The title of Lord Chancellor could survive plans to abolish it contained in the Constitutional Reform Bill - but its holder would not necessarily be a lawyer, the present Lord Chancellor revealed this week.


Giving evidence before the constitutional affairs select committee, set up to scrutinise the government's constitutional reforms, Lord Falconer admitted that there are good arguments for maintaining the office - though the new-style Lord Chancellor would not head the judiciary or be entitled to sit as a judge.



Recognising the esteem in which the title is held by the judiciary, Lord Falconer said it may be possible to achieve the reforms' aims without scrapping the office altogether. He said: 'The abolition of the Lord Chancellor's office may remain the only way [to achieve a clear separation between the state and the judiciary], but if there are alternatives, we will consider them. Strong arguments have been made that the role could be a force embodying the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.'



He added: 'Would the judiciary feel comfortable only with a lawyer as Lord Chancellor? There are some politicians who are not lawyers who would be excellent at it. I don't think the position requires a lawyer.'



Lord Falconer said the latest cost estimate for the new supreme court proposed in the Bill was £7 million per year. He added that the court would not come into being until a choice had been made between the two London buildings short-listed as a location, Middlesex Guildhall and Somerset House.



Lord Falconer said the court's budget could be set by its own chief executive, who would put the figure to a Department for Constitutional Affairs minister, who would in turn negotiate it with the Treasury. He said that would achieve accountability to Parliament through the minister, while maintaining a high degree of independence in how the court was run.



He added that the court would run its own administrative arrangements and would not be subject to targets set by ministers.