Constitutional Reform Bill to go ahead

The historic position of Lord Chancellor will be abolished and the House of Lords will be replaced as the highest court in the land.

A new Supreme Court will be set up away from the Houses of Parliament, and will also take on the responsibilities of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

A new Judicial Appointments Commission will play a significant role in selecting new judges, taking that power largely out of ministers' hands.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, said earlier this month that ministers had not appreciated the full implications of their radical plans. The Lord Chancellor was "absolutely the central core" of the judicial system in England and Wales, he said, and it was crucial that ministers set into the law a system to protect judges' independence.

Lord Woolf's deputy, Lord Justice Judge, drew a historical parallel with Nazi Germany when he was asked to illustrate the possible dangers of political interference with justice. Six Law Lords - a majority of those who expressed a view - also opposed the plans for a Supreme Court, describing them as "unnecessary and harmful".

Ministers have insisted the reforms are necessary to replace the outdated position of Lord Chancellor - whose unique role combined party politician, speaker of the House of Lords and the head of the judiciary.

The moves were first announced in June's Cabinet reshuffle.

Independent judiciary

Welcoming plans for a Judicial Appointments Commission, chief executive of the Law Society, Janet Paraskeva, said: "Its key objectives must be to underpin the independence of the judiciary, modernise the judicial appointments system and encourage greater diversity of applicants for judicial appointment.

"In order to underpin the independence of the judiciary, the members of the commission must themselves be seen to be independent of the government of the day. They should therefore be appointed by an open application process involving assessment by an independent panel.

"We believe the commission should comprise half lay members and have a lay chair, rather than being dominated by judges and lawyers."

Ministers have proposed that "at least a third" of commissioners should be lay members.

Political interference?

Shadow constitutional affairs secretary Alan Duncan said: "The Government have totally failed to put a cogent case for the abolition of the Lord Chancellor and the ejection of the Law Lords from the Upper House.

"There has been no pressure to create a Supreme Court and the Government will find themselves at odds not just with the legal profession but with all who want to see a well-designed system of justice."

He added: "They must prove that their plans for the House of Lords are not just a plan to stuff the upper chamber with yes-men, happy to do the Prime Minister's bidding.

"They must prove that, after the Law Lords attacked the Government's criminal justice proposals, it is merely a coincidence that the Prime Minister wants rid of them.

"And they must prove, as the Lord Chief Justice has demanded, that their reforms do not curtail the independence of the judiciary."

Angie Bell