Our judicial appointments system – established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 – was designed to enhance judicial independence and excellence, and the judiciary’s legitimacy, by making the judiciary more reflective of contemporary society.

Since 2006, the Judicial Appointments Commission has been working to give effect to the aspirations of the legislation. After four years, there is now increasing acceptance of the JAC’s role and its constitutional significance. Some of the early concerns that the new system of appointments would deter the best and the brightest from applying, and that merit and diversity are incompatible, have fizzled away.

The JAC has also succeeded in developing robust selection processes which are fair, open and accountable. It is confident in its ability, in partnership with others, to tackle the challenge of creating a judiciary that is diverse and continues to command respect for its excellence and independence.

Before the establishment of the JAC, the predominant view was that an open selection process would create a diverse judiciary within a short time. But an open selection process is only part of the answer. Much more is needed.

The arrival of the JAC has acted like a litmus paper. Some of the systemic barriers that inhibit progress on diversity have been highlighted. It is now recognised that the legal profession itself does not give women and minorities the same chance to shine. It has also brought about greater awareness of the specific actions that need to be taken, not just by the JAC but by other relevant bodies. This has not happened by accident.

We have reached out to work with others through the Diversity Forum we established in 2008, which includes the profession, the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice. We have closely monitored the impact on diversity of policies that are outside our control, and have made recommendations to the lord chancellor about the changes we would like to see. For example, reconsidering entry requirements such as fee-paid experience, which excludes from applying those who may have judge-craft skills acquired in a different setting.

We conducted research into factors that deter people from applying and, on the basis of that research, developed an action plan in association with Diversity Forum members. A significant initiative such as the JAC role-play video, which was launched this month with the Law Society, is just one example of joint action to explain the selection process. Other examples of effective action include the Law Society’s group of solicitor judges and the Bar Council’s circuit diversity mentors to raise awareness and assist those applying.

Changing the culture and working practices of law firms and the judiciary will take time. Engaging with senior partners to illustrate the benefits of practitioners holding fee-paid posts, and encouraging more part-time working for salaried judges, are some of the initiatives to bring about change which are under way. Thankfully, we have moved away from a culture of blame to one of collective endeavour.

Change is neither easy nor without pain. Attempts to make the process fair, for example by introducing qualifying tests to shortlist candidates, have been extremely controversial. So much so that some are beginning to crave the old system of ‘tap on the shoulder’. Some suggest that qualifying tests will lead to a mediocre judiciary because those who are seen as ‘star advocates’ are not all shortlisted at first attempt.

This is an odd conclusion to draw. We are looking for judge-craft skills and not advocacy skills. In any event, there are difficulties with any shortlisting method. Qualifying tests, which we are constantly working to improve, are fairer, more objective and more reliable than any other option.

We are beginning to see results. Statistics published by the JAC last week show that 13% of those selected in the recent South East Recorder exercise were from ethnic minorities, compared with 7% in the eligible pool, and the proportion of candidates with a disability selected, 3%, equalled those who had applied. The number of women in the High Court has increased by almost 50% since the JAC was established. The last year has seen the appointment of former solicitors to both the High Court and, for the first time, the Supreme Court.

The high quality of our selections has been commended by both the current and former lord chief justices. Such comments negate assertions that our procedures may be rewarding mediocrity at the expense of talent. Evidence points the other way. We are making progress on diversity and continuing to maintain excellence.

Some are suggesting that the culture of accountability and the consequent focus on transparent criteria for selection fairly applied may have circumscribed the discretion of ministers too far. They may want to change the system to one whereby a list is provided by the JAC from which the minister can choose. Such a change would be controversial. It would be moving away from the intentions of the 2005 act and would therefore be a retrograde step.

The balance between democratic aspirations and judicial independence was struck with great deliberation and thought during the course of the passage of the Constitutional Reform Bill in 2005. The challenge of translating judicial independence, excellence and legitimacy into judicial appointments is not just about sterile processes but about openness, fairness and the principles which support those processes. Any change, therefore, must, be assessed against these values and principles.

My experience of attempting to give effect to the objectives of this legislation has confirmed to me how important it is not to lose sight of the fundamental principles that underpinned this change in 2005 – independence, excellence and legitimacy – and not to be swayed by short-term imperatives, bureaucratic convenience, ill-informed sniping or those resistant to change.

Baroness Prashar is chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission