Judges should be appointed on merit and there is no place for positive discrimination or a quota system in attempts to increase diversity on the bench, the Law Society and the Bar Council said in their responses to a Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation last week.


The Law Society insisted that the notion of judges 'representing' different sections of society ran counter to the ethos of impartial, fair and open decision-making.


It said the judiciary should instead be 'reflective of society in all its diversity from the perspective of ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation and disability; and social background should be no obstacle to appointment'.


The Society said the public needs to be confident that judges are sensitive to different issues faced by different parts of society, and free from unconscious bias in favour of particular sectional interests.


The proposed judicial appointments commission would be 'a major step forward', it added, calling for the relevant part of the Constitutional Reform Bill to be implemented without delay and by no later than 2006.


The bar agreed with the Society that there is no conflict between merit and diversity, adding that it would 'like to see a positive statement confirming that increasing diversity in the judiciary will enhance merit'. It also backed reforms such as the use of assessment centres for first-time appointments, a revised consultation process and arrangements for part-time sitting.


Bar Council chairman Stephen Hockman QC said: 'Increasing diversity requires a modern appointments process which is, and is perceived to be, fair to all applicants, as well as working arrangements which are inclusive and flexible.'


However, the Society and the bar appear to be split over whether individuals with legal expertise but who are not solicitors or barristers - such as academics and patent agents - should be able to become judges.


Chancery Lane said potential candidates should be either solicitors or barristers with a number of years' standing, while the bar suggested that consideration should be given to expanding the scope of the current statutory requirements to allow experience in other relevant spheres to be taken into account. Any gap between skills and experience could be addressed by training provided by the Judicial Studies Board and by judicial shadowing, it said.