Time to consider a ministry

Lord Irvine is not a man to bow to public outcry.

So the Lord Chancellor will not have taken lightly the decision to put his 22,000 pay rise on ice purely because Fleet Street was in a lather - especially as he was more than entitled to it.

Much nonsense has been said following the initial announcement of his salary boost.

One Labour MP blustered that the country would be no worse off if the Lord Chancellor's role did not exist and that, quite frankly, he wondered what Lord Irvine did all day.

Anyone with a modicum of sense knows that the Lord Chancellor does a vast amount.

And that is arguably the problem - over recent years he has been asked to do ever more.

His departmental responsibilities have been considerably widened, and more is on the way with plans to bring all tribunals under the ambit of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

His three-pronged role - covering legislature, executive and judiciary - is causing increasing concern.

The issue of the pay rise is in the same league as the outcry over wallpaper.

It is a relatively small matter that only focuses attention on the larger issue of whether one unelected person should hold so much power.

There are reports that the new House of Commons select committee overseeing the LCD will place the debate over the creation of a ministry of justice high on its first agenda.

That is to be welcomed.

A new ministry could ensure a co-ordinated approach to the justice system, and to public funding arrangements.

One serious problem with the Lord Chancellor's job is that the elected chamber does not get a chance to quiz him in person.

It is time at least to consider whether a role created in the middle ages is appropriate for the 21st century.