A committee of peers has split over government plans to establish a supreme court and abolish the post of lord chancellor.

In defiance of government wishes, the House of Lords voted to establish a select committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill.

However, on a range of key issues it was unable to reach agreement and has left it to the full house to make the final decision on the government's plans.

Lord Falconer, the constitutional affairs secretary who also sat on the committee, hopes to be the last minister to hold the formal post of lord chancellor.

But the committee was unable to conclude that the role should be scrapped.

"There was a clear division of opinion within the committee between those members who considered that the office-holder should be called lord chancellor, be a senior lawyer and sit in the House of Lords on the one hand; and those members who considered that the name of lord chancellor should not be continued (since its retention would be confusing), and that there was no necessity for the office-holder to hold a legal qualification or sit in the House of Lords on the other hand (that is, the policy of the Bill)," said the report.

Some members also thought the job title should be changed to "secretary of state for justice", while others "believe that it would be possible to get the best of both worlds by retaining the title of lord chancellor, as head of the Ministry of Justice".

The peers were also divided over whether the minister should be a senior lawyer and those who considered that there was no need for the office-holder to hold a legal qualification.

In addition a split emerged on whether the justice minister should be limited to sitting in the House of Lords, or should be able to come from the ranks of MPs at the discretion of the prime minister.

And there were further divisions on the strength of clauses in the bill to protect judicial independence and no decision was taken on the speakership of the upper house - a post currently held by Lord Falconer.

Supreme court

On the move to establish a supreme court, there was also a "clear division of opinion" between those members of the committee in favour and those opposed.

"We are agreed however that, were a supreme court to be established, it should be housed in a building befitting its importance but it is not for us to make the choice," concluded the report.

"The committee is divided on the question of whether commencement of Part 2 of the Bill [on establishing the supreme court] should be delayed pending a move to permanent premises and make no recommendation to the house."

The result means that the government will now have to convince peers to back its plans when it brings them back before the full house for consideration on July 13.

Ministers will face continued opposition from the Conservatives, who have criticised the legislation.

"This report doesn’t give the government a mandate to abolish the post of lord chancellor or set up a supreme court," warned shadow constitutional affairs secretary Alan Duncan.

"They should now proceed with a sensibly structured judicial appointments commission, where the sole criteria is that of merit and drop their plans to abolish the post of lord chancellor."

Duncan added that the split on the bill showed "the absence of any consensus for these unnecessary proposals".

"Major constitutional change of this kind, dumping centuries of successful arrangements, should only be made with broad consensus," he warned.

"It is clear that consensus does not exist. Tony Blair and Lord Falconer should drop their half-baked plans. Parliament should review the question again once a new government is formed."