Justice secretary is questioned over judges' lunchtime drinking Judges at the Old Bailey frequently enjoy a few glasses before returning to court in the afternoon, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling is told. Lunchtime claret consumption by judges at the Old Bailey has been questioned during the justice secretary's appearance before a parliamentary committee that called for greater diversity among the judiciary. In his first session at the House of Lords' constitution committee, Chris Grayling was told that judges at the UK's largest criminal court frequently enjoy a few glasses before returning to court in the afternoon. Lady Wheatcroft, a former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, raised the question of drinking habits following visits to the Old Bailey, central London. She endorsed changing the culture of the judiciary to improve diversity among those on the bench. "One thing that has struck me over the years - and I will probably never get an invitation there again," she said, "but having been invited in to lunch at the Old Bailey on a few occasions it's culturally not the most inviting place for those who don't come from the normal backgrounds for the judiciary. In particular the thing that stunned me, and others who have been invited there, is the wine consumed over lunch before the judges go back into court in the afternoon. I just wonder, in changing the culture, whether that's something that should be looked at? Grayling avoided advocating an alcohol ban but acknowledged her concerns. "I think I might be struggling to impose that kind of culture change on the judges," he said. I can only speak from personal experience that if I have a drink at lunchtime it's difficult to stay awake in the afternoon. If horror of all horrors, a judge falls asleep in court, it's a bit of a problem. So were I a judge, I might think twice if it's a good idea to have a couple of drinks at lunchtime. Grayling gave backing to the need to make the judiciary more representative of the UK's population. He declined to adopt targets or legislative requirements for the number of women or those from ethnic minorities who become judges. "We have too much law in this country," he said. [But] If you look at the mix of new appointments, the proportion of women is much much higher than it used to be. There's now a good number of ethnic minority judges coming through. I have not heard one single judge say [increasing diversity] is not important. We have heard comments from senior members of the judiciary that it will take a long time to change that. We need to put rocket boosters under the [process] ... I want to see more women and more ethnic minorities appointed each year and this to be a constant goal for the [judicial] appointments commission. The new lord chief justice, who will succeed Lord Judge after he retires next summer, should make it a priority to encourage the profession to spot "candidates who can be nurtured" and to mentor those with potential to sit on the bench, said Grayling "Equally we don't want to be in a position of turning away good judges for reasons of diversity." On the question of cuts to judicial pensions, a source of anxiety for some on the bench, he warned that judges should not be exempt from changes being introduced across society. I don't think it's sensible for our judges to be special cases at a time of austerity. For us to say the judiciary are immune to these changes would put them on a pedestal that would make them subject to hostility from the public. On prisoners' voting rights, Grayling confirmed he would be presenting a new bill to the Commons . Judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR) require the UK to introduce voting rights for at least some part of the prison population. David Cameron is resisting. The dispute has developed into a constitutional row over the UK's relationship with the Strasbourg court. "We have a duty to implement decisions reached by the ECHR unless and until our sovereign nation reaches a view that we no longer wish to part of those arrangements in its current form," Grayling said. The nature of the of the ECHR has changed over those years. If you look back to the origin of the European convention [on human rights], it was a laudable document written by conservatives when Stalin was in power in Russia and people were being sent to the gulags without trial. It has become, through 50 or 60 years of jurisprudence, very different from what was set out by the creators ... I see a clear distinction between my obligation as lord chancellor to uphold the rule of law and my ability as a politician to argue for change. It's my job to defend the independence of the judiciary but equally, as a legislator, it's my right to say I'm not happy with the direction of travel and for us to exercise the sovereignty of parliament. We have an obligation to comply with the rules of the ECHR but as we also know parliamentary sovereignty supersedes those rules. Parliament has to right to exercise sovereignty and decide not follow the instructions of the ECHR. That's a matter for parliament to decide if it wants to follow that route. It's clear that it faces political consequences if it chooses to do so.