. The choice is not: are you on the side of civil liberties or are you on the side of protecting our people from terrorism.
The objective instead is one we all share: to provide security and to preserve freedom. The critical question, surely, is not whether to do this - but how.
I believe people want to see politicians and Parliament putting in place legislation which will help meet those ambitions. Legislation which will enhance both security and freedom.
As a government, we were committed to introducing a counter-terrorist Bill in this Parliamentary session before last week's attacks. And as we learn more about the circumstances of the attack, we can identify what steps we need to deal with the threat.
We will take all sensible measures to do so, and we will take them at a time when it is necessary to do so - and will build the widest possible consensus.
All the institutions of our country carry a huge responsibility at this time. The public look to the police and security services to provide protection within the law; they look to Parliament to make such changes to the law as to provide them with the parallel ambitions of freedom and security; and they look to the courts to uphold their freedoms and security in accordance with the law.
That each of the institutions of our state has separate roles is well recognised. And that the effective operation of the courts - and therefore our security and freedoms - depends on the courts' independence, is beyond argument.
All these institutions will be involved in the response to the events of last week. For the courts there will, as there has been and will be for Parliament and the security services, many difficult decisions in the months and years ahead.
We are a trusting and tolerant people. The response so far of our services and institutions and of our leaders has repaid that trust; that response has been effective, pragmatic and resolute.
All our institutions - from their place in the constitution, need to work together to craft and deliver the solutions which protect our security and our freedoms: to ensure those who would destroy our values and have us live in fear, will not prevail.
Let me move on and talk about other matters and the key challenges for us in the months ahead.
The Judicial Appointments Commission is fast-approaching. Along with the Supreme Court, and the changes to the office of Lord Chancellor, this is a key component of our new constitutional settlement; a settlement that reflects the concordat between myself and the Lord Chief Justice.
The settlement we have reached will be an enduring one.
The arrangements protect judicial independence. They bring clarity to the roles of politicians and judges - removing the anomaly of a Lord Chancellor straddling legislature, executive, and judiciary.
We need to work in partnership. Distinct and different, yes. But working together, yes too.
For example, judicial discipline, where under the new arrangements judges and the executive share responsibility for complaints and discipline.
And there are other areas where judicial leadership and co-operation is vital - case management, the effective working of the criminal justice system, the process for determining child care cases: areas where it is beholden on all of us to work together to secure better outcomes for the public.
On judicial diversity, merit must remain the basis of appointment, but under-represented groups do not lack merit. We know there are people who would make good judges - but they simply do not consider is a career option for 'someone like them'.
The appointment procedures must ensure that the best are actually appointed - regardless of their gender, racial origin, age, sexual orientation, social background, religion or belief or disability.
I announced this morning a number of measures that will help us make progress on this issue.
The new constitutional arrangements allow for clear co-operation on all these issues.
And in other areas as well - for example, on how we best utilise our finite resources.
I urge the judiciary to join with us in seeking to find detailed solutions to problems that arise.
We need to address these issues together. And find proper solutions, not simplifications. It would be wrong to simply identify the problems, assert that the solution is more money, lower fees, and complain that we don't get as much money as we hoped.
Just like any other public service - we need to spend our resources wisely.
We need, like all public services, to fight our corner as hard as we can and make our case for investment. You can rest assured I have done just that - and will continue to do so.
All of my experience in visiting courts, talking to judges, magistrates and staff, shows that our problem is not any lack of commitment to delivering a quality service: far from it.
There is a profound understanding that whatever the position may be in the next spending round we must address structural problems in the way we spend money: legal aid expenditure, capital and revenue expenditure on the courts, and the extent to which we rely on fee income to finance the civil justice system.
But, while problems may remain - the solution is not ring-fencing the courts' money. We have to make hard choices. Not simply avoid having to make the choice by an artificial ring-fence.
In criminal trials, effective management is vital if we are to use our resources wisely.
Our principles are clear: in every significant criminal case the defendant should have a choice of defence representation of appropriate quality.
Without it there is not justice.
But justice does not just require proper representation. The trial must be manageable, and must be completed within a reasonable time.
The judges, prosecution and defence all have a part to play - judges managing the case and focussing on the real issues. Focussed prosecutions, with no more overloaded indictments with too many counts and too many defendants. And a defence with the motivation both to give their best for their client, and to ensure the case is conducted with reasonable expedition.
We need to encourage more early preparation, shorter trials, and early guilty pleas where appropriate.
