The Saturday newspapers of 6th March were replete with commentary about the judicial life, popularity of and controversy about Lord Denning. It seems that much of the controversy arose among lawyers, and the "establishment". But, whether or not they agreed with the decision, all commentators seemed agreed upon his one abiding virtue, the lucidity and simplicity of his judgments. It is here that his value to arbitrators must surely lie. The setting down of judgments (or awards) is one of the most difficult tasks. And Denning's technique of the short (literary) sentence is one we should do well to emulate. Avoid the conditional clause like the plague! Perhaps that is the best memorial to "the people's judge".

While we applaud HQ's efforts to bring arbitration before a wider audience - and the comments of HHJ Bowsher at the Annual Dinner pointed again to the need for education of the wider public - we wonder if what is coming after July is not too much of a good thing. The creation of a new class of "Member" may bring us into line with other professional organisations, but it raises the question, what is the distinction between "Associate" and "Affiliate"? Is it merely one of incorporation, or not?

If one then analyses the class of Fellows, we find there are three distinguishable types, ignoring for this purpose those who are "retired". There are Fellows who are not empanelled. For historical and moral reasons, the class must remain. Then there are Fellows who have passed exams, and are empanelled, that is, qualified to be appointed by the Chartered Institute as arbitrators. They will be entitled "Chartered Arbitrators", a soubriquet which cannot be removed upon retirement, it seems. The panel used to be graded, in one way by experience, and the other way by disciplines. We suspect that that no longer exists, although one of us still has a certificate to say he is grade 2 for two types of dispute.

And then there are Fellows who are empanelled and Registered, because HQ is obliged to maintain a Register. But entry into the Register is voluntary (and expensive); is it really a form of advertising? How often is the Register updated? How often is it republished?

If this is confusing to members, how must it seem to outsiders? The panels are to remain as they are. Surely it is time to abolish the Register or, if that is not possible, amalgamate the Register with the Panel(s).

Behind all this is the fact that almost anyone can be an arbitrator: all it requires is the agreement of the parties to the dispute. The Chartered Institute does not claim to be an appointing body as a primary function, yet appointment and recommendation are not insignificant parts of its duties. Other appointing bodies rely upon its panels. Clearly, we want to ensure that appointees are competent and serious, but the complexities of our qualification systems seem to be reaching sub-atomic proportions.