-- The odd peerage perhaps. Some weeks ago I complained about the frisking procedures applied to people visiting the Lord Chancellor.

I thought it unreasonable that those calling by appointment should be treated as potential terrorists.

To the argument that this assumption had to be made about all visitors I asked: 'What, even the Queen Mother?'For this question, I have been taken to task: 'Who does Mears think he is ! We know he wants to run the Law Society but we didn't realise he aspired to Queen Mother status as well.'Similar indignities are inflicted at the House of Commons, which I recently visited.

Here, also, it is not clear what (if any) exemptions exist.

Presumably President Clinton did not have to turn out his pockets when he called there recently.Paul Johnson has described the atmosphere of seedy impecuniosity of the House of Lords.

The Commons is not so different.

The flavour of the place is that of a 1950's provincial hotel about to be downgraded from three stars to two.

It was said -- in relation to Britain's economic decline -- that if one wanted to know the cause one had only to spend a day at British Leyland.

Leyland is no longer there for the inspection of decline and decay connoisseurs, but the House of Commons remains.At the House of Lords the flunkeys do at least dress up.

Their white ties and tail coats makes their off-handedness the more striking. Aged peer (quavering): 'Excuse me, when does the debate start?'Flunkey (picking his nose and looking sideways): 'Couldn't say, me Lord.'Some months ago I went to a Lord's criminal law reform debate.

With those present not exceeding a dozen in number and of immense antiquity the occasion lacked drama.

But that was more than compensated for by the sensation of travelling back in time and bumping into people you had believed long deceased.

'Surely that's not Merlyn Rees, over there? ...

Can that be Lloyd George?' No, it is only a look-alike.Nighthoods, alas, are no longer conferred on Presidents of the Law Society.

But perhaps a new administration will give us the odd peerage.

I am told the Lords is an excellent place to doze while one's wife goes shopping.

If only it were not for the security ...-- Dear Parent ChristmasSome of my recent conversations with the Bar, I regret to say, have been frosty.

The Bar, it will be recalled, has just produced its equality code.

This is the very essence of California-type political correctness.

The code document contains the startling statement that 'over 40% of female junior tenants said they had encountered sexual harassment during their time at the Bar'.In an article in The Times I expressed scepticism about this figure and for this some of the learned friends have upbraided me severely.

Thus did I find myself in the bizarre position of arguing the unlikelihood of the Bar's containing so extraordinary a percentage of old goats while the learned friends indignantly maintained the contrary.

Yes, indeed, 40% (40%!) of young female barristers could expect to be sexually harassed.

That was the figure and they were sticking to it.The equality code makes provision for the establishment of 'safe haven' chambers for harrassees.

This measure is no doubt long overdue but I am not sure that the image of a refugee in a safe haven is wholly compatible with that of an advocate as a robust and fearless proponent of her client's rights.No doubt barristers' chambers will be giving seasonal parties complete with holly, mince pies and a non-discriminatory Parent Christmas.

Alas, one knows all about the deplorable excesses which occur at office parties.

I trust all Parent Christmases will be provided with safe grottoes (although come to think of it, some members of the Ho! Ho! Society may not be all that reliable themselves).-- The genuine article?Nowadays, everyone at the Law Society claims to be a reformer of some kind or other.

It is all very confusing.

How is one to distinguish the genuine article from the ersatz variety? It is not to o difficult.

Essentially the ersatz reformers want to establish new structures in order to preserve the old system and attitudes.

The profession, of course, is not interested in structural changes save that it sees no reason why all members of the Law Society's Council should not be properly elected by it.

What solicitors want is a Council which listens to them and promotes policies likely to improve their propriety and well being.

There is nothing here which cannot be achieved under the present constitution.

It only the will were there. A merry Christmas to all my readers!