Lord Bingham of Cornhill: 'Judges need to be paid a better rate, or the price of being a judge is too high'

After a week in which many politicians have been queuing up to stick the boot into the judiciary, the country's senior law lord remains remarkably circumspect.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill is not to be provoked by David Blunkett's veiled threats of new anti-judge laws aimed at stopping the judiciary from using the Human Rights Act to wreck his illiberal plans for asylum seekers and persistent criminals. Instead, Lord Bingham offers the Home Secretary a short lecture on the state of the existing law, reminding him that MPs have already gone to great lengths to make clear how judges are to interpret human rights legislation.

"Parliament," says Lord Bingham, "has directed that the courts should take into account decisions by the European Commission and the courts of Strasbourg, and also directed that, as far as possible, legislation and subordinate legislation should be compatible with the European Convention."

In the past month Lord Bingham has learnt a thing or two on the art of politics, albeit in the more genteel world of academe, where the former lord chief justice is bidding to be the next chancellor of Oxford. A recent straw poll of university students showed that the election was not only wide open, but might allow a figure such as Lord Bingham to capitalise on a sense of disenchantment among the electorate.

Some respondents said they even favoured the Tolkien wizard, Gandalf, over any of the traditional political heavyweights. After a fortnight's campaigning for the prestigious post, Lord Bingham is perhaps the closest thing to a candidate running on a Lord of the Rings ticket.

As one of the most powerful judges in the land, he has chosen to descend from the ivory towers of the House of Lords in a quest to save his old university from the twin evils of underfunding and a transatlantic brain drain.

His decision to seek election and succeed Lord Jenkins of Hillhead has already attracted a number of key supporters, notably Michael Howard QC, the shadow Chancellor, Michael Beloff QC, the president of Trinity College, and the columnist and former Times editor Simon Jenkins. All have given him glowing endorsements.

Others are less sure of his candidacy, arguing that although Lord Bingham is a giant intellect among the judiciary, he is still an innocent abroad in the world of politics. To some extent, he has already proved his critics right by acknowledging, albeit very reluctantly, that government plans to introduce top-up fees might be a necessary evil. Neither of his two main rivals, Chris Patten and Lord Neill of Bladen, has made such an admission.

Lord Bingham explains his position by saying that if top-up fees are what it takes to stop Oxford falling into a state of "mediocrity", then he will not oppose them. "The universities are at a critical juncture. Everybody is aware of the eminence and enormous wealth of Harvard, Yale and Stanford. We have universities which have been in the same rank as those and, I believe, still are, but we could lose our international ranking at the highest level unless urgent and effective steps are taken to prevent these things slipping away," he said.

Lord Bingham wants to do what he can to increase the pay of academic staff to bolster the ability of British universities to hold on to their talent. "Over the past 20 years, average earnings have risen in real terms by 45 per cent, whereas academic wages have increased by just 4 per cent. Academics have fallen far behind in the race to be properly remunerated," he said.

This is, of course, a campaign policy that will play well with the university electorate and shows Lord Bingham, already a High Steward of the university, is adapting quickly in the political arena. The Chancellor of Oxford has no direct powers to make such pay awards, but Lord Bingham says he will use his influence to support the university's plea for more money.

Lord Bingham, 69, has been a full-time judge for 23 years,during which he has played a part in some of the most important cases to shape English jurisprudence. Today, his most radical thoughts are directed at replacing the judicial committee of the House of Lords with a Supreme Court. He argues that the separation of Britain's highest court from parliament would remove any potential conflict when law lords rule on issues on which they have spoken atWestminster.

But he acknowledges that it is unlikely to happen under the current administration. "I don't think the Government has any great interest in this proposal," he says. Of course, Lord Bingham's support for a Supreme Court also shapes his thoughts on the make-up of a new House of Lords.

"It is implicit in my advocacy of a Supreme Court that it should be established independently and not be a committee of the legislature. That leaves open the question of whether individual law lords as they now are might be appointed members of the House of Lords as reconstituted."

