Britain’s most senior judge has expressed fears that reforms to the way judges are appointed risks politicising the judiciary and threatening standards.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior law lord, also expressed concern about the length of time – up to several months – that it takes to appoint judges.

In an exclusive interview with The Times, Lord Bingham, 74, who was speaking on the reforms for the first time, said that “in many ways, the system worked extremely well before”.

Referring to the old method by which candidates were “tapped on the shoulder” and invited to apply, he said that people were usually flattered by the approach. “Most of them, although not all, accepted – and it all took place really quite quickly and people were not kept waiting for long periods.”

Lord Bingham, who has also held the posts of Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls, added that he had “slightly reluctantly” become persuaded of the need for reform. He accepted, he added, that the old system “lacked transparency and was suspected of being inbred and cosy and dependent upon an old-boy network”.

But he said: “Although I don’t actually think that was true, the public perception was to that effect.” The criticisms therefore had to be answered, he said, and the system had to be brought in line with modern ideas.

Last year the Judicial Appointments Commission, an “independent body, took over responsibility for selecting judges from the Lord Chancellor and his officials. But the lengthy and bureaucractic procedures it has been obliged to follow have exposed it to criticism.

Lord Bingham said that his perception was that it was not working as well as it could. He added that there were two qualities that characterised judges under the old method.

“One, they were completely devoid of any known political leanings or affiliation of any kind whatever; and, second, they were of a very high quality, intellectually and in terms of character. And people were not put off applying.

“I am a little concerned as to whether all these qualities which were achieved under the old system will [remain].”

As for political leanings, he added that he hoped that this was not a factor in the appointment of judges. But if MPs had the opportunity to question either candidates or appointed judges after they had been selected, then politics could enter into the system, he said.

Gordon Brown’s governance reforms float the idea of either candidates or senior appointed judges being questioned by MPs.

“I simply don’t know what a parliamentary committee could ask that would not carry some political overtones. They are not going to ask them if they are fond of cats. I don’t really know what would take place, unless it was purely a social chat.”

In which case, he added, it would probably be better “if they went to the same parties”.

In the same interview Lord Bingham questions the need for a bill of rights; and says that he disagreed with controversial government proposals, which were recently dropped by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to allow judges to return to practise as lawyers.

The late Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, had made clear that appointment to the bench was a “one-way street”, he said.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle