Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am not content that Clause 47 should stand part. Yet again I declare an interest as a former judge. I am concerned about Clause 47(4)(b), together with Clause 48(1); that is to say, the purpose of a relevant qualification, if the person holds a qualification that under Clause 48(1) is a relevant qualification in relation to the office. This, as I understand it, is intended to improve diversity. I thank the Minister for her very helpful letter on the concern that I had expressed at an earlier stage. I strongly support diversity. I am a product of it, because I was one of the very few women who got to the higher realms of the judiciary. I think I am still a first in certain judicial roles. However, I have a concern about qualifications. Let us take the example of the legal executive. It is an excellent idea that legal executives should have the right to become chairmen of tribunals and, indeed, district judges. My concern, however, is this. It has been thought for some time by many of us who have been judges that it is desirable that those who have an appointment at one level should have an opportunity for promotion. Again, I am a product of that. I moved from being a divorce registrar to a divorce judge to a High Court judge. I can tell noble Lords that the gap is enormous from one post to the next because the intellectual and decision-making requirements for being a High Court judge are completely different from those for someone who sits as a district judge or chairman of a tribunal. It is therefore perfectly possible for a legal executive, having gone on to the Bench quite properly as a chairman, to have displayed characteristics that make one think that perhaps he or she should be promoted. But the training of a legal executive is not of the same calibre as that of either a barrister or a solicitor. Although that candidate for a higher post may have extremely good qualifications on the ground, he will not have had the training necessary either for a circuit judge these days or, even more so, for a High Court judge. At the moment, there is a requirement for someone sitting as a district judge—and, I suspect, as a chairman of a tribunal—who would like to be considered for a more demanding and senior post to become a part-time recorder and therefore to display such appropriate characteristics for promotion by that part-time sitting. However, that is not a statutory requirement. It does not have to be taken into account by the Judicial Appointments Commission. I have, if I may respectfully say so, the utmost confidence in the present very distinguished noble Baroness who is the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission. One does not know whether that will be the case in 10 or 15 years. I am simply concerned that a legal executive, or, particularly under Clause 48(1), someone for whom the Lord Chancellor has by order provided for a qualification that may come through the Institute of Legal Executives or some other body, may have training that would be excellent for a chairman of a tribunal or a district judge but would not be adequate for the High Court Bench and probably not for the circuit Bench. I therefore express my very considerable concern about these two clauses.