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.
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.
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.
I can see a number of crucial advantages in having fewer MPs: Cost Greater scrutiny and accountability
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
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.
There are clearly some potential disadvantages of shrinking the number of Members: Increasing the strength of the payroll vote Reducing the capacity for MPs to personally get involved in constituency work
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.
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.
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:
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.