Irvine hints that coveted QC rank may be abolished

The ancient rank of Queen's Counsel could soon be abolished, Lord Irvine of Lairg suggested yesterday when he told a committee of MPs that he intended to consult on the merits of retaining the system which rewards senior barristers with professional titles.

Two years ago the Office of Fair Trading reported that QCs offered "questionable value" to the public because barristers and solicitors were allowed to increase their fees as soon as they took silk.

Each year the Lord Chancellor appoints about 100 lawyers to the rank of QC, many of whom regard it as the pinnacle of their career.

The new reform programme, said Lord Irvine, would "extend to the manner of appointment of Queen's Counsel and, indeed, it will extend to whether the status of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist or not". A consultation document is expected to be published before July.

The third part of the reform programme will consider whether judges and lawyers should continue to wear wigs and gowns in court.

The surprise announcement came as Lord Irvine was questioned by the cross-party Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee on whether it was appropriate for him as a party politician and cabinet member to have ultimate responsibility for appointing judges.

The Lord Chancellor said he would also give people the opportunity to express their views on replacing the current system for appointing judges with a fully independent judicial appointments commission.

On this issue he said he had no "concluded view" but warned that a newly established quango of judges ran the risk of being criticised for being a "self-appointing judicial oligarchy". He argued that without a minister to hold to account, a judicial appointments commission could be seen as undemocratic.

Lord Irvine told the committee that he believed the current system for appointing judges had been "brought to as good a state as it can be".

Nevertheless, he said that his proposed "single, integrated programme of work will extend to the possibility of a judicial appointments commission".

A spokesman for the Bar Council, which represents 14,000 barristers in England and Wales, said it was a good thing that the "fundamental issue of the appointment of judges was now in play". But he urged Lord Irvine not to "throw the baby out with the bath water" by getting rid of QCs, whom he said did serve the public interest.

The Lord Chancellor has always strongly defended his power to appoint judges, although others have criticised it for lack of transparency.

Last month a report by the former Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Iain Glidewell, commissioned by the Bar Council, concluded that the power to appoint High Court judges should be transferred to an independent board.

It added that QCs should be appointed by a panel chaired by a retired law lord or lord justice of appeal.

Sir Iain concluded that it was "politically unacceptable" for a cabinet minister to continue to appoint judges and silks.

In his evidence to MPs, Lord Irvine also indirectly criticised David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, for his recent outspoken attacks on judges who have ruled against his asylum reforms.

"When the judiciary give decisions that the executive doesn't like, as in all governments, some ministers have spoken out against some decisions that they don't like. I disapprove of that. I think it undermines the rule of law."

Although he did not mention Mr Blunkett by name, he added: "Maturity requires that when you get a decision that favours you, you do not clap. And when you get one that goes against you, you don't boo."