Slash the number of ministers if you want Parliament to be truly empowered

By James Crabtree

A single grand idea to revitalise Labour’s fortunes? One which works, costs almost nothing, can be brought in before the election, and would make voters look at Labour in an entirely new way? How about a strict curb on the number of Ministers drawn from the House of Commons?

The past months have seen numerous schemes to reform British democracy, ranging from a new push for PR, to various plans for parliamentary tinkering, with the roles of select committees and others. The most eye-catching wheezes have come from the right, with a slew of broadly directly democratic measures floated – from open primaries and local referendums to recall ballots for MPs and citizen initiatives. But the former (with the exception of PR) are too incremental to make a difference. And as Peter Kellner pointed out in last month’s edition of Prospect, many of the latter risk creating a worse problem than that which they are meant to solve: shackling the executive, making it impossible to take unpopular decisions, and threatening the UK with California-style legislative paralysis.

The weakness of these ideas on the right is that they would enfeeble, rather than strengthen, Parliament. But that’s the weakness of our current system too – Parliament is inherently enfeebled by being overly majoritarian (hence the need for PR), and especially by being tied too closely to the executive. And while it wouldn’t be wise to rip the system up and start again, it is perfectly possible to create a bigger wedge between Parliament and Government.

The way to do that would be to set a maximum number of Ministers who could be drawn from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Let’s say that number should be 60, down from the current total of 124, following the last reshuffle.

Under a new system the remaining half of the Ministers the Government needs – if, indeed, all that number are really needed – should be drawn from outside Parliament. It might seem an odd time to be making this argument, when so many of Gordon Brown’s GOATS – those heralded outside experts, those new brooms – have fled. But while Lords Darzi, Malloch-Brown and Carter might have lasted only a brief time, all have been effective. Britain has a better health service, improved policy in Africa, and a plan to save ailing public service broadcasters largely because of their influence.

Yes, at the moment the system often looks askance at such appointments. Too frequently outside hands, like Lord Simon, or Archie Norman before him, don’t prosper. And often the Government doesn’t help its case – the desperate appointment of Alan Sugar, for example – by encouraging the appointment of short-term candidates for public relations reasons. But the solution isn’t to drive out the experts – it’s to create a system which welcomes them.

Just as in the United States, or France, outside leaders and experts could be suggested by Government (or even by MPs) and then thoroughly vetted – to ensure that each candidate was suitable, and had a real job to do (as Sir Alan so very clearly doesn’t). Such confirmations could create public debate, while the new outsiders would replenish the dangerously depleted ranks of junior ministerial positions. America stuffs its executive with able non-politicians drawn from businesses and charities. And just as in the US, this new breed could fairly easily be made accountable to the legislature.

But the big benefit would not be the new competition for government jobs, although that is not a bad thing in itself, given only the best MPs would get one. It would be the boost to the Parliamentary career path. With fewer government jobs to chase, more of Parliament’s brightest could focus on chairing select committees. Such roles should be greatly enhanced, but even if they weren’t, simply having bigger political figures in them would let them grow. Imagine if David Blunkett, or David Davis, or a recent departure like Kitty Ussher, could simply give up dreaming of a return to Ministerial office, and instead move to a prominent Parliamentary role (as with the prestige of America’s congressional committees) which would allow a meaningful chance to improve legislation, and keeping the government in check; all of which would strengthen the legislature against an over-mighty executive.

In the chaotic June cabinet reshuffle the PM brought in a record number of Lords, seen by some as an indication of a government low on steam. But packing the Lords is just a small step. Much better to start afresh with a new system, where genuine experts and talented non-parliamentarians fill vacant slots, while also striking a blow against the professionalisation of politics, where too few MPs have experiences outside Westminster. That would be a genuine government of all the talents, and it’s there for the taking.

James Crabtree is Managing Editor of Prospect Magazine.

Related posts:

1. Priority Number One: electoral reform
2. Slash ID cards, cut Trident – it’s time to help the needy
3. Priority Number One: electoral reform
4. Ministers, expenses and the speaker – where next?
5. Some ministers are positioning themselves for election defeat – we need to be working to avoid that calamity