The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, does not like senior judges overruling elected government ministers, who see themselves as the true voice of the people.

Now the government wants to set up a supreme court wholly outside Parliament and without the office of Lord Chancellor either inside or outside of the Cabinet to advise caution where ministers seem likely to exceed their customary or increasingly statutory authority.

Thankfully, at least half of the 12 Law Lords who sit in our highest court, the House of Lords, have spoken out against the idea of the new court, labelling it harmful and out of all proportion to any conceivable benefit.

Yet the first woman appointed to the judicial committee of the Lords is surprisingly in favour of the proposed measure, as she maintains that the top court in the land should be kept totally apart from the legislature.

If Dame Brenda Hale and the last Lord Chancellor have their way we shall have to look increasingly to the likes of Sir Stephen Sedley (who only recently reminded ministers of their obligation under section 19 of the Human Rights Act to inform Parliament whether or not a Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, when passing legislation that leaves asylum seekers without food or shelter on the streets of Britain) to remind the executive that it too must abide by the law.

Such a radical constitutional change will undoubtedly give more power to the government of the day and could well lead to our court system being controlled by a future ministry of justice, headed perhaps by a populist politician like Mr Blunkett.

Our freedoms would inevitably be further eroded as the government increasingly brooked no opposition from outside the new polity.

Bill Jackson, solicitor, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire