The way judges are appointed is here to stay

The 73-page consultation document on judicial appointments, published last action-packed Thursday, runs through a gamut of possible options. But in the end, we are left in little doubt that the government dearly wishes to change nothing. Do we want the lord chancellor to play a bigger or smaller role in choosing judges? Hey, let's leave things just as they are. Should parliament have more of a say? Good question, but how about if the influence of MPs remained just the same?

Of course, the issues were put more elegantly and more fully, and the alternatives were adequately canvassed, but the message was clear. The government had spent many years responding to criticism that judges were being picked by a process which was not only secretive, but also offended against the principle of separation of powers by leaving the decision to one man, a senior member of the executive.

It had created the Judicial Appointments Commission and a transparent procedure, greatly reduced the role of the lord chancellor, and set up a supreme court (with its own appointments system) which will no longer be part of the legislature, as the law lords are now. It was hardly going to encourage views that would result in further troublesome reform.

Nor do I spot any groundswell of legal, political or public opinion that is demanding change. A bit of tinkering around the edges, perhaps - say, by allowing a select committee to question senior judges, post-appointment - but I think we can take it that the way judges are appointed will not become a subject of great controversy.

On the other hand, the debate over the possibility of a custom-built British bill of rights - and don't forget the new addition "and responsibilities" - will be conducted with the utmost heat and divisiveness.

Jack Straw's Cambridge speech on Thursday made one important thing clear. Any such bill will be in addition to, and not instead of, the Human Rights Act. David Cameron's misguided and ill-thought-out scheme to abolish the act, while still adhering to the European convention on human rights, was rightly rubbished by the secretary of state for justice.

What is far from clear, though, is the proposed content of the bill. It is all very well saying that the two main political parties want it, but that is of little use if they want it for different reasons, and to contain different rights and duties.

Given that the Human Rights Act will still be there, what precisely are all these extras we need to tack on, these "specifically British rights" Straw speaks of, that require codification "in a way that articulates more clearly the relationship between citizens, society and the state"? We will know more when the government publishes its green paper in a few months. But don't bet on Mr Cameron welcoming it with a cry of "that's exactly what we need". A disagreement over content may result in no bill at all.