Parliamentary Questions: Cost (Hansard, 27 May 1993)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, any Written Question where the marginal cost of preparing the Answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold of £450 may be referred to the appropriate Minister who may decline to answer in whole or part on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. My Question was intended to be of general application. Is he aware that it was sparked off by a Question put to the Government by his noble friend Lord Tebbit? At col. WA61 of the Official Report of 11th May he put to the Government the following Question: Whether they will list those meetings of the Council of Ministers within the last five years at which directives have been agreed or decisions affecting United Kingdom citizens have been taken which have involved participation by Ministers subsequently arrested for, or known to be under investigation in connection with, financial corruption". The reply was given in the sense as I have already indicated.
Is the noble Lord aware that the information requested by his noble friend ought to be in the possession of the Foreign Office? Alternatively, a few telephone calls to embassies throughout the Community would have yielded the information. Does not his Answer imply that the inference contained in the Question asked by his noble friend is probably true, and on a very wide scale?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, infers his conclusion, having said what he has said. The point is this. Parliamentary Questions are answered without charge. It is a very valuable service to Members of this House. The threshold of £450 focuses attention on 393 cost and the potential scope for abuse. It is always open to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to recast the Question of my noble friend, or indeed to pursue the matter through some other parliamentary or Ministerial route.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House of the cost of answering a Question about the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord should perhaps put down a Question to that effect.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, while ever mindful of the rights and privileges of this House, will the noble Lord say whether the rules which apply in this House as to whether it is worth while paying for the research are the same as in another place?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, yes. The threshold is government-wide and includes both Houses of Parliament.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, will my noble friend advise the House when the threshold was last set and when it is next due for review?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, yes. The cost of PQs was clarified and announced by a PQ on 14th January 1992. The threshold itself was further increased in February 1993. It is a figure which is regularly reviewed. It has been in place since 1965, when the threshold was £50.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, was the reason why the threshold was exceeded in that particular case due to the fact that a large number of cases were involved?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it was certainly a very wide Question which required an enormous amount of research. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, if the Question were recast in a different way, he might receive another answer.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, my noble friend explained that one of the considerations taken into account was whether the information could be obtained by another route. Will he tell me what other route could generate the answer to the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit other than via the lips of the Minister?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not wish to give the impression that there was another non-parliamentary route. There are a number of ways of asking Ministers questions. There are Oral Questions such as this Question. Other forms of questions can be asked. As regards that particular Question for Written Answer, the Answer would have broken the threshold quite substantially.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, in order that we are all aware of the position, will the Minister confirm that there is no advisory limit so far as concerns Oral Questions? If an Oral Question had been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, presumably some Minister could have sanctioned the expenditure so that it could 394 properly be answered. Will he confirm that even when it is a Written Question, if the advisory cost limit looks as though it will be exceeded, and the civil servant says to the Minister, "It looks likely that the cost will go over £450", it is then at the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not to answer the Question, even if the cost is more than £450? Will the noble Lord tell us what criteria the Minister will then adopt? Does he consider the issue and say, "It will cost £450. It is a difficult question. I shall not bother to answer it"? Alternatively, does he say, "It will cost £1,000, but I should like to answer the question. Therefore I shall do so."? Are there any criteria or is it just the length of the Minister's foot?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition started his question off well. He is indeed right that Oral Questions do not have a financial limit because they are different types of Questions and, of course, there are any number of possible supplementary questions.
On the point of Written Questions, yes, when the threshold is broken it is up to the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not that expenditure is worth while. Clearly in this particular case my noble friend decided that it was not worth breaking that rule. Overall, government decide not to answer some 2.2 per cent of all Parliamentary Questions that are put down. I believe that that is a good record and shows the real willingness of Ministers to answer all questions, even when they are difficult.