Peter Williamson discusses the Law Society's stance on the government's three-pronged plan to modernise the constitution

In July, the government announced its intention to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor and to make a number of reforms to modernise the constitution of the UK.

Consultation is under way in relation to three main reforms: the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission, the establishment of a supreme court and the abolition of the Queen's Counsel designation.

The Law Society is formulating responses to these papers and is keen to contribute to the ensuing debate.

There is no doubt that our judges and our justice system are highly respected both nationally and internationally.

However, we share the government's concerns that the judiciary does not adequately reflect the diversity of society.

While the number of women, ethnic minority and solicitor members of the legal profession who meet the criteria for appointment has grown substantially, those groups continue to remain under-represented in the senior ranks of the judiciary.

The Law Society has long supported, and campaigned for, the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission.

It is crucial that the selection of judges is fully independent of the executive and is seen to be so.

It is for this reason that we believe the appointments system must be conducted by an independent body.

Of course, the fundamental principle in appointing judges is, and must remain, selection on merit.

However, choice on merit must be from among the widest pool of lawyers who meet the criteria for appointment.

A key factor is ensuring that those who are eligible recognise that they are and are encouraged to apply.

Law Society figures show that, as at July 2002, there are more than 10,000 women solicitors and more than 1,000 solicitors of ethnic minority origin with ten or more years' post-qualification experience.

Such applicants must have confidence in the systems that are used to determine which candidates are the most meritorious.

The Law Society will argue that it is essential that members of the commission itself are appointed in a way that is independent of government.

The judicial appointments commission should have a lay chairman and a substantial lay membership of a high calibre, as well as members from the legal profession and the judiciary.

It is also my view that the commission should have a range of roles, including responsibility for:

- Nominating one candidate for appointment to each vacant post;

- Appraising judges to facilitate the creation of a career path between lower and higher levels of the judiciary; and,

- Redesigning the appointments system in accordance with modern recruitment practice to take full account of equality and diversity.

In recent years, there has been increasing demand for the establishment of a supreme court separating the highest appeal court from the upper house of Parliament and removing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature.

The Law Society supports, in principle, the government's view that a supreme court should be established.

Future appointments to the supreme court should be made by an independent judicial appointments commission.

And, it is our hope too that the new supreme court will be properly resourced and staffed to ensure that the important role of its judges is supported and that the court can operate at optimum efficiency.

The expertise of our senior judges should not be lost to the legislative process and so I would propose a retirement age of 70 for supreme court judges and automatic appointment to the House of Lords on retirement.

There should be no confusion between the proposed model and that of the US model of a supreme court.

The Law Society does not support, for example, confirmation hearings for supreme court judges.

We favour independent objective methods of appointment that avoid politicisation of the process.

The aim of the reforms should be to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in it.

The QC designation is a long established part of our legal system.

However, this does not mean that it is the best means of identifying advocates of merit and experience.

This too is now the subject of a government consultation.

In our response to last year's consultation paper, In the Public Interest?, the Law Society said it would welcome an accreditation scheme for experienced advocates who wish to demonstrate a superior level of expertise and quality.

Ideally, accreditation would be achieved by candidates being able to demonstrate, by objective methods, that they had achieved the required level of work experience and specialised knowledge, with re-accreditation, say, every five years to ensure that standards are maintained.

It is not appropriate, in our view, that politicians of the day should be involved in the award of any accreditation that would bring with it a competitive and market advantage.

This is crucial for maintaining the independence of the legal profession.

The boards and Council of the Law Society will soon be considering responses to the three consultation papers.

We look forward to working with the government to ensure that we have a system of appointing judges that is modern and fair, while ensuring a diverse judiciary of the highest calibre, and a supreme court that is admired and emulated throughout the world.

Peter Williamson is the Law Society President