Good morning. Thank you, Vanessa [Williams, Chair - Woman Lawyer Forum] and Margaret [McCabe, Founder - Woman Lawyer Forum] for your welcome.
I'm delighted to be here to talk to such an important conference - a conference that has grown, over just a few years, into a major event in the legal calendar. And this is not down to the marketing skills of the organisers or the quality of the lunch - although both, I'm sure, are impressive.
The reason why this event is so important, is because the values the Forum deals with - equality, opportunity, diversity, fairness and balance - are the values that I hope will guide the legal profession in the months, years and even decades to come. These are not peripheral concerns - they are at the very heart of delivering good, effective justice. And if we do not solve these problems it will be much to the detriment of the justice system.
So, I am sure you attend this conference today with determination to turn these values into a reality for women lawyers.
And I am just as sure that some of you want to see progress more quickly and more widely. Shifting long-established barriers, and generating a new culture is not easy or straightforward.
But I am determined to turn the values of equality, opportunity, diversity and fairness into a tangible difference to the working lives of women in the legal profession, and into a more diverse Bench.
This is not about political correctness. It is about the effectiveness of
the justice system. Because without a diverse legal profession, and a diverse
Bench, the justice system will not adequately reflect the society it serves,
and it will not command the full confidence of the public.
Let me briefly set out the key principles that underpin our approach;
what we've achieved over the last few years and the substantial
work that remains to be done.
Since the Department for Constitutional Affairs was set up, judicial diversity
has been a priority, because it makes a real difference to the effective
administration of justice.
We have started from two important principles:
These are important principles.
There has been debate on these issues - particularly whether the concept of "merit", rather than encouraging diversity, actually fosters a "people like us" mentality.
If, by saying people have "merit", they conform to a stereotype; or that appointments are made in the image of predecessors, looking and sounding like a judge has always looked and always sounded, then of course that is the enemy of diversity.
But this is not what we mean.
Appointment on merit means decision are made with all the assessments of the candidate available, against published competencies or criteria for the post, and substantiated by clear evidence of the candidate's suitability for appointment. What is critical is that we encourage talented people to apply, whatever their gender, whatever their background.
We need to widen the pool of those who wish to become judges, and those who are eligible to do so. Only then can we be sure that we are appointing the best.
And, since 1997, we have made real progress in this area.
We have piloted an assessment centre approach to selecting candidates for
fee-paid appointments. The first centre was run in 2002, as part of the
Deputy District Judge competition. It gives candidates a greater opportunity
to demonstrate their skills than an interview alone, and it is now being
piloted for Recorder appointments.
People who have gone through an assessment centre describe it as a challenging process and a fair process.
And, much more has been done.
Alongside the assessment centre we now have a single competence framework for all judicial posts below the level of the High Court - setting out the range of skills and aptitudes needed by those who aspire to judicial office. A more transparent, and much more open process.
And recently we launched a competition for High Court Judge appointments based more clearly on demonstrable, competence-based qualities and skills. Only those who complete the prescribed application form will be considered, a fact that distinguishes this competition from all its predecessors. Again, a much more transparent, open process.
In 2001 we introduced salaried part-time working for new appointees to the District Bench and tribunals and - from 1 April - salaried part-time working will be extended to all new and existing appointments below the High Court, subject to business need. This is a significant advance, and will help increase judicial diversity.
We have also removed the lower age limits for professional judicial appointments - and most of the upper age limits, too; established block sittings for those who have taken career breaks; a judicial work-shadowing scheme; and the appraisal of some fee-paid members of the judiciary.
Taken together, this is a considerable programme of work. We have, and will continue, to commit time and energy to these issues.
But, of course, the test of these reforms is whether they have made a difference to the numbers of women and minority ethnic judges. I'm delighted to say, they have.
In 1998, 1 in 10 judges in the courts were women. By last year, that figure had increased to just over 15 per cent. And the number of judges in the courts of minority ethnic origin doubled to 3.4 per cent.
And when you take into account all judges, including those in tribunals, the percentages of women and minority ethnic office-holders are even greater. The proportion of women rises to almost 25 per cent, and that of minority ethnic judges to nearly 7 per cent.
Lying behind these statistics are some notable individual achievements. In January last year, Baroness Hale of Richmond - a strong supporter of these Conferences - became the first woman Law Lord.
And last Autumn I was delighted to announce the appointment of Mrs Justice Dobbs - the first High Court Judge of minority ethnic origin. I am delighted to see her here today.
So, the judiciary is becoming more diverse.
But not quickly enough.
More can be done to open up the pathways into the legal profession and from the legal profession into the judiciary. There needs to be real commitment on the part of the Government, on the part of the judges and on the part of the professions to drive through change - and I believe we are at a moment where there is that shared commitment.
Looking forward, the new independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which is due to open for business from April next year, will make a difference. There will be a statutory duty to consider how best to widen the pool of applicants and to increase the diversity of that pool. The Commission will put in place a modern, transparent appointments system. It sends out a strong message about our commitments to change. It is a major opportunity to increase the diversity of the Bench, and one we should all welcome.
But, I have absolutely no intention of treading water, or waiting until the Commission is in place.
More can, should and must be done before April of next year. We must make progress now - this week and this month, as well as preparing properly for what the new Commission is going to do.
That was why, in October last year, I published the consultation paper, Increasing Diversity in the Judiciary.
I was pleased the judiciary and the legal profession worked closely with us on this, and provided strong and real support. It was an important piece of work. Let me say why we did it, what the consultation has told us and, most importantly, what we intend to do next.
The consultation looked at reasons for lack of diversity - the barriers to appointment, whether experienced or perceived, by people from diverse backgrounds.
The consultation exercise closed on 21 January. We received just over 100
responses, from both individuals and groups.
I very much appreciate the time people took to read the consultation paper, attend the road-shows, and prepare detailed and constructive responses - a summary of those responses will be published in the next few days and we have copies of the Executive Summary here today.
The responses have been looked at seriously and carefully.
And we will act on the insights they provide.
I want to announce today that there are three main areas where we will do more now: improving information and communications; identifying and encouraging suitable potential candidates to apply; and the introduction of career breaks for holders of judicial office.
First, then, information.
It is clear from the responses that we need to communicate more widely, with more people and in many more, different, ways. People want more information about being a judge, and they want more information about the process for becoming a judge.
The candidates are out there - the legal profession in this country is among the best in the world. What we need to do is get the right information to the right people, in the right format and at the right time.
There are lots of ways we can do this.
We will raise the profile of becoming a judge - getting out to talk to people, organising or attending events, working closely with The Law Society, the Bar Council, the Association of Women Solicitors, ILEX and others.
We will increase the information we provide and make it more accessible, more helpful and more informative. It is evident from the consultation responses that not enough is known about the requirements for judicial office; about the various sittings patterns which are available; and about the fact that advocacy skills are not a requirement.
We need to use a range of media -booklets, videos, DVDs, websites and advertising - to get information across to the widest possible audience.
One example - competitions for judicial appointments have been advertised
for many years, and that will continue. But from this summer we will also
be placing regular advertisements in legal journals. They will not advertise
any particular competition or appointment, but will rather raise awareness
about the possibility of becoming a judge.
The consultation also suggested we should target people at a younger age - earlier
in people's professional careers and even at the point students
and graduates are considering a legal career.
We need to do this. But I think we also need to do more than just put the information on the table and wait for someone to pick it up. We need to be much more proactive - actively seeking out suitable candidates and promoting awareness among under-represented groups.
There is a wide range of organisations that have knowledge of talented potential candidates. I will very shortly be writing to stakeholders to identify organisations we can ask for names of potential candidates - and provide them with information about the application process.
Of course they will have to compete on a level playing field with all other candidates - the merit test will remain - but there is undoubtedly a pool of knowledge and ability out there, that we have to work harder to reach and to give confidence to. It is this outreach work that has proved effective elsewhere - in Canada for example.
So we need to look at providing better information and doing more to reach out to suitable candidates. The third area we are looking at is a career break scheme. Once salaried part-time working has been extended to most judicial appointments, in less than a month's time, we will be looking to introduce a career break scheme for serving judges.
Schemes of this kind - for example, in the Civil Service - are a valuable means of helping people to balance their working life with their commitments as parents or carers. Such a scheme might be an incentive for lawyers, particularly women, to apply for judicial appointment at an earlier age than now, in the knowledge that they would be able to take a career break later, should they need to do so.
I hope these are all proposals you will support.
There are also several other areas that I want to look at very carefully, and where I believe we can make progress.
The first, and most fundamental, concerns the statutory eligibility requirements for judicial appointment. As matters stand, it is necessary to have been qualified as a barrister or a solicitor for a specified length of time - normally seven or ten years - before becoming eligible for judicial appointment. We asked in the consultation paper whether this was the right starting point.
A significant number of responses favoured some change to the requirements, but views varied. Some wanted a reduction in the length of time that must elapse between gaining a professional qualification and becoming eligible for judicial office. Others wanted to relax the requirement further, so that some groups, other than barristers or solicitors, would become eligible for appointment.
I believe there are strong arguments for change.
I will be looking closely at how we could make a broader range of people, with appropriate and measured experience, eligible for judicial appointment. Who am I thinking of? I am thinking of ILEX-qualified legal executives. I am thinking of legal academics. I am thinking perhaps of patent and trademark attorneys. I am thinking also of magistrates with an appropriate legal qualification. These are examples and we need to look at the detail.
And I am keen to develop that link with the Magistracy further. Magistrates are a key part of the justice system and there may well be other ways in which their knowledge and experience might be taken into account on the route towards judicial appointment.
For example, it might be possible to allow barristers and solicitors who are Justices of the Peace to apply for salaried judicial appointment, with their sittings as lay magistrates counting in lieu of service in fee-paid judicial office.
Or we might be able to say that a barrister or a solicitor who is a magistrate will become eligible for appointment to fee-paid judicial appointment after a reduced period of call or admission. On current timescales, that might be after five years' call or admission, as compared to the required seven or ten. We need to capitalise on Magistrates' experience and the skills they offer.
