Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER 2003
SIR COLIN
CAMPBELL
Q20 Keith Vaz: Sir Colin, I am really
not sure what you think is wrong with the present system.
Sir Colin Campbell: Really quite
a lot: it is opaque; it is not understood; it is stigmatised as
secret soundings; and there is virtually no quality control in
it. It is quite amazing. The first time I got the piles of paperwork,
the secret soundings were about that high in paper. If you are
talking about Silk for example, you have 450 names that are going
out to 400 consultees. In principle, that gives you 16,000 bits
of paper, but you do not actually get 16,000 bits of paper, what
you get are a random series of non quality-controlled comments
about you or me. So, numbers 35, 123 and 110 might say that you
are a good chap and numbers 24, 111 and 8 say that I am quite
clever but not really up to it and there you have it.
Q21 Keith Vaz: But that is to do
with the process, it is not to do with the end product. You would
not have any criticisms, for example, of the appointment that
has just been made by the Lord Chancellor of Brenda Hale or Lord
Bingham or Lord Woolf. Do you have criticisms of them as suitable
candidates?
Sir Colin Campbell: No, not at
all.
Q22 Keith Vaz: So, the end product
is okay, it is just the process that is the problem?
Sir Colin Campbell: The process
is the major problem. The end product is okay in the sense that
it keeps out bad apples, it is pretty good at that, and our judiciary
are independent, they are of considerable intellectual ability
and they are not corrupted or corruptible. That is all good. What
is not so good is the fact that we are wasting vast pools of talent,
ie women, ethnic minorities and 100,000 solicitors who happen
to be out there.
Q23 Keith Vaz: Can you not achieve
what you have just said you would like to achieve—and I
agree with a lot of what you said in response to Mrs Cryer—by
having a greater involvement of lay people in the process, keeping
the Lord Chancellor as the final determiner of appointments but,
within the system, build in all the changes and modernisation
that you quite correctly say needs to be done?
Sir Colin Campbell: I think our
logic is that, if you are going to accept our criticism of the
system and the need for change, the most economical and the easiest
way of doing it, although it would be very difficult, is to have
a free-standing Judicial Appointments Commission and that is why
we say that. I think however we would not agree with the implication
that you keep the Lord Chancellor there because the Lord Chancellor
ex officio—and I talk neither about the present incumbent
nor his predecessors—is a major part of the problem because
the separation of powers is not respected. I have seen the system
where all this vast amount of paperwork is carefully done as carefully
as possible, but it seems to be lacking the quality controls and
then you get lists A and B and then they just get changed, like
that.
Q24 Keith Vaz: You have said that
you think the system is good at keeping out the wrong people but
not necessarily promoting the right people or the best people
for the job. What do you think is a good workable size for a commission?
How many people should it have?
Sir Colin Campbell: The Government
suggested 15. We do not feel religiously about this. Fifteen can
look a quite a big group. I chair things as you chair things and
15 is quite a big group, but the workload for this Commission
is going to be immense. It is going to have to run competitions
for recorders, for tribunals and for district courts. There will
be a huge national system to run.
Q25 Keith Vaz: Are you in favour
of it being responsible for all those appointments? I think there
were 3,000 holders of judicial appointments in the country and
they come up at a rate of 700 a year.
Sir Colin Campbell: They have
to design national systems even if they are locally implemented.
Q26 Keith Vaz: Sure, but do you think
the new Commission should be responsible for all those appointments?
Sir Colin Campbell: Yes.
Q27 Keith Vaz: So, none should be
kept, for example social security or whatever, by departmental
ministers? This Commission should deal with everything?
Sir Colin Campbell: I do not want
to say something absolutely because somebody will then produce
a very good example to contradict, but generally speaking, yes.
Q28 Keith Vaz: With the involvement
of lay people, you are not going to cut down on the paperwork,
are you? You are still going to get to have referees put down
on an application form and you are going to have to write to these
referees.
Sir Colin Campbell: In our view,
you sweep away this automatic consultation which is—
Q29 Keith Vaz: Out goes the consultation,
in comes an application form.
Sir Colin Campbell: No. Out goes
the automatic consultation to 400 or 500 people who can be given
400 or 500 names to comment on and in comes a proper HR system
with proper referees, proper external assessors and interviews
based on clear criteria and competencies and objective quality
control.
Q30 Keith Vaz: And, at the moment,
you are saying that is a real problem with the way in which the
information is gathered and you do not think it is being done
properly?
Sir Colin Campbell: That is correct.
Q31 Keith Vaz: How many of the 15
or so do you think should be lay members? Should it be the majority
or should it be . . .?
Sir Colin Campbell: We say a lay
majority because we think that nowadays the public happen to be
more comfortable if there is a lay majority over medics or a lay
majority over academics or a lay majority over lawyers. It gives
you confidence that they are not people with vested interests.
Having chaired the Commission that I am on just now with seven
lay people, I can tell you that it works in an outstanding way.
Q32 Keith Vaz: What types of people
serve on your committee that could serve on the Commission?
Sir Colin Campbell: Can I just
make one other point and that is that I think if we end up having
a fierce argument about majorities and minorities, we are on a
loser because any chairman will try to get his committee to work
together rather than having the lawyers against the laymen or
vice-versa.
Q33 Keith Vaz: Absolutely. Consensus,
as our Chairman knows, is the way forward, but do you think that
the chairmanship should be held by a lay person or by a lawyer?
Sir Colin Campbell: I think that
in terms of the current mood about transparency and accountability—and
I have said this to the senior judiciary—I do not think
a judge should be the chairman, I think it should be a lay person.
Q34 Keith Vaz: What types of people
should serve on it?
Sir Colin Campbell: In establishing
the commission that I chair, we advertised—
Q35 Keith Vaz: Would you take us
through the professions.
Sir Colin Campbell: Yes. We advertised
and received 155 applications and they were short-listed down
to about 18 and we chose seven people who I think are quite tremendous.
We have Millie Banerjee who is very senior in British Telecom;
Jean Tomlin who worked in industrial relations for Ford and then
the Pru and now Marks & Spencer; Duncan Nichol who was very
senior in the NHS; Tony Boorman who is a financial ombudsman;
Jane Drabble who came out of programme making in the BBC; Frances
Heidensohn, an academic in social policy in University of London;
and John Simpson, an economist and journalist in Northern Ireland.
Q36 Keith Vaz: Sir Colin, this is
an elite! This is not Mr Smith down the road, is it? This is an
elite.
Sir Colin Campbell: This is a
bunch of very—
Q37 Keith Vaz: It is the good and
the great!
Sir Colin Campbell: No, no, no.
Q38 Keith Vaz: Are you not substituting
one set of good and great people for another?
Sir Colin Campbell: You are trying
to get highly talented, motivated and experienced people from
all walks of life who, yes, must have the intellectual capacity
to do a difficult job.
Q39 Chairman: Who chose them? You
said "we".
Sir Colin Campbell: I was involved
with somebody from HR in the Lord Chancellor's Department and
a woman who had been President of the Law Society in Northern
Ireland.
| 
