Government proposals to amend the constitution could put the UK in breach of its human rights obligations by giving the executive too much control over the judiciary, a parliamentary committee and human rights lawyers have warned.


A report by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights last month found that proposals in the Constitutional Reform Bill - scheduled for debate in the House of Lords this week and next - would threaten judicial independence.



The committee said the Bill's provision for ministerial control over the new supreme court's budget - which would have to be passed by a minister who would ensure it was 'reasonable' before the bid was put forward to the Treasury - could compromise the court's autonomy. The committee recommended scrapping ministerial involvement, with a body such as the National Audit Office monitoring the budget.



Human rights specialist Stephen Grosz, a partner at Bindman & Partners in London, said: 'The court's purse strings must not be limited by the executive - there must be financial independence from government.'



The committee's report also criticised provisions in the Bill that allow the government to set guidance on how judicial candidates should be assessed - with the judicial appointments commission (JAC) set up to appoint judges under an obligation to have regard to the guidance.



Louise Christian, human rights partner at London firm Christian Khan, said: 'The senior judiciary is horrified by the idea that the government can tell people what appointments to make. If government can set the criteria for selection, that is a slippery slope towards telling the commission who to appoint.'



The committee also expressed concern that JAC decisions would not be subject to an audit by the Sir Colin Campbell's Commission for Judicial Appointments, the body set up to scrutinise the appointments process.



A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokesman said government needed to retain some role in judicial selection to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament.