Baroness Usha Prashar has spent the last 20 years trying to improve transparency and equality of opportunity in the public sector. In 1991, she became a part-time civil service commissioner, before working as the first civil service commissioner from 2000 to 2005 – at a time when selection processes were opened up and external recruitment grew. She is a veteran of various criminal justice commissions and boards, and a member of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. In 2005 she was appointed chair of the brand new Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC), established to introduce and oversee a fair and formal system of appointing judges.

There’s a continuity here, she says. The roles of first civil service commissioner and JAC chair are both “very much about policing boundaries: what [history professor] Peter Hennessy calls ‘the hidden wiring of government’.” And Prashar is getting ever-deeper into this territory. In May, the House of Lords members’ interests sub-committee – which she chairs – censured a pair of Labour peers for going too far in their relationship with lobbying firms by appearing to promise action in the Lords rather than simply advising on its procedures and operations. Then, on 15 June, Prashar was named as one of the members of the new Iraq committee of inquiry – a committee that is very much about policing the boundaries of acceptable public sector activity.

On these controversial issues, however, the cross-bencher is reluctant to be drawn: she’s wearing her JAC hat today, though willing to discuss the civil service. So let’s start with a longer view. Prashar has watched the civil service develop since 1991: how has it changed? “In the ‘90s there was a push to develop what Mrs Thatcher used to call the ‘can do’ mentality,” she replies, along with moves “to ‘ventilate’ the civil service and bring in outside perspectives. The emphasis turned towards making it a managerial delivery organisation, and there was a recognition of the need to bring in more skills because of the deficit around HR, finance and delivery.”

These changes, she explains, created by the turn of the millennium a tension within the system: “There was a view that an impartial civil service was a hindrance to professionalising it. But I think that’s changed now: people recognise that impartiality and professionalism are compatible. [The seminal 1854 report] Northcote-Trevelyan talked about an impartial, permanent and professional civil service: in fact, impartiality is a way of getting a professional civil service, because you need to appoint people on merit.”

With such concerns settled amid healthy growth in professional skills and external recruitment, Prashar says the next challenge is “how departments work together to make a concerted effort. We have to move away from silo mentalities to see how we can create cross-departmental teams to work on particular issues.” And this change, she argues, demands action from politicians as well as officials: the agenda “has implications for how ministers operate and collaborate, and how cabinet government works. All these things are inter-related.”

Meanwhile, Prashar says, the civil service must continue to carefully manage both internal and external recruitment if it is to foster diversity and retain the best elements of its common culture. “It’s important that when you bring people from outside, they understand the ethos of the organisation – what impartiality means and what the civil service’s values are – while bringing in fresh perspectives,” she comments. There is further to go, she says, in encouraging the civil service “to value diversity in terms of perspectives and backgrounds. So positive action needs to be taken in terms of changing the culture, and we need to support managers in managing diversity – because you can bring people in but not know how to retain them. You have to move away from a culture where some people are seen as ‘clubbable’, and some may feel excluded.”

Creating this kind of change, she adds, has “some parallels with changing the complexion of the judiciary” – the task that has occupied much of her time since the JAC was established three-and-a-half years ago. Previously, ‘clubbable’ lawyers were picked out for the judiciary with a “tap on the shoulder”. The JAC, Prashar explains, was “set up to enhance the independence of the judiciary, to make sure that appointments are on merit, and to widen the pool from which judges are drawn.”

This last point, she adds, is a crucial one: the JAC can introduce a transparent, fair system of selecting judges with the right skills and talents from the available pool – but if that pool remains largely white, male, elderly and middle-to-upper class, then the judiciary’s complexion will change frustratingly slowly. “When we were set up, the view was that the judiciary was male-dominated and from a particular class because there wasn’t an open appointments process, so if you opened up the process that would make things right,” says Prashar. “True up to a point – but rather simplistic. The JAC has acted like a litmus paper, highlighting that the barriers are more complex. We’re very much dependent on the pool that’s available.”

In reforming the appointments process, Prashar rapidly ruled out the use of quotas to improve diversity: “It’s an artificial way of creating change,” she comments. “In my experience quotas are not liked by women or minorities themselves, because they want to get there on merit. Targets, on the other hand, are a different ball game.”

Instead, the JAC worked with a range of organisations to identify the skills and abilities required in judges, and developed an application form and a set of examinations to test those qualities. “We ensured that the application form didn’t ask for irrelevant information about what school you went to, what honours you’ve got – all that sort of thing,” says Prashar. “Then to develop processes that were fair and non-discriminatory we have introduced qualifying tests as a way of shortlisting; it’s a fairer method than using references.” These tests, she concedes, stirred up opposition among lawyers who hadn’t sat an exam since their university days: “They’ve caused a lot of controversy. Barristers in particular don’t like them – but they don’t like change. My argument is: they’re here to stay; help us to improve them. Not having them is not an option.”

With the JAC’s fishing net adjusted to scoop up a wider range of fish, the next task was to get more types of sealife into that pool. This, Prashar says, demands the support of both the government and the professions.

On the government side, she explains, she is working to persuade the lord chancellor “to encourage the practice of appointing more part-time judges, because then more women will come in,” and to abolish the need for applicants for some posts to have “fee-paid” experience – a requirement that favours barristers over solicitors.
Previous reforms have already allowed members of the Institute of Legal Executives to apply for judicial positions, and Prashar is hopeful that as applications rise from this more diverse group – along with Crown Prosecution Service lawyers, who also include more women and ethnic minorities – the judiciary will begin to better reflect the communities it serves.

However, structural and cultural obstacles remain within the professions that constrict the pool of potential applicants: “If you take solicitors, research shows that if they want to apply for the judiciary they’re not necessarily supported by their partners, because it can be seen as disloyal to the firm.” Furthermore, a family-unfriendly culture of long working hours and social networking tends to squeeze out women towards the upper tiers of the legal profession.

To address such issues, explains Baroness Prashar, the JAC has established a “diversity forum” involving the minister for justice, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the judiciary, the Institute of Legal Executives, the Attorney-General’s Office and other interested parties. “We’ve moved away from the blame culture towards collaborative working, with all the parties beginning to take responsibility for what they need to do,” she says. Nonetheless, she adds, “it’s a big cultural shift for professions that are steeped in history, and the judiciary’s practices will require some time to change.”

The final link in this chain, believes Prashar, is to let people know that things have changed: to market these roles to younger people and to women and ethnic minorities, assuring them that judicial careers are genuinely open to them. “We’ve done a great deal of work to reach out to under-represented groups, to give them support and convey to them that we’ll have open, transparent processes,” she says. Perceptions of change, it seems, are almost as important as change itself: “People are very quick to say: ‘You haven’t made enough progress. We need more action!’ But that puts people off. If people feel you’re making progress, they’re encouraged to apply.”

And is the JAC making good progress? “Concerns remain about the senior echelons of the judiciary, and we’re looking at the Court of Appeal, the High Court and so on,” she concedes. “But there is now broad acceptance that JAC is here to stay, and the research shows that on the whole people think our processes are fair. In recent years there has been an increase of about 40 per cent in applications.”

In strictly numerical terms, those results look slender at this point. In 2004-5, 31 per cent of judicial appointments went to women, 8 per cent to ethnic minority candidates and 20 per cent to solicitors; the figures for 2007-8 are 34, 8 and 32 per cent respectively. But Prashar is confident that the JAC has made good progress in laying the groundwork for more substantive change. “We have established ourselves as an organisation, and the feedback we’re getting and appointments we’re making are good,” she says. “After three-and-a-half years, we’re starting to see the results of our hard work.”

So Baroness Prashar has spent the last 20 years changing systems to let light into corners of the public sector whose culture of clubby secrecy allowed the perpetuation of privilege and limited organisations’ relevance and effectiveness. Are there lessons to be drawn from her experience that could help address the problems that led to the House of Lords lobbying scandal or the debacle over MPs’ allowances?

“I think there are lessons to be drawn, in terms of how we’ve maintained the independence of the judiciary, the impartiality of the civil service, the maintenance of standards; in terms of how important they are in the pursuit of retaining public confidence,” she replies carefully. And do the current rules create enough clarity over what is allowed and what isn’t?

“To me the word trust is extremely important,” she replies. “I’m of the school of thought that, yes, codes are there, rules and regulations are there, but I don’t think that people in public life should absolve themselves of personal responsibility, because it’s much more about your behaviour and your conduct.”

Prashar never strays from the faultlessly diplomatic, but it sounds to this reporter as if she thinks that rules should be obeyed in spirit as well as letter; that people can be judged not only on whether they obey the rules, but also on how they interpret them.

“Rules and codes provide a framework, but ultimately it’s about your personal behaviour,” she says. “I think that applies to any public institution.”

Career highlights

1948
Born in Kenya

1976
Becomes director of the Runnymede Trust

1984
Made a fellow of the Policy Studies Institute

1986
Appointed director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations

1991
Becomes a member of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, and a part-time civil service commissioner

1997
Becomes executive chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales

1999
Ennobled as Baroness Prashar of Runnymede

2000
Appointed first civil service commissioner

2005
Appointed chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission

2009
Chosen by Gordon Brown for the Iraq committee of inquiry