It is still to be regretted that the government's decision to initiate its constitutional reforms was rushed through with no prior consultation - but that is no longer the main point.

It is the consequences that are now vital.

One of those consequences, according to the Judges Council, is that the government has failed to appreciate the dangers inherent in upsetting the delicate balance between executive and judiciary by abolishing the role of Lord Chancellor and replacing it with a political appointment without the same judicial responsibilities that historic post had.

They judges have put forward what they see as a raft of key measures to embed the independence of the judiciary in the constitution for generations to come.

That way legal process cannot be attacked either overtly, as has happened throughout history, or more subtley, such as the executive having the power to decide which judge should hear what case.

The need to secure judicial independence has come through strongly in other responses to the consultations on a judicial appointment commission, supreme court and QC system.

The call last week by six of the 12 Law Lords to retain the House of Lords rather than create a supreme court will also have provided food for thought.

Many of these reforms are to be welcomed.

But having rushed into announcing them, the government can redeem itself by taking proper account of the views now expressed.