5 Ministerial Numbers and the Payroll
Vote
91. We believe that the evidence we have received
shows that it would be possible to reduce the number of ministers
without affecting the core functions of government. This would
be done through a combination of: using ministerial time more
effectively, focusing on key priorities, changing their role to
reflect future reductions in the size of the state, and by merging
some departments. The question now is how many ministers should
there be?
Ministerial Numbers and Legislation
92. The number of ministers is subject to two statutory
limits. The first, the House of Commons Disqualification Act
1975 (HCDA), limits to 95 the number of ministers who can
sit and vote in the House of Commons. The second is the Ministerial
and Other Salaries Act 1975 (MOSA) which constrains the number
of ministerial salaries that can be paid. The MOSA limit is 109
and it is broken down by category. For example, there is a limit
of 21 paid Cabinet Ministers excluding the Lord Chancellor. However,
these categories can be worked aroundministers may be entitled
to attend Cabinet without being Cabinet Ministers,[118]
or a whip may be given a nominal ministerial post in order to
count against the limit for junior ministers rather than whips.[119]
The table below shows the composition of the current government.
Table 2: Current Government Composition
Post | Paid under MOSA
| Unpaid | Total | Ministers attending Cabinet
|
Cabinet Ministers (including Lord Chancellor)
| 22 | 1 | 23 |
23 |
Of which MPs | |
| 21 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 2 |
|
Ministers of State[120]
| 29 | 0 | 29 |
5 |
Of which MPs | |
| 27 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 2 |
|
Total Cabinet | -
| - | - | 28
|
Parliamentary Secretaries | 33
| 4 | 37 | -
|
Of which MPs | |
| 28 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 9 |
|
Law Officers | 3 | 0
| 3 | - |
Of which MPs | |
| 2 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 1 |
|
Whips[121]
| 22 | 5 | 27 |
- |
Of which MPs | |
| 17 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 10 |
|
Total | 109 |
10 | 119 | -
|
Of which MPs | |
| 95 |
|
Of which Peers | |
| 24 |
|
93. The evolution of these limits over time is complex.
The limits were regularly revised between 1940 and 1975, usually
upwards, and often to bring them into line with existing practice.
MOSA applies to paid ministers in both Houses, whereas the HCDA
applies only to the House of Commons, but to paid and unpaid ministers
alike. Neither Act covers Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPSs)
and other informal appointments that are unpaid and lack executive
authority (such as tsars and envoys appointed by the previous
Administration).
94. In practice, the appointment of unpaid ministers
means that the number of ministerial posts exceed that provided
for by MOSA and has regularly done so. Unpaid ministers are not
a new phenomenon; one of the reasons advanced for increasing the
statutory limit during the 1960s and 1970s was that existing ministers
were unpaid. However, the number of unpaid appointments has increased
in recent years. There were no unpaid ministers in the Government
in July 1996. Between 1 April 1998 and 1 April 2006 the number
fluctuated between 1 and 5. There are currently 11 unpaid ministers
and whips in the Coalition Government.[122]
Rt Hon Peter Riddell described the tendency of successive Governments
to appoint unremunerated ministers as "a real abuse".[123]
Our Committee in the previous Parliament recommended that "the
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 should be treated as setting
an absolute limit on the number of government ministers, paid
or unpaid."[124]
PAYROLL VOTE
95. The number of ministers in the House of Commons
matters. It affects the ability of the House to scrutinise the
Government. As PASC in the previous Parliament said:
Ministerial appointments are about more than the
effectiveness of government. They are also used as rewards and
as a means of exercising political control. Increasing the number
of ministers increases the Prime Minister's powers of patronage
and inflates the Government's payroll vote in the House of Commons
- i.e. the number of Member of Parliament who hold a government
job and are therefore expected to vote for the Government or resign.[125]
Jonathan Powell was very open with PASC in the previous
Parliament about why successive Prime Ministers had increased
the number of ministers. "If the Prime Minister has his
way, he would appoint every single backbencher in his party to
a ministerial job to ensure their vote."[126]
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies
Act
96. The Government has legislated to reduce the number
of MPs from 650 to 600 in the next Parliament. This will compound
the problem of the payroll vote. During the Act's second reading
debate concerns were expressed that if the number of MPs was reduced
but there was no corresponding reduction in the number of ministers,
then the Government would directly control a higher proportion
of votes in the House.
97. Reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 represents
approximately an eight percent decrease in the number of MPs.[127]
If the same reduction were applied to the number of ministers
in the House of Commons then the Government would have to appoint
8 fewer ministers taking the overall number in the House of Commons
to 87. Mr Charles Walker MP (a member of PASC) tabled an amendment
to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 requiring the
Government to reduce the number of ministers in the Commons in
line with the reductions in MPs that it was proposing.[128]
His amendment was defeated by 293 votes to 241. A similar amendment
was rejected in the House of Lords. We think that the House of
Commons will have to revisit this question.
98. It is important
to understand not only how the number of ministers in the House
of Commons is set but also why they are set at their current level.
Prime Ministers and their Chief Whips have every incentive to
increase their patronage over those who determine the progress
of legislation. The temptation to create more and more 'jobs for
the boys' (and girls) is not conducive either to better government
or better scrutiny of legislation. A further increase in the proportion
of MPs who are ministers does not reflect the Coalition's stated
objective of "strengthening Parliament."
99. We agree
with our predecessor Committee that the Ministerial and Other
Salaries Act 1975 should be regarded as setting an absolute limit
on the number of ministers. Government should not appoint unpaid
ministers if this results in them having more ministers than envisaged
by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act.
100. Furthermore,
in line with the Prime Minister's desire to reduce the cost of
politics, and following the decision to reduce the number of MPs,
the Government needs to legislate for a corresponding reduction
in the upper limit for the number of ministers. This should be
done by reducing the upper limit for the number of ministers who
can sit in the Commons as set out in the House of Commons Disqualification
Act 1975. These changes should take effect in 2015, when the reduction
in the number of MPs also comes into force.
Further Reductions
101. Witnesses to the inquiry PASC conducted into
ministerial numbers in the last Parliament, including Lord Turnbull,
Lord Birt, Professor Anthony King, and Rt Hon Sir John Major all
argued for a reduction in ministerial numbers. They believe that
a reduction of between 25 to 50% would be possible.[129]
The Committee recommended a reduction of around a third in the
number of ministers, a limit on the payroll vote of 15% of the
membership of the House of Commons and a limit on PPSs of one
per department or Cabinet Minister. Under this structure a government
would have, on average, three ministers in each department although
in practice larger departments would have more and smaller departments,
or departments where representation in the Lords could be shared,
fewer. The table below, initially produced with our predecessor's
report on this matter, provides a guide to how ministers could
be divided between the two Houses and different ranks.[130]
| Commons
| Lords
|
Cabinet Ministers
| 18
| 2
|
Ministers of State and Junior Ministers
| 25
| 15
|
Whips
| 12
| 8
|
PPSs
| 20
| 0
|
Total Payroll Vote
| 75
| 25
|
102. We revisited these conclusions with our witnesses
to examine whether the recommendation made during the previous
Parliament still stood. The academics who appeared before us agreed
with the suggestion made by Lord Hurd that the abolition of "20
Ministerial posts at different levels would not only be popular
but would be followed immediately by an adjustment of workload."[131]
103. We believe
that adherence to the MOSA and modest reduction in the limit set
by HCDA should only be the start of the process. For the reasons
we adduce in this Report, we believe there is scope for much greater
reductions. Therefore we repeat the recommendation made in our
original Report that, over the course of this Parliament, the
total number of ministers should be reduced to 80 shared between
the Commons and Lords.
118 Currently 5 non-Cabinet Ministers regularly attend
Cabinet: Francis Maude, Oliver Letwin, David Willetts, Sir George
Young, and Patrick McLoughlin. Others may attend Cabinet when
relevant business is being discussed. Back
119
Public Administration Select Committee, Too Many Ministers,
para 6 Back
120
Includes Chief Whip Back
121
Excludes Chief Whip Back
122
"List of Government Departments and Ministers", Cabinet
Office, July 2010, cabinetoffice.gov.uk Back
123
Q 103 Back
124
Public Administration Select Committee, Too Many Ministers,
para 19 Back
125
Ibid. para 22 Back
126
Public Administration Select Committee, Goats and Tsars,
Q 32 Back
127
The precise figure is 7.69% Back
128
HC Deb, 25 October 2010, col 108 Back
129
Public Administration Select Committee, Too Many Ministers?,
para 13 Back
130
Ibid. para 36 Back
131
Q 103 Back
|