PEERS threw one of the Government’s flagship constitutional reforms into doubt last night as they overturned plans to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor.

The Lords voted by 240 to 208, a larger-than-expected majority of 32, in the committee stage of the Constitutional Reform Bill to retain the historic office.

Ministers are likely to use their Commons majority to overturn the defeat, probably in the next session of Parliament, under a prior cross-party agreement to carry over the Bill.

Government sources pointed out that many Liberal Democrat peers, who support their plans, were away yesterday campaigning in the by-elections in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill but would be there if the Bill came back to the Lords to overturn the defeat.

The upset will, however, add to the logjam of government legislation and put further pressure on parliamentary timetables in the months leading up to an expected election next May.

The defeat marked another chapter in the Government’s controversial attempt to separate the executive, judicial and legislative powers wielded by the Lord Chancellor.

The change, which triggered confusion after being announced in a reshuffle last summer, was previously delayed when the Lords sent the Bill to a select committee, which failed to agree on abolishing the Lord Chancellor or establishing a supreme court.

Moving the joint Conservative and crossbench amendment, Lord Kingsland, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, said the post of Lord Chancellor had a central role in preserving the balance of powers in Britain’s unwritten constitution.

He told peers: “This office still has a vital role in protecting the rule of law.”

It was crucial to maintain the office of Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet because it was the only guarantee that the rule of law “stands up to the predatory ambitions of those who represent the forces of order”, Lord Kingsland said.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former law lord who previously led a successful move to delay the changes in March, supported the call, saying the post of Lord Chancellor was a necessary check against the ambitions of career politicians.

He said: “The task of defending judicial independence in Cabinet is a task of such critical importance that it should be given to a senior judge or lawyer who is a Member of the House of Lords and not a politician on his way up the greasy pole.”

Lord Goodhart, for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed, arguing that the Government’s plans would remove the judicial functions of the current post leaving a very different role. He proposed the alternative title Secretary of State for Justice.

He said: “Retention of the historic title of Lord Chancellor, when the office to which it is attached has been transferred to something completely different, would be an incorrect description of the duties of the office.”

Lord Goodhart added: “We do not think the retention of an outdated title will assist the protection of judicial independence and the rule of law.”

Lord Howe of Aberavon, the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, described as “constitutional vandalism” the proposed abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and called for it instead to be preserved and strengthened by legislation. Lord Carter, the former Government Chief Whip in the Lords, defended the change, saying the post was an anomaly as a mixture of judge, politician and head of the courts system The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Dr Peter Selby, supported the attempt to keep the post of Lord Chancellor, arguing that conventions were needed when making constitutional changes.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said during the debate that it would be wrong to retain the title when the proposed new Cabinet post would be so different to reflect its heavier political and executive duties.

Lord Falconer said: “The increase in both the size of the ministerial function and the political attention it has attracted has been accompanied, although for different reasons by a reduction of two other parts of the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities: those of Speaker of this House and that of sitting as a judge.”

An analysis of the voting showed that the move to keep the post of Lord Chancellor was carried by an alliance of Conservatives and cross-benchers, including 65 hereditary peers: 44 Conservatives and 21 crossbenchers.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• A vicar’s wife: ‘There is no one to fight for us’
• Every little helps at the supermarket
• Ugg or Fitflop? The battle of the boots