The battle for the future of the QC system began in earnest this week as the Bar Council called for the 2004 silk round to be reopened and backed the continued appointment of QCs by the state, although not through a politician.

Last week, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, halted the 2004 competition, pending consultation on the future of the system (see [2003] Gazette, 1 May, 3). In acknowledging criticisms for the first time, he appeared to signal the system's possible demise by recognising an appetite for change and questioning the need for the award and the role of the state in it.


However, in a letter to all heads of chambers, Bar Council chairman Matthias Kelly QC said: 'The suspension of the 2004 silk round is particularly unfortunate for those who would have been applicants then and may affect the course of their careers. It is our intention to make every effort to see that there will be a 2004 silk round.'


In March, a Bar Council working party headed by Sir Iain Glidewell proposed that QCs should be appointed by an independent panel chaired by a recently retired senior judge, which would draw up a list for the Lord Chancellor to submit to the Crown for formal approval. The Bar Council will debate this in June.


In his letter, Mr Kelly emphasised that the Bar Council has not called for the abolition of silk and its replacement by a rank of senior counsel and has not suggested that it should run the silk system.


He said his primary aim is to preserve the rank of QC as an appointment by the state, adding: 'Public confidence in the system is reflected in the frequent use of silks to lead inquiries into matters of public concern. Professional backing for it lies in the frequent instruction of leading counsel to handle difficult and complex cases.'


Mr Kelly pointed out that in many countries - including Scotland and Northern Ireland - silks are appointed by the Crown without the involvement of a politician.


Law Society President Carolyn Kirby said: 'The Society favours a frank and wide-ranging debate that will enable a new quality accreditation scheme suitable for the 21st century to be devised.


'Such a scheme must be open to all experienced advocates and it must have transparent, objective selection procedures, so that the public can have confidence in its value.'


The Society has previously described the award of what is effectively a public honour to a private group as inappropriate.