Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Gavin Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate. Speaking in a debate where there is no time limit attached to the speeches made is a rarity and an opportunity that we should all relish and take advantage of.

I must confess that when I saw the title of this Bill, the radical in me was excited. I thought that the Government were going to do something bold, visionary and different, but sadly that opportunity to do something different seems to have passed them by. Instead of listening to what the Chancellor has said about some of the great challenges that this country faces in balancing the books and ensuring that we have the ability to pay our way and make savings in government all the way from the top to the bottom, the Cabinet Office seems to have gone on a little jolly of its own. It has decided to do something completely different and expand the cost of doing government. That is not quite what the British public are asking for.

Before this debate, I thought I had best check my emails, because I was wondering when I last had a deluge of emails—or even one email—calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. I searched my emails over the past month, and I could not find one. I searched over the past year, and I could not find one. I went all the way back over 16 years, desperately searching for an email calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State and more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, and I found none whatsoever.

I am concerned for the health of this Government, who are having a few difficulties. Are they doing things that the public do not want? I do not think there is a great demand for more Ministers. I urge the Minister to look again at this legislation. I agree with one element of the Bill—that if a person is being asked to do a job, they should get a wage for it—but why not bring down the number of people who can be Ministers? Why not turn this Bill into a saving for the Government and the Treasury? That will earn the Minister great plaudits from No. 11. He will probably be hailed; he will probably be earmarked for promotion, so that he can get one of the reduced number of Secretary of State positions.

I question why, at this time, the Government are bringing forward legislation enabling them to expand the Government payroll. I remember that when I was Chief Whip, I would often be confronted with Members of Parliament who were quite willing to do a job without any pay as long as they were going to be called “Minister”. Admittedly, that was many years ago—maybe things have changed—but I worry about sending the message that we have found the time to pass legislation to pay more people to be Ministers. What the public want to hear is that the Government and this House are tackling the issues that impact their lives. They want to hear that this House is tackling the issues that will make a difference to their living standards, not those of Members of Parliament and Ministers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is waxing lyrical about the Bill, but the fact of the matter is that my constituents are facing an oil cost of over $100 a barrel, are paying more tax and having less money to spend, and are wondering how having more Ministers will make an ineffective Government more effective. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this only adds to the disconnect felt by people in the street—the ones telling me what is happening, what is going on and how we can make it better?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices.

I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers. We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth.

The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments. Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Was any consideration given to reducing the ministerial total, as against increasing it, in preparing this Bill?

[Chris Ward]

The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.

Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.

Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.

The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings.

The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Ward]

I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?