The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer, came under fire this week for deciding that the proposed supreme court appointments commission should have to put between two and five candidates forward for selection.

Lord Falconer said the requirement for a longer shortlist than that planned for the judicial appointments commission in England and Wales - where only one name will be put forward - derived from the UK-wide jurisdiction of the court.

He said that to ensure that the geographical balance between judges from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is maintained, 'it will be necessary for the secretary of state to consult on a wider range of candidates'.

It is envisaged that there would always be at least two supreme court justices from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland, and no government or parliamentary representation on the appointments commission.

Opposition spokesmen in both houses criticised the plan.

Alan Duncan, the Conservative shadow constitutional affairs secretary, said that far from enhancing either the separation of powers, or the independence of the judiciary, the proposal would make the role of the secretary of state central to the appointments procedure.

He demanded: 'Is it not the case that he will be able to exercise substantial discretion in selecting supreme court judges, and that he will be doing this from a highly politicised office?'

Lord Falconer rejected criticism from the Conservatives and also a report issued this week by the constitutional affairs select committee that the government has rushed into these reforms.

Saying 'the time is right to make a clear and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature', Lord Falconer said he had tried to find a balance between pushing the proposals forward and allowing proper time for consultation and debate.

Neil Rose