I am a tad disappointed at the lack of coverage today of a short but important report from the Public Administration Select Committee.

In “Too Many Ministers” we chart the relentless rise in the number of Ministers and their bag carriers, the Parliamentary Private Secretary or PPS.

I was a PPS many, many years ago but resigned over planned cuts to lone parent benefits. And I was never invited back. That’ll teach him!

But, back to the report…

Bloated Governments are not good for anyone. In fact, too many Ministers can be positively harmful. Add to the payroll vote a swelling complement of PPSs and the dangers multiply.

PPSs see the “job” as a sign of preferment. Many believe they are on a fast track to a Ministerial job. The reality is different.

They are there to swell the payroll vote, minimizing the possibility of dissent in the Parliamentary Party which would be significant and widespread enough to influence Government policy.

Most do not sign Early Day Motions, even the most innocuous. Though a few brave souls do.

I’ve even heard the timid words: “I am not allowed to sign” and I scream silently.

EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE 00:01 am 16^th March 2010

TOO MANY MINISTERS, SAYS PASC

The Public Administration Select Committee today publishes a report calling for substantial reductions in the number of government ministers and in the wider payroll vote in the House of Commons.

The report notes that there are currently 119 ministers in the United Kingdom Government, in addition to those in the devolved institutions. The Committee is sceptical about claims that this reflects the growing complexity of government, noting that in the years around 1950 the government created the welfare state, undertook major nationalisations and administered the British Empire with only 81 ministers. Indeed, the Indian national government runs a country of over a billion people with only 78 ministers.

Drawing on evidence from a wide range of people who have held high-level positions in central government PASC concludes that some junior ministerial posts are unnecessary. Moreover, the Committee concludes that an excessive number of posts is harmful to good government , costly and inefficient—even where ministers are unpaid.

The Committee also expresses concern about the size of the ‘payroll vote’ in the House of Commons, which now comprises nearly 40 per cent of the governing Parliamentary Party.

The Committee’s key recommendations are:

• A reduction in the number of ministers of around one third;
• Steps to close the loop-hole whereby unpaid ministers do not count against some statutory limits on the numbers of ministers;
• Halving the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries by restricting them to one for each Department or Cabinet Ministers and abolishing Parliamentary Assistants to Regional Ministers; and
• A limit on the total size of the payroll vote in the House of Commons of 15 per cent of its total membership.

The Chair of the Committee, Dr Tony Wright MP, said:

“The number of ministers has been growing ever since the 1950s, driven in part by the desire of Prime Ministers to hand out patronage positions and secure votes in the House of Commons. Some junior ministers do important and difficult jobs. However, there are too many and it is absurd that civil servants should be having to make work for those who are underemployed. The size of the payroll vote is excessive and reduces effective scrutiny of government decisions. It cannot be the case that the United Kingdom needs more ministers at a national level than India, a country twenty times its size, or right that the number of ministers should have continued to increase despite the end of Empire, large-scale privatisation and devolution.”