IT is good that Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, will personally answer a question in the House of Lords today about his role in the "cash for wigs" affair.

Characterised as being aloof and arrogant, he could easily have sent one of his minions to face the music.

It is to be hoped that, unlike Peter Mandelson, Lord Irvine is open and frank with his accusers. That is required because, just like with the Mandelson affair, it is easy for the public to make a link between money donated and a favour in return.

Mr Mandelson solicited a donation for his Dome and, a few days later, allegedly made a phone call which may have assisted in the donors receiving a passport.

Lord Irvine solicited donations from barristers for the Labour Party's election fund. The obvious link is that, as he is in charge of barristers' promotions, he may have been influenced by the size of their donations.

However, unlike the Mandelson affair, there is not even a shadow of a suggestion that Lord Irvine has done anything unseemly. In fact, the Tories' Lord Kingsland said he acted with "absolute probity" in appointing judges and QCs. That is why the calls for him to resign are an over-the-top reaction.

Lord Irvine has, though, been foolish enough to put himself in a position where a potentially sleazy link can be made and, in the heightened atmosphere in the run-up to the election, anything that is potentially sleazy is blown out of all proportion.

Yet the affair does highlight the need for reform in our judicial system. Just a couple of months ago, we Brits laughed at the Americans as they tried to dig themselves out of their election shambles. In the end, the political persuasions of the judges in the Supreme Court appeared more important than the votes of millions of ordinary people. It couldn't happen here, we thought, because our judges are impartial and independent of political patronage.

The "cash for wigs" affair reminds us that they are, in fact, political appointees just like in America.

There is growing opinion in the legal world that the Lord Chancellor's powers should be separated so that the judiciary becomes genuinely independent of any political party.

Lord Irvine's critics will be right in accusing him of being aloof and arrogant if he refuses to acknowledge the need for this reform today.

There will, of course, be many more "scandals" like "cash for wigs" and the Mandelson affair. Governments of all political shades are coming to rely more on private donations and sponsorships to keep the tax bill down. And unless political parties are to be funded by the state, there will always be potential conflicts of interest.

It is necessary for politicians to ensure that the potential is as small as possible - and Lord Irvine has failed to do that. And it is also necessary for the Opposition and the public to keep a sensible head, otherwise the already tarnished reputation of politics will be smeared with sleaze when, as in this "scandal", there is absolutely no evidence of any corruption.