The government performed a U-turn this week on plans to remove the right to challenge asylum decisions in the courts after an intervention from Lord Irvine, the former lord chancellor.

Lord Irvine was due to criticise the plans in the second reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill in the House of Lords but withdrew when ministers made a climbdown.

Speaking at the opening of the debate, lord chancellor Lord Falconer said that the government would replace the plans with a system allowing asylum seekers to appeal to the courts. He admitted that his decision had been influenced by Lord Irvine, who had "forcibly made representations about the bill".

A spokesperson for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said there were no details of the new system available yet.

Judges, lawyers and social care campaigners had strongly criticised proposals to create a single-tier of appeal for asylum seekers outside the scrutiny of the courts.

Lord chief justice Lord Woolf, who earlier described the proposals as "fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law", welcomed the government's decision.

Speaking during the second reading debate, Lord Woolf said he backed a proposal in a report on the bill by the select committee on constitutional affairs to give the statutory review process more time to show its merit (news, page 8, 4 March). He added that he doubted whether there was a more "satisfactory solution".

Statutory review, which was established under the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002, enables the High Court to review decisions in weeks rather than months.

Welcoming the move, the Refugee Council chief executive Maeve Sherlock urged the government to "reconsider its approach" and focus on improving the quality of initial asylum decisions. "Given that the weight of evidence and opinion is so firmly against the plans to block judicial review of flawed asylum decisions, the government is taking the sensible option," she said.