Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]

Lord Etherton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

I believe there is a limited administrative effort available for changing and updating the judiciary, and that effort should go into expanding the magistracy and increasing diversity. That limited administrative effort would be far better used in this way rather than in increasing the age of retirement to 75. I put forward 72 as a compromise, which has been consulted on, and I think it would be a step too far to go straight to 75 without taking into account the factors to which I have referred. I beg to move.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I have joined in this amendment and I support it and the other amendments in the group, as I have previously with similar amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because of the potentially severe adverse impact on diversity in our most senior courts, especially the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

While all judges are critical to the administration of justice, the most senior courts are the courts that send the clearest message to our own nation and to other countries about whether we value diversity in those who administer the law. One must remember that the members of the most senior courts also provide the role models that are so important in encouraging and inspiring others. We do not have a diverse senior judiciary. Although some progress has been made, particularly in the last 10 years, with the recruitment of women, there is an unacceptable and embarrassing lack of people of colour who are senior judges.

There are no black and minority ethnic justices in the Supreme Court, and never have been. Just two of the 12 Supreme Court justices are women, one of whom is about to retire. Out of a maximum of 39 judges of the Court of Appeal, there is one judge from a minority ethnic background and only 10 women. Out of a maximum of 108 judges of the High Court, only five are from a minority ethnic background.

There can be no doubt that an increase in the age of retirement from 70 to 75 in one go will have a severely adverse effect on inclusion and diversity in our most senior courts. It will diminish, almost to a vanishing point, opportunities for appointment and advancement for a number of years. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has pointed out, all the most senior judges were in favour of an increase in the judicial MRA to 72 rather than 75.

My noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, who spoke in Committee but is unable to be here today, has added her name to the amendment. She chaired the diversity committee of the Judges’ Council until 2019 and was a member of the judicial diversity forum. She said:

“It is impossible to improve the diversity of the Bench significantly … unless there is a constant flow of new recruits”.—[Official Report, 11/10/21; col. GC 374.]


That is equally true of advancement within the higher courts, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court. As she said, raising the MRA of the judges is bound to restrict the number of vacant posts. The point, one would have thought, is self-evident, and it is borne out by the facts.

As I have said, one of the two women justices of the Supreme Court will shortly retire. If the Bill is enacted with an MRA of 75, it will be a number of years before any further vacancy will arise. There is no evidence of a pattern of early retirement of justices of the Supreme Court. Of the nine justices who have retired in the last five years, eight continued until the MRA. As I have said before during the passage of the Bill, so far as concerns the Court of Appeal, the average age of judges is just under 64. This means that, potentially, if the MRA is raised to 75, there will be very few vacancies for a further 11 years. Of the 13 judges who retired from the Court of Appeal in the past two years or so, over 70% stayed until the current MRA of 70. The best evidence that I have been able to obtain is that 90% of those due to retire in the next three years will go beyond 70 if permitted.

How, then, will it be possible for those minority ethnic judges in the High Court to progress to the Court of Appeal, let alone to the Supreme Court? The short answer is that it will be highly unlikely. The Government have said that raising the MRA to 75 will increase diversity and the attractiveness generally of applying for judicial office, because it will enable potential applicants to work for longer before seeking judicial appointment. In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett said that she had spoken to literally hundreds of potential applicants, including women and BAME lawyers, over the years, and had never once heard an argument that the MRA of 70 was a factor in not applying for the Bench. The Government also say that, in their pre-legislative consultation, a majority of women and BAME groups opted for 75. I do not accept for one moment that, if such groups had been aware of the potentially adverse impact of the MRA on their appointment to the higher courts and on promotion within those courts, they would have endorsed 75.

It has been said by one noble Lord who supports the proposed rise in the MRA to 75 that this is a once in a generation opportunity. Again, I do not accept for a moment that, if and when an increase above 72 is thought desirable, the Government would not readily find a suitable legislative vehicle. In choosing to prolong to 75 the judicial careers of those currently in office, to the disadvantage of underrepresented groups, especially those who are black and from ethnic minorities, the Government have preferred exclusivity to inclusivity. This is out of touch with social attitudes within our wider society, and indeed those of other European countries and the United States. The judiciary is not excused from the call of so many for greater fairness, equality of opportunity and advancement for people of colour and other underrepresented groups within our society. The statutory public sector equality duty, which had its origins in legislation that followed the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, is now to be found in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Subject to certain exceptions, it requires public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic—which includes race and sex—and persons who do not share it. The Act states that a person who is not a public authority as defined in the Act, but who nevertheless exercises public functions, must also have due regard to those matters.

Raising the MRA to 75 is inconsistent with such a duty, or at least its objective and underlying ethos. The House should not endanger its reputation by accepting the increase to 75. To do so would lay it open to the criticism that it is out of touch in preferring to prolong the status quo, rather than enhancing equality of opportunity and inclusivity; in preferring age and standing over fairness and greater participation in our judiciary of all groups within our society, whatever their background, ethnicity, sex or gender. I urge the House to endorse the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.