Irvine on a tightrope CRITICISM OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR CAME TO A HEAD WITH REVELATIONS OF the donations AFFAIR.

LINDA TSANG EXAMINES HIS RECORD IN OFFICE AND SAYS HE MAY BE alienating HIS SUPPORTERS Lord Irvine has always seemed to attract more than his fair share of adverse media criticism, with incidents involving Cardinal Wolsey and Pugin wallpaper triggering...Lord Irvine has always seemed to attract more than his fair share of adverse media criticism, with incidents involving Cardinal Wolsey and Pugin wallpaper triggering the most obvious examples.

He has now made it a hat-trick with the cash-for-wigs affair.

Lord Irvines latest role as party fundraiser has given the opposition fresh ammunition to demand his resignation.

And the media has dubbed Lord Irvine the lord high solicitor of Labour election donations from lawyers, and querying whether he is too big for his wig.

There has been some speculation on whether Prime Minister Tony Blair will retain his old pupil master if Labour wins the next election.

Some say Lord Irvine is too accident-prone and too media unfriendly; others say he has achieved much in a short time.

There was speculation last week that he would carry on as Lord Chancellor and then step down in 2003 with his key work done.

However, after recent events, legal commentators take the view that he will have to give up some of his powers.

In fact, ironically, a challenge to his power to sit as a judge and also to appoint judges, could come under the Human Rights Act 1998, which Lord Irvine had responsibility for getting onto the statute books once Labour won the general election in 1997.

The controversy surrounding Lord Irvines fundraising activities has highlighted the problem which is historical that a party political animal has in being part of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary at the same time.

Geoffrey Bindman, senior partner of top civil liberties firm Bindman & Partners and chairman of the Society of Labour, takes a positive view of Lord Irvines record.

He says: The Human Rights Act is a huge achievement, which was largely his responsibility, and he piloted the Act through the House of Lords.

Also, I think that the concept of a Community Legal Service is a good one and I hope that, in time, the teething problems will be sorted out and we will have, in effect, a national legal service.

But there are problems, he hasnt really achieved integration of the legal profession into the new scheme there is a lot still to be done.

But one view from a barrister asked about the Lord Chancellors record so far is that: What is regrettable is that he has not achieved a true separation of powers his office is a contradiction of that principle.

This barrister maintains that Lord Irvine has also been unsuccessful as a legal reformer: He has achieved absolutely nothing in the legal field.

What he has achieved he doesnt deserve credit for, and that is the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

In practice, Lord Irvine rarely sits in the House of Lords in his judicial capacity, but he is an active and senior member of the cabinet, as witnessed by his chairmanship of several key cabinet committees.

As for the proposed judicial appointments commissioner, who will scrutinise the system of appointments, lawyers will not comment until they see what the actual effect will be.

The consensus is that the Lord Chancellor will see how effective the judicial appointments commissioner will be before moving to a wholly independent commission for appointing judges and there is no allotted timescale for that.

As to the Lord Chancellors role as fundraiser and cheerleader, there are arguments that Lord Irvine was preaching to the converted, or at least asking for donations from those who already support Labour.

What has been more difficult both in terms of media image (and in employment tribunals) are the allegations of cronyism which have also marked his time as Lord Chancellor.

His appointment of Garry Hart from City firm Herbert Smith as special adviser led to an employment tribunal claim from solicitor Jane Coker, which the Lord Chancellor won only after an appeal earlier this year.

The Sunday Times recently found that 12 members of his former chambers, 11 Kings Bench Walk, are now on the Treasury panel of government legal advisers, while his own former junior, Philip Sales was made junior Treasury barrister.And when Mr Sales appointment was challenged by barrister Josephine Hayes, the Attorney-General settled out of court, and agreed to make significant changes to the appointment process.

The conclusion from one disillusioned former Labour-supporting lawyer is that: His changes have simply been tinkering with the legal system.

His tenure has been marked by more bluster than action.

He has been attacking the lawyers, who are the messengers, rather than dealing with the message.

With the likes of Attorney-General Lord Williams of Mostyn QC, enobled barristers Peter Goldsmith, Dan Brennan (both former Bar Council chairman) and Helena Kennedy, as well as close Blair ally and solicitor Henry Hodge all talked about as possible replacements, alienating such Labour-supporting lawyers could prove critical to Lord Irvines future.

Linda Tsang is a freelance journalist