Falconer unveils reforms

An independent judicial appointments commission whose recommendations can be vetoed by ministers, a supreme court along near-identical lines to the existing House of Lords, and a QC system that needs to justify its existence were at the heart of three government consultations issued this week.

The consultations flesh out the constitutional reforms announced last month with the appointment of Lord Falconer as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

'These proposals will put the relationship between Parliament, the government and judges on a modern footing,' Lord Falconer said.

'We will have a proper separation of powers and we will further strengthen the independence of judges.'

The consultations put forward various approaches, and while the government has indicated its preferences (see box), Lord Falconer said he is open to alternatives.

The government's plan for the commission is for it to be a recommending body combined with 'severely circumscribed ministerial discretion'.

It envisages the commission putting a name forward which the secretary of state would be able to reject and require another name.

In relation to the appointment of Court of Appeal judges and heads of divisions, the secretary of state may also consult the senior judiciary before reaching a decision.

The commission will not handle supreme court appointments.

Lord Falconer denied that ministerial involvement would infringe on judicial independence, saying accountability to Parliament is vital.

The consultation paper also elaborates on Lord Falconer's vision of greater career opportunities within the judiciary.

It says the commission could examine the feasibility of reserving some recorder or district judge positions for lawyers who want to return to the profession after a career break or are working part-time.

The paper on the future of the QC system expresses no firm opinions either way, while saying it needs to be justified in the public interest to continue in its present form.

The Law Society broadly welcomed the plans, with President Carolyn Kirby highlighting the need for judges to be 'selected by independent, objective and transparent means'.

She also backed the creation of a 'properly resourced' supreme court.

The Society has long campaigned against the current QC system, saying it should be replaced by a quality accreditation scheme.

Bar Council chairman Matthias Kelly QC said the bar would lobby hard in asserting the 'long-standing benefits of the silk system', and called on the government to reinstate the system at once.

The 2004 silk round has been suspended pending the consultation's outcome.

Legal Action Group director Alison Hannah said: 'These should not be seen as a threat to tradition, but an opportunity to establish a judicial system fit for the 21st century.'

Links: www.lcd.gov.uk

The judicial appointments commission

- The commission should be a recommending commission, putting up a shortlist of candidates to the secretary of state;- A separate judicial ombudsman should be created by legislation;- The commission should be an independent non-departmental public body, created by legislation;- The commission should take day-to-day responsibility for issues related directly to appointments, though the government will retain responsibility for policy;- The commission will be tasked with attracting a more diverse range of candidates;- Most commission members should be appointed following open competition by an appointing panel;- The commission should have 15 members (five judges, five lawyers and five non-lawyers).

Supreme court

- It will be a supreme court for the UK;- The 12 present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary would form the initial members.

They would cease, while members of the court, to sit and vote in the House of Lords;- The only jurisdictional change will be taking on the judicial committee of the Privy Council's role in issues about the powers of the devolved administrations;- Appointments should either be on the advice of ministers alone, but following consultation with the senior judiciary, or a recommending commission.

Queen's Counsel

Retention of the rank in its current form can only be justified if:

- It serves a helpful purpose for users of legal services;- Any benefits clearly outweigh any problems, and in particular the extent to which it may distort competition and its possible effect on fees; and- Its possible benefits cannot be provided in other ways free of such disadvantages.The provisional view is also that the government's continued involvement in the appointment of QCs needs 'strong justification'.