I greatly welcome the Lord Chief Justice's practice directions of 22nd March 2005.
But the problems are not remotely confined to the criminal courts, indeed in many cases the challenges are greater in the civil courts.
Justice is most threatened not by delays in court maintenance, but by inadequate advice and representation - in the civil field - for those who need help.
Reforms of legal aid are long overdue. The expenditure has become skewed
and unsustainable.
Criminal legal aid expenditure has increased considerably. There are
increasing and uncontrolled demands in the biggest cases: one per cent
of cases in the crown court eats up 50 per cent of our whole crown court
budget for criminal legal aid.
Recently I visited West London Court House. I spoke to a civil district judge: she spends three days a week hearing mortgage and landlord possession action lists. The vast majority are unrepresented. The length of her list is emblematic of the failure of the system to provide early and effective advice.
The existence throughout the country of 'advice deserts', the increasing difficulty of recruiting lawyers to work in civil publicly funded practices, and the reducing number of people receiving the benefit of publicly funded advice - even after allowance is made for the effect of the introduction of conditional fee agreements - shows that we have to take action.
That is why it is so important to ensure the expenditure on criminal legal aid is proportionate. Because it is from there that the extra funding must come.
We need a long-term solution. This a significant, complex problem. We cannot carry on tinkering at the edges, because at the moment it is simply not reaching enough of those who need it most.
I support a strong, independent bar. I want to see a diverse legal profession that can adapt and respond to consumer needs. Publicly funded legal services must work for the provider, the taxpayer, for the courts and, above all, for the user.
We need to review the graduated fees and very high cost case schemes, but that review can only be conducted in the context of the way the state buys legal services with legal aid money. We need to rebalance expenditure between the big, criminal cases on the one hand and civil legal aid and other criminal cases, including the 1-10 day cases.
That is why I have asked Lord Carter to review the procurement of all criminal legal aid services. He will report in early 2006 with a plan for how to spend legal aid better. Legal aid will be used more efficiently and proportionately, especially in the highest cost cases. It will be spent in a way that encourages swift and just outcomes, whilst ensuring reasonable client choice and sufficient quality. And those who provide competitive, efficient and quality services for those entitled to legal aid will receive a fair payment.
I know there is sincerely-held discontent among some of the Bar. But we need all the interests to come together and agree a way forward: so we get a better use of resources and a fairer deal for legal aid.
In the year two shining judicial leaders retire.
First: Harry Woolf.
There will be other occasions where I'll say much more about his achievements as Lord Chief Justice. That he has been a Chief of immense authority and moral strength is beyond argument.
And, second, Elizabeth Butler Sloss. Her achievement as president is unrivalled. Her loss to the system is immense.
Mark Potter
Let me welcome Mark Potter as the new president of the Family Division, with Matthew Thorpe as his deputy. They have both already brought a drive which has provided a new impetus to the direction of travel, set by Elizabeth.
Nicholas Philips
And let me also welcome Nicholas: a legal thinker almost unrivalled on the bench. He has demonstrated his abilities in civil and criminal law alike. He brings a range of skills to the job at a time of great change.
Tony Clarke
A great court of appeal and commercial judge who brings ability, warmth and human understanding to the job of Master of the Rolls.
Igor Judge
Igor has been in the upper echelons of the senior judiciary for some time. He has served as Deputy Lord Chief Justice for two years with great distinction, and before that as senior presiding judge of the queen's bench division.
He has combined - with characteristic inspiration and skill - the protection of the old, and the development of the new. The care with which he has treated his fellow judges, in good times as well as bad is a mark of the man. Only a man of his ability and character could fill the new job of president of the largest division in our high court.
Andrew Morritt
And could I also pay tribute to Andrew Morritt, the one head of division remaining stoically in his post. He provides strength of leadership and commitment that I have seldom seen in any public servant. He has led the judges side of the debates on judicial pensions with a balance of brutality and subtlety that has achieved huge results.
I know it has been an eventful year - the constitutional changes, the establishment of HMCS, the change of all, save one, of the heads of division, and a mass of new legislation on criminal justice.
And I am aware that the judicial experience has changed in many ways. More is expected of you. Inside and outside of court. And less allowance is made. You are more in the public eye. The law changes more. More political shots are taken at you.
And despite that you have continued to perform magnificently. You remain the envy of the world. Your quality remains as high as it has ever been. And your ambition for justice, too, is as high as it has ever been.
Thank you for all you have done.
And may I ask you all to rise and join me in proposing the good health of:
"The Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress".