The lord chancellor is a member of the legislature (where he is 'speaker' of the House of Lords), a member of the executive (the highest-paid cabinet minister) and a member of the judiciary (presiding - when he chooses to sit - over the appellate committee of the House of Lords and the judicial committee of the Privy Council).

For many years, critics have been arguing that the lord chancellor should hang up one of his three wigs.

Most recently, the lawyers' reform group Justice said the provision which allowed the lord chancellor to sit as a judge was "inherently flawed" and created an appearance of bias.

But successive holders of this ancient office have maintained that there are great strengths in the existing arrangements. And now the present lord chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg has rejected calls for change.

In a speech to a meeting of judges from throughout the common law world, Lord Irvine said that as lord chancellor he acted as a guarantor of judicial independence, mediating between the executive and the judiciary when necessary.

"The judiciary has a representative in the cabinet," he said, "and the cabinet in the judiciary." The lord chancellor held the different parts of the constitution together, withstanding pressure from all sides.

No reason to change a 'beneficial system'

Lord Irvine also defended the position of the law lords. They're senior judges, especially appointed to the House of Lords from the appeal courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They sit full-time to hear appeals but they're also entitled to take part in parliamentary debates.

From time to time, they have taken sides in matters of political controversy. This was particularly noticeable in the months leading up to the General Election of 1997.

Some critics argue that the law lords should cease to play any part in the legislative process. Others say the law lords should be abolished, leaving the last word with the different appeal courts of the United Kingdom.

A Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords was appointed in February of this year. One of the questions it is considering is whether the law lords should be removed from parliament and replaced by a new Supreme Court.

But Lord Irvine has rejected this idea too. He believes they law lords make a distinctive contribution to the work of the House of Lords in debates on the administration of justice. Lord Irvine says they also make valuable contributions to the work of select committees. He sees no reason to change such a "beneficial system".