A growing number of Labour MPs are calling for the role of the Lord Chancellor to be reviewed following outrage over a proposed pay rise of �22,000.

The Lord Chancellor's department promptly announced that the planned 12.6% hike was being put on hold, stressing that Lord Irvine had asked to have his pay increased by 2.25% - the same amount as fellow cabinet members.

Lord Chancellor's role: Management of the courts Appointment of judges, magistrates and other judicial office holders Administration of legal aid Oversight of a wide programme of government civil legislation and reform

But some Labour MPs are claiming the debacle is just one more example of why the unelected post needs to be changed.

Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews, a QC and Crown Court Recorder, said an elected person, like an MP, "would have realised immediately the implications" of issues like the pay rise or spending �350 a roll on wallpaper during redecoration of the Lord Chancellor's apartment in the House of Lords.

Patronage

"These things, like the wallpaper, may not be important in themselves but they bring in to sharp focus the nature of this office - this is an 800 year old anomaly," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"This is the patronage of princes and kings. In the 21st Century there is no place whatsoever for an appointee by the prime minister, right in the middle of Cabinet, chairing three Cabinet committees.

Labour MPs had threatened revolt over the rise

"There is no accountability at the head of our judicial system."

Mr Marshall-Andrews argued the case for a Ministry of Justice, with its head part of the government and accountable to the House of Commons.

Splitting the "massive" government department had been Labour policy "until it mysteriously disappeared" from the party's manifesto in 1997, he said.

"It is impossible not to draw the conclusion that it was something to do with the fact that Lord Irvine was going to be appointed to that office."

Lord Irvine was boss to both Tony and Cherie Blair when they took up legal careers after university.

'Anomaly'

Labour former whip Graham Allen told Today: "The office of Lord Chancellor is an affront to democracy."

It should be separated, with roles for an elected speaker for the second chamber, a minister of justice - accountable to the House of Commons - and an independent figure in the judiciary, he said.

The row over Lord Irvine's pay erupted over the weekend when it emerged that as public sector workers were to be given rises of at or near inflation, he was to receive �22,000.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said an amendment was needed to a legal "anomaly" which means the Lord Chancellor must be paid more than the UK's most senior judge must be amended.

As head of the judiciary, Lord Irvine's salary is linked to that of judges, while the pay of other ministers and MPs is tied to senior civil servants.

'Humiliating'

Labour MP Ian Gibson - who had earlier said he and other backbenchers would be protesting in the Commons about the increase - said he was delighted by the move.

"There has obviously been some influence placed on him. Who else would Lord Irvine talk to on a Saturday than Tony Blair?" he said.

Shadow chancellor Michael Howard described the move as a "humiliating u-turn".

Mr Brown, speaking on BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, denied reports that he had stepped in to block Lord Irvine's pay increase.

He said the system needed changing in order to avoid a repeat of the saga over Lord Irvine's pay.

"This cannot happen in the same way again and I believe this will be sorted out in the next few months," he said.

U-turn

But Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Matthew Taylor said: "It shouldn't have to take such public pressure to persuade a senior Labour politician not to accept such an excessive pay rise."

Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith welcomed Lord Irvine's decision, saying it was the sort of U-turn the government should make more often.

John Edmonds, general secretary of the GMB union, said low-paid public sector workers would not be impressed by the gesture, which he said Lord Irvine had been "shamed into".

In cash terms Lord Irvine - whose salary would have risen to �202,736 from 1 April this year - would have received a rise 50 times higher than the �467 increase of an Army private.

Following his latest decision his pay will increase from �180,045 to �184,096.

The 12.6% pay rise had been calculated as part of an ancient pay structure, which means the Lord Chancellor always receives an annual salary higher than the Lord Chief Justice.

The two men were also in line to receive a further �10,000 as a one-off.

The chancellor's department has asked the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to review the relationship between judicial salaries and those of the senior civil service.

Lord Irvine faced criticism earlier this month over revelations that his pension package from the stage will be worth �2m when he retires, added to any private pensions from his career as a barrister.