Confident lord chancellor will not resign

Lord Irvine said he might do it again

By BBC News Online's political correspondent Nick Assinder.

It was a defiant lord chancellor who faced opposition Peers out for his blood for seeking Labour funds from lawyers.

Addressing a packed upper chamber, Lord Irvine insisted he had done nothing wrong and would consider repeating the exercise if asked to do so.

However he also confessed that, before again engaging in fundraising, he would have to take into account the likelihood of another distracting furore.

He also signalled that he might look favourably on a new rule banning lord chancellors from such activity in future.

Clear signal

His words were taken by many as a clear signal that, while maintaining his innocence, he was unlikely to repeat the exercise.

It was a robust defence of his position and showed a man who was clearly confident that he had the full support of the prime minister and was not about to resign.

'No wrongdoing'

Inevitably, his comments failed to satisfy the opposition who will persist with their attacks.

The Liberal Democrats, led by Lord McNally, have stopped short of demanding his head, instead calling for an apology and expression of regret.

Not exempt

The Conservatives have gone further, calling for the lord chancellor to quit.

But patently neither course of action was in his mind as he insisted time and again that he was not exempt from the political activity expected from other ministers.

It was left to a quietly spoken Geoffrey Howe - whose famous resignation speech as foreign secretary sparked Margaret Thatcher's downfall - to deliver what was probably the most piercing of attacks.

Lord Irvine had insisted that former Tory lord chancellors had also indulged in political campaigning.

Differences

But Lord Howe brought rumblings of support when he said they had "instinctively" seen the difference between campaigning and fundraising.

Once again, the Lord Chancellor brushed aside the remark, insisting he had broken no rules.

Lord chancellor appoints judges

Some of the tension was relieved when, as the cross examination ended, it was announced the Lords would have a debate on foot and mouth.

More than one peer was heard to shout, "foot in mouth" before order was restored.

And, confident as Lord Irvine's performance was, it did little to answer the key questions being asked by the opposition.

Potential conflict

The underlying implication is that the man who can promote solicitors and barristers should never be in a position where he is asking them for favours.

He insisted that none of the Labour-leaning lawyers attending the fundraising dinner could possibly have thought a donation to the party would have bought them advantage.

The opposition's point, however, is that just such a perception may have been gained and that he should have immediately seen the potential conflict of interest.

They were also angry that the lord chancellor had refused to make any earlier statement on the affair.

Pressure to raise cash

The row is the latest regarding party funding that has hit the government, with allegations it is putting ministers under too much pressure to raise cash before the election and before new rules on disclosing donors names come into force.

And it is certain that, as the official campaign draws nearer, the pressure to raise cash will intensify.

At the same time, the latest row will revive talk about changes in the lord chancellor's role and the entire procedure for appointing judges.