What if we only had 100 MPs?

Over on the Platform, John Leonard argues that calls to reduce the number of MPs are misplaced.  In particular he responds to Iain Martin making one of the more radical calls so far to reduce the number of MPs.  Martin calls for the number to fall to around 400.

It seems worth looking a little into the analytical issues raised by cutting the number of MPs or maintaining our present number of representatives.  There are a number of questions to consider in assessing the number of MPs that is appropriate.

1.  How does the number of MPs in Britain compare to the numbers in other national parliaments?

I've done some sums on this to compare the number of people per member of various national parliaments and assemblies.  Britain does appear to be particularly MP heavy, we have roughly 94 thousand people per MP in the House of Commons.  Other countries tend to have significantly more people per Member:

• Canada is the closest to the British level, at around 103 thousand people per MP in the House of Commons.
• France has around 113 thousand people per Deputy in the National Assembly.
• Germany has around 134 thousand people per Member of the Bundestag.
• Australia has around 145 thousand people per Representative in the House of Representatives.
• Japan has around 265 thousand people per Representative in the House of Representatives. 
• The United States has around 694 thousand people per Congressman in the House of Representatives.

Interestingly, the gap is even more pronounced in the upper houses.  Most countries have significantly fewer members in their upper houses while we have even more Lords than we do MPs.  There are over 3 million Americans for every Senator whereas we have a Lord for every 82 thousand people.

All this shows that cuts are possible.  It is possible to run a system much like ours with somewhat fewer representatives, Canada and Australia are running fairly similar systems of government to our own. Beyond that, there are relatively efficient public sectors run with massively fewer representatives per person, for example the US and Japan score considerably higher in the ECB's ranking of public sector efficiency than we do.  If we had the same number of representatives per person as the United States the Commons would be reduced to under 100 MPs.

2.  What are the advantages of having fewer Members?

I can see a number of crucial advantages in having fewer MPs:

Cost

- it would be reasonable to expect cost savings from employing fewer MPs as there is a certain fixed cost to paying and maintaining a parliamentarian.  Those cost savings would be somewhat limited by necessarily increasing their staffs in order to reflect the increased status of MPs representing significantly more people.

Greater scrutiny and accountability

- there are, to be honest, plenty of fairly anonymous MPs who attract little attention from anyone outside their constituency.  That only changes if they do a truly exceptional job as a back bencher, are singled out for promotion by the party leadership or are exposed as corrupt.  Fewer MPs would mean more attention would be paid to both to misbehaviour and strong performance by an MP.

Investigative journalism is, at least for the moment, in long term decline.  A variety of pressures are making it more difficult to justify the time and expense it incurs.  With so many MPs, it is both harder to keep an eye on them all and less critical when they are found to be corrupt.  If we had fewer MPs it seems far more likely that corruption would be exposed, MPs would know that and there would probably be less corruption.

On the other hand, the opinions of MPs would become more important as they would no longer be drowned out in the crowd.  A speech by an MP taking a position would be a serious matter as it would have a greater potential effect on any vote that might take place.  That would encourage journalists, parties and constituents to take a greater interest in the positions that MPs take.  When an MP made a dynamite speech like Dan Hannan's recent barnstormer there would be much less chance no one would hear but a few whips only interested in the extent the MP pushes the party line.

More independent thinking

- increasing the status of individual MPs, by making them more significant in Commons votes and giving them a bigger democratic mandate, should mean they are more able and inclined to think for themselves.  They won't depend, for their status, on favour from the party leadership to anything like the same extent.

If MPs are less reliant on favour with the party leadership that will mean they can think more freely.  That should mean better scrutiny of legislation as advancing up the administration, or shadow administration, hierarchy would no longer be the measure of an MP.  MPs could pay more attention to their role as legislators and less to trying to become part of the administration.  Improving parliamentary scrutiny of laws is vital to a number of objectives including lessening the burden of regulation on business and reducing the extent of judicial aristocracy (which is legitimised by Parliament not doing the job it should do under the traditional British constitution).