Before arriving at a decision, we will need to be satisfied that we have the right selection processes in place, both for fee-paid and salaried appointments. We must also have a robust system for appraising fee-paid office-holders. There is plenty for us all to do, but looking at it now will mean that we can be ready when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises.
Closely linked to this is the requirement for a period of service in fee-paid office prior to consideration for salaried appointment. Most of those who responded to the consultation paper emphasised the value of fee-paid service, both in enabling an individual's suitability for salaried appointment to be assessed, and in helping them to decide whether or not life as a judge might be for them.
So the requirement to undertake a period of service in fee-paid judicial office before being considered for salaried appointment will remain. We have, however, received an interesting suggestion - from the Judges' Council - for a single point of entry to the fee-paid judiciary in the courts. We will be exploring that with them.
We also need to look closely at the relationship between merit and diversity. We agree appointment must be solely on merit - and that test will remain.
But, in cases where a number of candidates are shown to be of equal merit, there must be a question as to whether we should bring a diversity element into the selection process and ensure the process considers the overall picture when they make recommendations.
It would not dilute the merit principle: those appointed would have been selected on merit in the first place, but it may mean that we see a more diverse range of appointments. I will be working with the judges and our stakeholders on this in the coming months.
Then there is return to practice. As a matter of policy, judges are currently prohibited from returning to practice at the Bar or as solicitors when they cease to hold judicial office. Many consultees favoured dropping this restriction, arguing that this is a major obstacle for those - women in particular - who might wish to serve in a salaried judicial capacity in mid, rather than late, career.
Others feel strongly that the present prohibition should be retained.
I feel there could well be cases where this prohibition could be lifted, at least for those who have served at the less senior levels of the judiciary, and we will be looking at that too.
Another area we need to act on is disability. We need to get this right, and to do so we will consult those with the necessary expertise, for example, the Disability Rights Commission. We might then commission a disability-specific audit of the judicial appointments processes.
I am interested too in working with the judiciary to see what potential there may be for developing mentoring arrangements for salaried judges. These would be aimed at helping those at the more junior levels of the judiciary - which are also the most diverse - to progress to higher office. I am, of course, conscious of the extra work which a scheme of this kind would inevitably involve for those judges who became mentors. It might be that we would have to start small. But we will see what we can do.
Respondents have emphasised the importance of role models, in helping potential applicants to see themselves in a judicial role, and then in encouraging them to apply. We will consider, again with the judiciary, who role model judges should be; what they should do; and how they might be identified.
And we will look at the feasibility of setting up a scheme under which students and recent graduates might spend some time shadowing a judge.
Many respondents considered that another suggestion in the consultation paper, evening and weekend court sittings, would actually inhibit diversity. We will not take this suggestion forward.
So much for what the Department will be doing, with the help of our stakeholders. But whatever we do will make little difference if the diversity of the legal profession - the pool from which appointments are made - does not increase too. I am delighted that the Bar Council and The Law Society have been associated with us in our work so far. And I am delighted that both branches of the profession also have their own diversity initiatives in hand.
The Law Society's Diversity Access Scheme is just one example. The Society also recently commenced consultation on a new training framework, which proposes a more flexible pathway to qualifying as a solicitor - albeit with higher academic standards for new entrants. The new framework aims to maximise the opportunities for people from a range of backgrounds, and with a range of experience. Final recommendations are expected to be considered in the Autumn.
The Law Society also works with its members to help them make effective applications for judicial appointment. They will be ensuring that information about training courses is made widely available, including to under-represented groups.
And the Society is reviewing its Continuing Professional Development scheme so that CPD points can be awarded for - among other things - work-shadowing a judge.
The Bar Council, too, has many initiatives in hand to increase diversity. There will be an expanded programme of judicial information events in London and on circuit, to encourage more applications from - among others - women, minority ethnic and disabled practitioners.
The Employed Barristers Committee intends to ensure that more information and pre-appointment preparation is made available to its members, many of whom have expressed interest in judicial appointment. Barristers will also be encouraged to begin considering a judicial appointment earlier in their career.
Practical training has been commissioned for Chambers on implementing the new Equality and Diversity Code, maternity and flexible working arrangements, and guidance on fair allocation of work. And the Criminal Bar Association's Minority Committee is working with the Crown Prosecution Service to widen access to quality government work.
It is an impressive list - the challenge I am throwing down this morning is to put into action what is required to achieve a profession that is more diverse at all levels.
So how will we take this forward? It is an important and significant programme of work.
Cathy Ashton, the DCA Minister responsible for diversity, will be expanding the Ministerial Steering Group, and using it to drive forward work on judicial diversity both in Government and beyond. The Group will extend its membership to include advisers on those aspects of diversity where we know there are gaps in our knowledge, and it will draw up a programme of work to help us reach out to under-represented groups.
And what will success look like?
We will see more of the right kinds of support for candidates, potential candidates and serving judges.
It will mean the candidates with the most merit are the ones who are appointed - and that none who should be considered for appointment are left out.
And, most importantly, we would expect to see a Bench that lives and breathes equality, opportunity, diversity and fairness - and so delivers good and effective justice.
Thank you very much.