But he is clear that any Supreme Court should not follow the American model and could never challenge the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by having the power to strike down acts of parliament.

Also implicit in Lord Bingham's justification for a Supreme Court is that there would be no place for a Lord Chancellor, who under the present constitution has the right to sit as a law lord.

Lord Irvine of Lairg still fiercely protects his right to sit in judgment in a limited number of cases. But Lord Bingham is in no rush to do away with the ancient office of Lord Chancellor. "I don't think that abolition of the right to sit is crucial because the right is very rarely exercised anyway and not in cases which give rise to conflict," he says. Nevertheless, he accepts that Lord Irvine's controversial office is the subject of criticism and might eventually have to bow to reform.

"There are plainly cases with which the Lord Chancellor may not properly deal judicially ... If the claim is against the Government or if a case involves the Human Rights Act. Because he was responsible for piloting this bill through parliament and played a large part in designing the shape it should take, he feels precluded from ruling on what it means."

The controversy over the £22,000 salary rise awarded to Lord Irvine has prompted a renewed debate over judicial pay. Lord Bingham believes the pay gap between judges, who from April will earn between £92,000 and £200,000 a year, and other leading civil servants and barristers, is now wider than at any time in the past century. On average, they are paid £50,000 more than their judicial counterparts, with the most senior public-sector posts attracting salaries of about £250,000.

Constitutional and practical issues aside, he favours consideration of performance- related pay – a system that has worked well for military and other civil service personnel. However, his preferred option remains an across-the-board rise. On the subject of judicial salaries, he insists there is still work to do.

"Yes, I do think we need to keep an eye on this so that judges are paid at a more competitive rate. I think if the price of becoming a judge becomes too high, then inevitably there would be people who would say that I would like to become a judge but I am not willing to make a sacrifice."

Lord Irvine's salary rise also provoked fresh calls for a ministry of justice. But Lord Bingham says: "The idea of a ministry of justice has been around for 100 years or more. On the face of it, it sounds like a very, very attractive idea. But you already have a powerful and dominant department, namely the Home Office, addressing a number of aspects of legal activity, the content of the criminal law, the police, the prisons etc. A Minister of Justice would almost certainly less powerful than the Home Secretary and would lack the unusual qualities that now surround the office of Lord Chancellor."

Many of Lord Irvine's troubles derive from his high- profile political role. He chairs cabinet committees and remains a close adviser to the Prime Minister. Other Lord Chancellors have chosen to be less active. But Lord Bingham believes the Lord Chancellor, while heading the judiciary, also has an important political function in the Government.

"He is not a neutered political figure. But successive Lord Chancellors have recognised that there are certain functions which they may perform in a partisan spirit and others which they may not. There are not many Lord Chancellors who have have failed to respect that distinction."

Does this include Lord Irvine, perhaps the most political Lord Chancellor of them all? "I would not like to be personal, but nothing I have said does not apply to Lord Irvine."

Any politician would be proud of such a sentence.

The rival candidates for Chancellor of Oxford

Lord Neill of Bladen

Sir Patrick Neill, who became Lord Neill in 1997, was chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He studied at Magdalen College, Oxford, and was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford from 1985 to 1989. He was chairman of the Bar Council from 1974-75 and chairman of the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar in the same year. The 76-year-old has yet to declare on top-up fees.

Chris Patten

The 58-year-old EU external affairs commissioner, a former student of Balliol College, was once called the "next prime minister but three". He became governor of Hong Kong after losing his seat in 1992. He has yet to sign a pledge opposing top-up fees put forward by William Straw, president of the student union. If elected, he is likely to adopt a style of "non-confrontation" electioneering.

Sandi Toksvig

Born in 1959 to a Danish father and English mother, the writer, broadcaster and comedian is the only female candidate and the only candidate who is not an Oxford graduate. She will campaign on a platform opposing top-up fees. She studied law, archaeology and anthropology at Girton College, Cambridge, gaining a first class degree, and winning an award for outstanding academic achievement.