Plans to fund the cost of running the supreme court with court fees will not work, argues Peter Williamson

The House of Lords select committee to scrutinise the Constitutional Reform Bill has begun its work and I will be giving evidence to it shortly on behalf of the Law Society.

I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred it if the Bill had proceeded in the normal way, relying on the general scrutiny of both Houses.

These measures have been the subject of long debate.

It is, for example, at least 15 years since the Law Society first called for the establishment of a judicial appointments commission.

However, given that the Lords decided to establish the committee, we should welcome the opportunity to tease out further the detail of the Bill.

In my evidence on behalf of the Law Society, I will try to focus on a few important issues arising from the establishment of a supreme court.

First of all, I am deeply opposed to the supreme court being funded from court fees.

The Law Society's policy, in general, is to oppose the government's policy of seeking to recover most of the cost of running the courts in this way.

The supreme court will be the ultimate guardian of the constitution and the ultimate safeguard against the abuse of executive power by the state.

The court does not exist primarily to provide relief to individuals but to consider questions in the collective interest.

Therefore, it is wholly wrong that the Bill should seek to recoup the costs of the court from court fees.

I hope the Law Society's lobbying team will be able to persuade peers and MPs to support the deletion of this provision from the Bill.

Secondly, while I agree that suitable and dignified premises must be found for the supreme court, I hope that the expenditure on them will be as modest as possible.

The important issue is not the grandeur of the building, but rather that the justices of supreme court have the right kind of administrative and research support, and efficient information technology.

There are many competing demands for resources for the courts.

For example, last week both the Master of the Rolls and I spoke out publicly about the urgent need for resources to modernise the Commercial Court if London is not to lose its position as the leading international centre for the resolution of commercial disputes.

The third issue I will raise is the important matter of ensuring that respect for the rule of law remains at the heart of government policy-making.

The Law Society supports the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor.

The three roles of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary, cabinet minister and Speaker of the House of Lords have become untenable.

However, we are mindful of the concerns expressed by some that in future there might be no champion for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in the cabinet.

A future Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, it is argued, could perhaps be a politician whose ambition and loyalty to his or her party might override the need to stand up to cabinet colleagues such as, say, a more powerful home secretary.

The Law Society would favour a joint all-party committee of both Houses of Parliament, which would operate on a non-partisan basis and would from time to time have hearings with the senior judiciary and others involved in the administration of justice.

The committee could also inquire into the functioning and resources of the new institutions - both the supreme court and the judicial appointments commission.

However, it would not inquire into judicial decisions of the supreme court, nor into the reasons for the recommendations or non-recommendations by the judicial appointments commission of specific individuals for judicial appointment.

I very much hope that the Lords and Commons will pass the legislation before the general election and that within a few years the new institutions will be a reality.

In the meantime, I would like to take this opportunity to continue to encourage solicitors to seek judicial appointments.

The criteria are: legal knowledge and experience; intellectual and analytical ability; sound judgement; decisiveness; communication and listening skills; authority and case management skills; integrity and independence; fairness and impartiality; understanding of people and society; maturity and sound temperament; courtesy; commitment; conscientiousness and diligence.

When one examines the criteria, it is so evident that solicitors are ideal candidates, especially because of their experience of dealing with clients.

I fear that some solicitors do not think of applying because they think advocacy is the overriding criterion for appointment.

In fact, as you can see, it is not a criterion for appointment at all.

The Law Society has entered into an arrangement with JSB Training and Development to provide training for solicitors in how to make effective applications for judicial appointment, and to recognise and then demonstrate effectively that their range of skills and experience meet the criteria for appointment.

Solicitors seeking information about the courses should e-mail linda.winter@ lawsociety.org.uk.

(Note that JSB Training and Development is a commercial training company and is not connected in any way with the Judicial Studies Board.)

Peter Williamson is the Law Society President