Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Chris Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am reminded of that great fictional character Sir Humphrey Appleby, who once observed that a party with 300 members gets to form a Government, but 100 are too young and too callow, and 100 are too old and too silly, so the Government pretty much select themselves. I congratulate the Minister on making it into the middle group.

On the subject of second jobs, being a Minister is essentially a second job, for which the Minister is remunerated. Does he not feel that it is a bit mean-spirited to pull up the drawbridge on other MPs who might desire to have a second job, just as he does?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question agreed to.