I agree with Adrian Sanders and 22 Conservative MPs

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.

ParliamentReducing 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.

Read more by or more about , , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Parliament.


  • 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?

  • 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.

  • david thorpe 26th Oct '10 - 9:21pm

    I wrote a blog on this very subject and on this site not long ago………


  • davidn thorpe 26th Oct '10 - 11:11pm

    the planned abolition of the lords at the same time as the reduction in Mps negates some of the points made here

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Helen Dudden
    If a seat can be bought in the House of Lords, where is the value of that seat? I've been to Westminster on several occasions and always been checked on the...
  • David Evans
    Jeff, you say "Perhaps not, but it is unreasonable to [seek a pay increase that compensates for the effect of inflation] and retain absurdly archaic working pra...
  • Chris Moore
    @Peter Martin: An economically and mathematically challenged individual might conclude from your intervention that UK GDP per capita was higher in 2007 - 50k...
  • John Medway
    Thanks all for your comments. @William Francis - Yes, although GDP isn't in my view "almost everything", it still has its uses. A precipitate fall in GDP wou...
  • expats
    ......Johnson and Shapps pretend they can’t end the rail strikes..That’s nonsense.. Well our own Munira Wilson seems to have her own ideas (unless she is...