Yesterday in Parliament Adrian Sanders and 22 Conservative MPs voted to reduce the maximum number of ministers allowed in the Commons in line with the forthcoming reduction in the number of MPs:
If the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom decreases below 650, the limit on the number of holders of Ministerial offices entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons referred to in section 2(1) must be decreased by at least a proportionate amount.
Reducing the number of ministers is something I’ve supported in the past. It’s partly a matter of political power – we get better government and better public services when Parliament can hold the government to account rather than be in thrall to it. Have too high a proportion of MPs as ministers and you have too great a payroll vote propping up whatever the government proposes. That’s the prime reason why a cap was set on the number of ministers in the Commons and it is still a good reason.
It isn’t the only reason though. Not just in government, or even just in the public sector, does work expand to suit the number of people available. More ministers means more people who have an instinctive urge to do something. When did a politician make a name for themselves by doing nothing? At a time when government is committed decentralising power and we have far too many parts of the public sector that are saddled with too much micromanagement from above, too many ministerial hands wanting to make work is just what we don’t need.
As Conservative MP Charles Walker said in his speech yesterday,
Rafts of leading academics and political commentators have recognised for a long time that there are far too many Ministers in this place. Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, has argued that we could easily do as well with a reduction of 25 to 30%. Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary, told the Select Committee on Public Administration earlier this year that the number of Ministers could be cut by 50%. Professor Anthony King has argued the same, as has Lord Norton of Louth. Of course, those academics and political commentators are in good company. Our own Deputy Prime Minister argued in January that the number of Ministers should be reduced.
Last year I collated some figures which show the long-term trend in ministerial numbers:
In late 1914 when Britain ruled much of the world and was fighting a world war, there were a total of 49 ministers. Gordon Brown’s government currently has 119 ministers – an increase of 143%.
Some of the growth is for reasons most people across most parties would support, such as the creation of the National Health Service resulting in the creation of some new roles. But those areas of ‘consensus growth’ are relatively small, and to an extent are offset by the decline in the number of posts required by having an Empire.
Despite the defeat of yesterday’s proposals, the government has been making positive noises about reducing ministerial numbers. At one of the fringe meetings at Liverpool conference where I was on the panel the final question was about how we would be able to judge in a few years time whether or not proposals for decentralising and encouraging civic society had succeeded. My answer was to look at the number of ministers. David Heath, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, agreed numbers should be cut as did the one person on the panel with experience of serving in Cabinet, Shirley Williams.
David Heath opposed the proposal yesterday for a variety of reasons of detail and process, by in so doing said,
I repeat that I do not think that there is a simple arithmetical relationship between the number of Ministers in the Government and the number of Members in this House, other than the view, which is my view and that of right hon. and hon. Friends, that we need to reduce the scope of Government patronage. That is something in which we are already engaged … It is likely that at some stage in the future we will reduce the number of Ministers.
So despite the defeat of last night’s proposal, there are good reasons to carry on pushing at what is a partially open door on this issue.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Joseph Bourke
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
Suzanne Fletcher
Mick Taylor
10 Comments
Sounds to me slightly like a collective hurumph from grumpy backbenchers miffed at being overlooked for ministerial jobs.
I’m not very keen on this but not opposed either – because of how our system works ministers don’t seem to be given much leeway to vote against their own government if their conscience dictates it without standing down first, so too many ministers can run the risk of being a bit undemocratic really. However, a government needs as many ministers as it needs and must be flexible and, on top of this, a decrease of 650 to 600 is not that much – 600 is still over 90% of 650!
WIth Gordon’s 119 strong team of ministers this only reduces it down to 109 (assuming he was at the cap, which he probably wasn’t) – given that this was probably more ministers than under this government is the proportional increase in the number of ministers after we’re down to 600 MPs really that likely to actually make a big difference to this payroll vote? If there’s a problem there’s still one regardless of whether the cap shifts proportionally with the decrease in MPs – if there’s not, there probably won’t be one regardless. There’s nothing wrong with this amendment but I don’t see the possibility of a big enough gain for it to be worth spending time debating it to be honest!
What I don’t think is necessary is a reduction in the number of MPs in the first place – I’m not too sure what this is supposed to achieve under FPTP or AV, surely if an MP theoretically represents his or her constituents then it is generally desirable for the MP to represent a smaller number of people so that their concerns can be more easily passed onto him. Obviously if you take this
Are these ex ministers going to be stuffed into the house of lords like the planned explosion of tory and liberal democrat lords this christmas. This is planned so that there is absolutely no opposition to anything proposed by the coalition government. What price for democracy?
hi………….
With Gordon’s 119 strong team of ministers this only reduces it down to 109 (assuming he was at the cap, which he probably wasn’t) – given that this was probably more ministers than under this government is the proportional increase in the number of ministers after we’re down to 600 MPs really that likely to actually make a big difference to this payroll vote? If there’s a problem there’s still one regardless of whether the cap shifts proportionally with the decrease in MPs – if there’s not, there probably won’t be one regardless. There’s nothing wrong with this amendment but I don’t see the possibility of a big enough gain for it to be worth spending time debating it to be honest!
=============
Property Solicitors
Steven: whatever their motivations (and I don’t think they can all be characterised the way you do), that doesn’t stop other people agreeing with the policy!
I think it is the wrong thing to do at this moment in time.
This government is currently hyperactive and my main concern is that a lot of decisions are being made without enough research done in terms of impact assessment. Given the changes currently being made, there is a good case for more ministers rather than less.
I think this has to be a pragmatic decision based on what the government is doing at any particular time.
Well, I don’t agree with reducing the number of MPs.
Less MPs means less democracy.
Less MPs means more whip-compliance.
Less MPs allows government to trample over the representatives.
Less MPs means less diversity and less representation of minorities.
But then I think the whole of the Commons and Lords should be overhauled.
There are around 1300 ‘members’ in our parliament.
Less than a quarter are democratic representatives able to hold government to account!
Further to my post. Two further points:
I’ve never been able to figure out exactly how many ‘members’ there are in the House of Lords, but if you reduce the number of ministers from the commons, you may increase the number drawn from the Lords.
It should be up each government to determine how many ministers they choose to appoint.
I wrote a blog on this very subject and on this site not long ago………
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-108-not-out-why-do-we-need-so-many-ministers-21688.html
the planned abolition of the lords at the same time as the reduction in Mps negates some of the points made here