Lord Chancellor pay storm fuels calls for ministry of justice

Lawyers this week backed calls for a ministry of justice after the furore over the Lord Chancellor's pay.

The row over a 12% pay rise, which Lord Irvine eventually rejected in favour of an inflation rise, has led to questions about the post and fuelled the ministry of justice debate, which the new Lord Chancellor's Department select committee is to take up.

A Bar Council spokesman said it supported a separation of powers.

However, he said a ministry of justice along European lines should be a long-term goal reached through moves such as greater transparency in judicial and QC appointments.

Roger Smith, director of human rights group Justice, said the Lord Chancellor should not sit as a judge and only appoint judges on the advice of an independent commission.

'The political powers of the Lord Chancellor can no longer be combined with a role as a judge,' he said.

Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference last year, Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said there were arguments in favour of a ministry of justice, explaining that it may be more efficient.

Lines of accountability were unclear as the Lord Chancellor sits in the House of Lords, she said.

See Editorial, page 14 (see [2003] Gazette, 13 February)