The Lord Chancellor moved to defuse the unprecedented rift with the judiciary yesterday, making a personal intervention with the Lord Chief Justice to resolve the deadlock over the Ministry of Justice.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who was repeatedly castigated on Tuesday by MPs for failing to secure judges’ backing for the new ministry, spoke twice on the telephone with Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Britain’s most senior judge.

The Lord Chancellor is expected to agree to one of the judges’ key demands, that an inquiry should be held into the right model for the Ministry of Justice and into how the budget of the courts can be protected. He was urge repeatedly by MPs at the Constitutional Affairs Committee to take control of the negotiations being handled by his department to reach a deal with the judges.

Lord Phillips had told MPs in written evidence that the judges had known about the new ministry only when they read an article by the Home Secretary in The Sunday Telegraph. He also said that judges had regularly felt sidelined over crucial decisions. He said that under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which made him, rather than the Lord Chancellor, the head of the judiciary, the views of the judges “should always have been taken into account by the Lord Chancellor”. “They were not,” he added. “We were sidelined. Decisions were taken without our participation and we were then told what was proposed.”

Examples included plans for court closures; the development of the court estate; and lack of consultation or transparent decision-making in relation to the disposal of a £34 million surplus earned on civil justice court fees, he said.The Lord Chancellor was no longer one in the “traditional and historic role of that office” who stood up for the rule of law when needs be; but a minister whose primary concern would now be the “very real problem of the prisons”. The Lord Chancellor’s officials insisted that talks to secure judges’ backing for the new ministry were continuing. The judges are calling for an inquiry into the right model for a ministry of justice that they support in principle.

The judges are concerned that the Courts Service, an executive agency, should not just be controlled by the Lord Chancellor, but also accountable to the Lord Chief Justice. They also want its budget to be ring-fenced so that it is not eroded by pressures on the Prison Service; and for judges to have a say in how the money is spent.

After the Constitutional Reform Act, there should have been a “sea-change” in attitude to the role of the Lord Chief Justice on court resources, Lord Phillips says. But he says that the Lord Chancellor continued to act as if he retained primary responsibility for the administration of justice.

Lord Falconer’s officials rejected the view that talks with the senior judges had all but collapsed and said that they were hopeful of agreement “soon”. A spokesman said: “Talks continue; they have not broken down and we continue to talk with the Lord Chief Justice. There is no crisis.”

Court action

— Jan 21 Sunday newspapers break story of plans to split Home Office

— Jan 21-30 Informal talks between Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor

— March 9 Working party between judges and Lord Chancellor’s officials set

— March 28 Lord Chief Justice learns, at a legal dinner, that new ministry tol be announced the next day

— May 9 Ministry takes effect without agreement

— May 22 Senior judges tell MPs they want a thorough review of how it could work

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers