Many applaud the logic behind the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but the manner in which it was created was hardly auspicious, was it?
The DCA is a new department, created only in June this year. Establishing a new organisation in Whitehall is bound to be difficult, but I genuinely believe we’ve made a good start, with serious policy initiatives: we’re currently consulting on our proposals to abolish the role of the Lord Chancellor, establishing a supreme court to replace the role of the law Lords, setting up a new way of appointing the judiciary, examining the future of QCs and further reform of the House of Lords. We’ve got a long way to go. But I believe that it’s exactly these kind of radical reforms that people elect a Labour government to secure.
You are responsible for freedom of information. Many people consider the legislation in place so far a disappointment. Any new plans?
People rightly want to see openness and transparency in their institutions – including government. That’s why this government is the first to do what campaigners for open government have been seeking for years: put legislation for freedom of information on the statute book. I understand that in doing so, we may not be going as fast or as far as some want, and I fully accept the challenge of putting that legislation into practice. We have to see the freedom of information legislation working, and working properly.
Up to 50 percent of witnesses at trials are not called on the day they are invited. In the case of police witnesses this wastes at least £350 a day. How can we stop the court system leaking public money?
It’s vital we have an efficient system of criminal justice, of course: but we have to have an effective one, too. So our system of justice has to be reformed, and reformed urgently. Some of that fight starts earlier, with education, economic opportunity and providing alternatives to drugs. I know we can’t stop every crime. But the well-being of our communities depends on a criminal justice system in which people have faith. So when defendants are summoned to court, they’ve got to come. When people are fined, fines have to be paid. New incentives for the courts could be of real value here.
Since the no-win, no-fee reforms of Labour’s first term, Britain is moving to a US-style compensation culture, with a whole new industry of accident lawyers.
How do you plan to limit the crushing financial burden on local authorities and small businesses in particular?
People have rights, and responsibilities too: that combination is at the heart of our introduction of human rights legislation into UK law. Protecting those rights may involve legal action, including seeking compensation. But we have to get the balance right. So we’re looking hard at the whole market for legal services – whether it’s working well, whether it’s got the right practices, whether its prices are right. We want to ensure that people using legal services, whether they’re individuals or institutions, get value for money.
From the Human Rights Act to Hutton to the new supreme court, we are seeing growing judicial scrutiny of the government.
What do we pay our parliamentarians for?
Healthy politics and a healthy parliament are key parts of our society. Maintaining our parliamentary democracy is paramount in all our constitutional changes. Of course, we need governments to be fully and rigorously scrutinised: that’s at theheart of our measures such as the Human Rights Act and creating a supreme court. But we must remember, too, that public service, including political service, is an essential part of our democratic life and society in this country and, while fair and reasonable criticism of it is essential, efforts to undermine it are damaging and wrong.
The Home Office keeps crossing swords with judges on sentencing. Isn’t sentencing a matter for the judiciary – and will it be part of your role to champion their case in cabinet?
Along with maintaining parliamentary democracy, the independence of the judiciary is an essential element of our society and an essential principle for my department’s work. None of the changes I will be making to our justice system will undermine that; indeed, I believe all of them will strengthen that. Of course people – and that includes politicians – will have opinions on issues like sentencing, and indeed on individual sentences. That’s a vital part of a healthy democracy. Judges must be independent. But the government has a clear role in setting the framework for the justice system – and it’s a role I am determined to discharge in both running and reforming the system we have now.
How are you going to carry out the massive changes necessary to make the judiciary, from lay magistrates to the court of appeal, even vaguely representative of modern Britain?
I don’t for a single moment underestimate the scale of the problem we’re facing here. People want a fair and reliable system of justice – fair to victims, fair to defendants, fair to communities. To help achieve that, we have to broaden the base of the judiciary. We’re making a start, with a new drive to appoint magistrates and changes to judicial appointments. But I know we have a long way to go.
You want to set up an independent judicial commission to choose judges – how do you ensure the commission itself is independently chosen?
This is always a key question. I’m clear on what I want to see. It is not right for me, as secretary of state, to make these appointments. Instead, members of our proposed judicial appointments commission must be appointed using open and transparent methods, in accordance with Nolan principles. That’s what we’re proposing. I believe our consultations will see widespread support for that idea.
The 2001 manifesto pledged a more democratic House of Lords. Will your proposals achieve that?
We want to go further with Lords reform. But there is no consensus in parliament about what to do. However, we are clear that we can’t stand still. So we are putting forward proposals to remove the remaining hereditary peers. We don’t yet have the second chamber that modern democracy wants to see. But that means we have to keep working to achieve it.
In your opinion, what will be your department’s three biggest challenges in the coming years, and how will these be tackled?
Helping to tackle crime, reforming the constitution and improving our system of immigration and asylum: they’re the biggest challenges for our new department. They come together in one simple point: that the work of this department is not for lawyers or judges or constitutional reformers, but for the public. My job is to deliver services for the public which help meet their right to live in a safe and secure society, their right to a fair justice system and their right to take part in a politics that is modern, democratic and accountable. I know getting there will not be easy. But I’m determined to do it.