Want a more streamlined and effective government? Then cut the Cabinet down to size

Not many would claim that the current cabinet system has been working well, and it could be slimmed down quite easily

When he was Prime Minister over half a century ago Harold Macmillan commissioned a new table around which the Cabinet should meet. Its distinctive coffin shape was intended to give Macmillan, as chairman, a line of sight to all attending the meeting. Macmillan had started out with a Cabinet of 17 but this increased over his seven-year term of office to 23.

When David Cameron’s coalition Cabinet last met there were no fewer than 33 politicians at the table. Indeed the table itself has had to be extended to crush the full membership, together with the Cabinet Secretary and note takers, around it.

Attending Cabinet when not a full member is not new. In 1979, Norman Fowler, the transport minister, was not a full member of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. But it was Gordon Brown who created a two-tier Cabinet in 2007, by having 23 full members and nine others who were invited to attend when relevant business was being discussed. Mr Cameron has continued the two-tier approach and now has 22 full members plus 11 who attend every meeting, not just those meetings when their business is on the agenda.

It can reasonably be argued that the business of government has become more complicated over the years. It can also be argued that, in May 2010, one of the things Mr Cameron had to do was expand the Cabinet to accommodate the Liberal Democrats. And he introduced what might be termed associate membership of the Cabinet to avoid alienating too many of his Conservative colleagues.

But should more complex government, or coalition government, mean bigger government? Churchill’s coalition war cabinet contained only eight people. And the grand old man's post-war Cabinet in 1951 had only 16 members. Other countries manage with far fewer around the top table than in Britain today. In France President Hollande has reduced his cabinet to 18, while Chancellor Merkel’s coalition cabinet has 17 members, the same as President Obama’s. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon manages a cabinet with 10 members, each of whom has a more integrated and cross-cutting policy portfolio than their Westminster counterparts.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better. Not many would claim that the British system of cabinet government has worked well in recent decades or that the role played by the Cabinet has enhanced the quality of decision making. On the contrary, it is a frequent charge in memoirs of recent Cabinet ministers that there was little or no scrutiny or even discussion of proposals at Cabinet.

It’s not as if big boards are favoured in business. BP, one of Britain’s most successful companies, has a board of 14 executive and non-executive directors. The board of the Ford Motor Company has 16 members. Apple has only eight.

So a big Cabinet cannot be essential for effective government. Rather, it may be more about managing people and political factions. And there is surely a risk after the election that in horse-trading over coalitions more rather than fewer Cabinet posts will be offered.

Despite the obvious temptations, no recent Prime Minister has felt bold enough to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act, last amended in 1975, to create more paid Cabinet posts. Given the MPs’ expenses scandal, the idea that the solution might lie in more paid ministers would be seen as asking for trouble.

Whatever the outcome of the election, any Chancellor will be looking for further big cuts in management costs in the civil service and across the public sector. A further reduction of 25 per cent over the period of spending review has been suggested. Some people have spoken about the need for a smaller House of Commons and a smaller House of Lords (now one of the largest legislatures in the world). Might cutting the number of Cabinet and other ministers be a good place to start? Labour has suggested a 5 per cent cut in ministerial salaries. What about a bolder approach? Why not cut the numbers of ministers by a third? This reform would not even need legislation: the law sets maximum not minimum numbers of ministers.

Here is a proposal offered in advance of the election, hoping to avoid the situation where ministerial appointments are made by an exhausted prime minister over the weekend after the election. The Cabinet could be slimmed down to 16, half the current size, quite easily. The Deputy Prime Minister could be responsible for Communities and Local Government, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Chancellor would, as now, oversee the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Foreign Secretary could oversee the International Development Secretary; the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary could oversee the Culture Media and Sport Secretary; and an Environment, Energy and Climate Change Secretary could take over both Defra and DECC. And the Leaders of both the House of Commons and House of Lords should be full members – recognising the inevitable importance of Parliament after the election.

The Attorney General and Chief Whip would need to attend but that would take the numbers up to only 18.

None of these changes would entail time-consuming and morale-sapping changes to Whitehall departments. Yet they would be a start of creating a smaller, more streamlined and more effective cabinet government. It might even contribute to restoring trust in politicians. At the very least the whole Cabinet could once again fit around Macmillan’s original table.

Alun Evans is Chief Executive (Designate) of the British Academy and a former senior civil servant, most recently the head of the Scotland Office