A judicial appointments commission must reinforce diversity and be part of a new, more open culture, writes Sir Colin Campbell

The current judicial appointments system clearly appoints judges of exceptional ability, integrity and undeniable independence.

My concern is that aspects of the appointment processes may prevent others of equal quality being appointed, or even applying.

The particular problems are a lack of openness and transparency in the appointment processes, an over-reliance in some competitions on automatic consultation, and a need for more clearly objective methods of assessing candidates.

Accordingly, the announcement in the Queen's Speech of a Bill to create an independent judicial appointments commission is a welcome step.

But this is only the first step in a larger, long-term process of reform.

The new commission should introduce greater openness to the process of judicial appointments, and apply the principles of best practice human resources, drawing on the expertise of professionals with a background outside the legal sector.

But to allow those principles to be applied most effectively, the new commission must also enjoy the benefit of access to the best possible legal and judicial advice in assessing candidates.

If these principles are in place, open competition and competency-based assessment will work towards a system that most effectively appoints on the basis of merit.

The new commission should be charged with producing a realistic strategy for increasing diversity in the judiciary at all levels, for example by encouraging a career path for some members of the judiciary.

Diversity is not a departure from the merit principle - rather, it adds additional dimensions.

From the start, the responsibility of the commission to preserve the independence of the judicial appointments process must be enshrined in the primary legislation.

The Bill should also establish the commission as an independent body, with its own staff and funding.

Perhaps my key recommendation concerns the membership of the commission itself.

It must have a majority of part-time lay members and a lay chairman.

Some of the judicial members might include senior judges in an ex officio capacity, for example, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls.

The other members, including the chairman, would be appointed by open and transparent competition, in accordance with the Nolan principles that apply to other public appointments.

A crucial question is whether the commission should make appointments, or merely recommendations.

I favour a hybrid system.

It should make appointments for posts up to, but not including, the High Court while making recommendations for more senior posts.

For recommended appointments, the commission should make one or more recommendations to a minister, at its own discretion.

As to how the minister responds to the commission's recommendations, it is vital that the response should be fully transparent and reported to Parliament in the commission's annual report.

The new body should include review and complaint investigation functions as part of a more open and transparent culture.

I hope that this will, in the long term, remove the need for a separate first line review and complaints body.

No part of these proposals can be seen in isolation.

Taken together they form part of a system of checks and balances that should significantly increase confidence in the judicial appointments process.

Sir Colin Campbell is the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments