Cabinet ministers are reportedly urging Theresa May to sack Liz Truss from her role as Lord Chancellor after a series of embarrassing mistakes.

The change could see the Ministry of Justice broken up and the role of Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary split between two different ministers.

Ms Truss currently performs both jobs but her performance has been heavily criticised by senior members of the UK judiciary.

She was condemned for failing to defend high court judges after they were attacked in the right-wing press for ruling that Parliament should be given a say on Brexit. Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, called Ms Truss' response "constitutionally, absolutely wrong".

The role of Lord Chancellor, which includes responsibility for overseeing the application of law in government and speaking up for the judiciary, was previously held by a judge but Tony Blair turned the position into a political appointment in 2007.

The changes reportedly being considered by Downing Street could see the role of Lord Chancellor given to a Conservative MP with legal training, which Ms Truss does not have.

“A more traditional separation [of the department] is needed”, one cabinet minister told The Daily Telegraph.

"Whether that's a full break-up of the department or just a hiving off of the Lord Chancellor, this is being considered."

Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Show all 13 1 /13 Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Supreme Court Brexit Challenge People wait to enter the public gallery outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Gina Miller, co-founder of investment fund SCM Private arrives at the Supreme court in London on the first day of a four-day hearing Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A man waves the EU flag in front of the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Satirical artist Kaya Mar poses with two of his paintings in front of the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Pro-Europe protestors dressed as Supreme Court Justices stand outside the Supreme Court ahead of the first day of a hearing into whether Parliament's consent is required before the Brexit process can begin. The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear the government's appeal, following the High Court's recent decision that only Parliament can trigger Article 50 Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear the government's appeal, following the High Court's recent decision that only Parliament can trigger Article 50 Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Businesswoman Gina Miller arrives at the Supreme Court ahead of the first day of a hearing into whether Parliament's consent is required before the Brexit process can begin Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Attorney General Jeremy Wright arrives at the Supreme Court in London EPA Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Protesters outside the Supreme Court in London, where the Government is appealing against a ruling that the Prime Minister must seek MPs' approval to trigger the process of taking Britain out of the European Union PA wire Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A protesters wearing a judge's wigs and robes stands outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A protester holds up a placard outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters Supreme Court Brexit Challenge Pro-Europe protestors dressed as Supreme Court Justices stand outside the Supreme Court Getty Supreme Court Brexit Challenge A man waiting to enter the public gallery waves a European Union flag outside the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London Reuters

Another Government source told the paper: "The majority of backbenchers who are interested in these things - the lawyers and former ministers - and senior lawyers/judges agree the Blair reforms were wrong and the Lord Chancellor should be given to a senior lawyer freed from the tough prisons brief.

“The senior judiciary think the current role is an almost impossible one. It's the 10th anniversary of the MoJ and it isn't a well-functioning department."

Ms Truss was contradicted by Britain’s most senior judge last month after the Justice Secretary announced plans to “bring forward” new rules allowing pre-recorded cross-examination evidence to be used in cases relating to sexual offences.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, was forced to issue a clarification after saying Ms Truss’ announcement was “misleading”. The rules will relate only to children and other vulnerable witnesses, he said.

A separate pilot for victims in sex offence cases is being carried out but has not yet been extended.

Liz Truss says revoking of Article 50 wouldn't be a legal issue

Lord Thomas later told the Lords Constitution Committee: "I regret to say that we had to correct a serious misapprehension that had arisen as a result of what the ministry said at the end of last week about the roll-out, and the way we were proceeding with pre-recorded evidence.

"They misunderstood the thing completely. And so yesterday I had to write to all the judges togmail explain that, unfortunately, what the ministry had said was wrong.

A Whitehall source said: "A series of blunders - not all of them entirely the minister's fault - have highlighted the deep routed and at times absurd problems and conflicts within the department."

"The department is not fit for purpose and the recent cock ups go deeper than simply weak ministerial oversight. Splitting it up is something that is certainly being looked at.