Legal reforms attacked by MPs

Lord Falconer will choose from shortlists of judges

Plans to scrap the historic office of lord chancellor should be postponed, an influential group of MPs has urged.

The decision to abolish the post was announced in June last year as part of a cabinet reshuffle which created the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

But an all-party select committee says the move should be delayed until the planned new supreme court and judicial appointments commission are in place.

The Conservatives say the court already has the "taint of party politics".

The criticisms come after Tony Blair last week admitted the way the changes were announced could have been handled better but insisted they were right.

The government argues it has now consulted fully on the proposals.

But the Commons constitutional affairs committee says the reforms were drawn up in a "hurried" way, with fewer than 12 weeks allowed for consultation.

The right thing to do is to make a system which by its checks and balances actually embeds the independence [of judges] Lord Falconer Constitutional Affairs Secretary Q&A: Legal reforms

It warns the "over-hasty" introduction of such fundamental reforms could jeopardise their success.

If the judiciary is not satisfied the proposals would safeguard its independence, it is "highly doubtful" that they should be allowed to proceed, it adds.

The government will publish a Bill at the end of this month, but the committee suggests there should be consensus before the plans are finalised.

'Thought needed'

Liberal Democrat Alan Beith, the committee's chairman, said key changes had not been thought through.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "There should be draft legislation so these things can be looked at carefully. It's a major constitutional change and its the right way to do it."

The MPs also express concern the new supreme court might be based in the House of Lords for a time because a new location had not been found.

That would be "perverse", they say, given that the aim of creating a supreme court was to separate it from Parliament.

The Tories say the changes put judges' independence at risk.

Shadow constitutional affairs minister Alan Duncan said the judiciary was on course for "permanent conflict" with the new secretary for constitutional affairs in the new system.

No more 'soundings'?

Judges to the supreme court will be chosen by the constitutional affairs secretary, currently Lord Falconer, from a short-list of up to five candidates.

An appointments commission would draw up the shortlists of between two and five candidates.

In the existing system the lord chancellor recommends new law lords to the prime minister after taking informal "soundings" among senior judges.

Lord Falconer said he would be able to reject the commission's recommendation for judicial appointments once but if it then insisted on that choice, he would be bound to accept it.

He told Today judges had initially been unhappy with the move.

But after detailed discussions with the government, they were now confident the right protections were in place.

"The right thing to do is to make a system which by its checks and balances actually embeds the independence [of judges] we all regard as absolutely vital," he said.

Lord Falconer said current arrangements had worked but argued the "dangers and pressures there are extreme".