Also, MPs less subservient to the party leadership will be better able to reflect the views of their constituents.  With more attention from outside, breaking ranks to represent a view popular outside SW1 but unpopular within it will be more likely to prove worthwhile.

3.  What are the disadvantages of having fewer Members?

There are clearly some potential disadvantages of shrinking the number of Members:

Increasing the strength of the payroll vote

- if the payroll vote remained at around 100 MPs then Iain Martin's plan to reduce the number of MPs to 400 would mean that a Government would get almost half the votes they needed just from those connected to the Executive.  Adding those who hope to imminently become a part of the Government already leaves that vote much larger in practice than theory.  Having such a large share of the Commons attached to the Government would clearly undermine the great advantage of cutting the number of Members, encouraging independent thought and political activity.  If this problem cannot be overcome, then cutting the number of MPs might become entirely a bad idea.  An obsession with the ministerial or shadow ministerial hierarchy is already one of the worst traits of the Commons.

Reducing the capacity for MPs to personally get involved in constituency work

- with far more constituents per MP it is less likely that any one constituent will be able to get their MP to pay personal attention to their problems.  Personally, I'm not sure this is quite as big a deal as it sounds.  After all, is bringing our lawmakers in to crack heads really the best way to hold public services to account?  There are a number of limitations:

1)  You are extremely reliant on the MP in question seeing your complaint as legitimate and politically expedient to act upon.  What do you do if your MP disagrees with you?  Will an MP from the party of government pursue an issue on behalf of a constituent if that risks embarassing the Government?
2)  This necessarily distracts MPs from their extremely important primary function of ensuring that we have the right set of laws.
3)  Most MPs have little hard power.  That doesn't mean an MP weighing in isn't significant, it often is, but if a public service ignores an MP's pleas on behalf of their constituent, and the Government don't care to take up the issue, there isn't a lot an MP can do.

As such, while I imagine MPs will always have a role in representing their constituents' interests directly, as well as through putting in place the right legal framework, I think in many cases there are better ways of holding public services to account.

It should, though, be noted that neither of these objections applies to the House of Lords.  It seems eminently worthwhile to reduce the number of Peers.  That might not save the same amount of money cuts in the Commons could, as Peers don't receive nearly as much, and the party structures are already a lot weaker in the upper house.  However, it would increase their individual status and, in doing so, make them a more effective counterweight to the power of the Commons and particularly the Executive.  In a large group, like the Lords right now, it is far too easy to feel that your individual actions aren't important enough to be worth getting right.  I think it is quite possible that, with all the debate over how they are selected, we haven't paid nearly enough attention to other potential reforms of the Lords like reducing their number.

4.  How is the choice of the number of Members affected by other reforms?

It seems that the two shortcomings of a smaller House of Commons which I've discussed point to a single conclusion.  Reducing the number of MPs can't be a measure that stands alone but has to be part of a broader decentralising agenda, some examples of complementary policies include:

Free schools, held to account by parents - this clearly reduces the need for ministers to 'run' the  education system in Britain.  At the same time, parents frustrated about their local school will be able to take their business elsewhere, rather than just hope that their MP complaining on their behalf can put things straight.

Elected commissioners for the police - this would mean that policing was no longer controlled from a spreadsheet in Whitehall and could, again, reduce the need for ministers.  It would also provide a means for the public to directly hold the police to account when they felt the service was inadequate, when at the moment they have little recourse except complaining to their MP.

A reformed, competitive health service - whether it is modelled along the lines seen in the Netherlands, Singapore or Switzerland or is a creation of our own - a healthcare system where people can take their business elsewhere would leave them less reliant on support from their MP.  And, it would mean fewer organisations accountable only to the NHS hierarchy, reducing the need for ministers.

If we can get politicians out of the business of trying to run public services, from the centre, and get them focussed on forming and scrutinising legislation, then it will become very plausible to cut the number of MPs.  Then, they can do their actual job better at lower cost.