Senior judges could be questioned by MPs under plans outlined by ministers yesterday to reform the way judges are chosen.

The changes to judicial appointments are part of a package of proposals for governance reform that will also include consulting on a Bill of Rights. A Green Paper on a Bill of Rights could lead to a written constitution for Britain, codifying people’s rights. Michael Wills, the Justice Minister, promised yesterday that there would be a referendum before any such huge constitutional change.

Ministers have dropped proposals - strongly opposed by senior judges - for American-style confirmation hearings in which candidates for judicial office would be questioned in Parliament. They also recommend changes to reduce still further the role of ministers in the appointment of judges, but they ask instead whether the role of Parliament should increase.

One proposal is for “postappointment” hearings in which the most senior judges could be questioned by MPs after being appointed. This idea would give greater parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments, a consultation paper published yesterday says. It admits, however, that the benefits were “not immediately clear”.

More likely to win judicial approval are the paper’s plans for less involvement by ministers in appointments. Already the role of the Lord Chancellor has been reduced significantly by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, said yesterday that the debate made it right to see if changes were required. The paper asks whether there is any need for the Lord Chancellor to be consulted, or to give approval, on a variety of decisions over judicial appointments.

The Green Paper on a Bill of Rights would build on the Human Rights Act and emphasise the responsibilities that come with the rights enshrined in that Act. Mr Wills said he hoped that the Green Paper would prompt vigorous debate, but added: “It would be wrong to proceed unless it was on the basis of a settled consensus.”

The Green Paper would look at rights in three areas, he said. The first was how to build on the Human Rights Act to spell out the responsibilities it entailed. The second area was the “specific rights and duties” that flowed from citizenship, specifically British rights and duties. That would tie in with Lord Goldsmith’s review of citizenship. Third was the “third generation” new rights, which may include rights over the environment.

Responding to the papers, Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said that the Government had “blindly” refused to “address the problems of its Human Rights Act, which has failed to protect key liberties such as jury trial and the privacy of our homes while hampering our ability to deal with terrorists and serious criminals”.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over