HC Deb 27 January 1982 vol 16 cc886-8
Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is an understandable tradition of the House that right hon. and hon. Members do not read their questions, and on most normal occasions it is intolerable if they do so. There are certain delicate and difficult industrial situations involving thousands of jobs, such as the current position of Leyland and Bathgate, where it is sensible, if one is to have a serious answer, to give notice some hours before to a Secretary of State because the question may be complex and difficult. I therefore informed the Scottish Ofice. The difficulty in some situations is that if one were to repeat exactly the question of which one has given notice to the Secretary of State, who is geared to answer that precise question, it would involve reading it. I therefore apologise to the House if I have been discourteous, but that is the background to the matter.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We must keep to our rule that questions are not read; otherwise we shall change the character of Question Time in the House. I am sure that the hon Gentleman will bear with me when I say that he has the ability to memorise the substance of the question that he wished to put—

Mr. Dalyell

Not the exact words.

Mr. Speaker

Well, it was the substance that was important.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the question, to which you briefly replied, about the change in the form of the Order Paper on this occasion, because it is an important issue of which the House should take cognisance. It is constantly emphasised by Prime Ministers of both parties that the Law Officers are independent and are not subject to any Department. The English equivalent of what happened today would be the Home Secretary purporting to answer questions tabled to the Attorney-General.

I do not criticise either you, Mr. Speaker, or any Officers of the House, but is it not a grave discourtesy on the part of the Government to prevent the House, by the ordering of questions, about which the Government know perfectly well, from scrutinising a Law Officer in carrying out his specific responsibilities by putting up a member of the Government who, by his very office, is quite unable to give the sort of responses to questions that a properly appointed Law Officer could give?

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question was the first question on the Order Paper to the Solicitor-General for Scotland today. I was not informed in advance that he would not answer it, or that it would be answered by one of the junior Ministers in the Scottish Office. This is the first time since I have been in the House that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland has turned up for Scottish Question Time. I hear rumours that the five Scottish Tory advocates on the Government Benches are so out of touch or out of favour that the Government are likely to call in an outsider from the legal establishment in Edinburgh to take over the job of Solicitor-General. If that is so, would it be in order for the House of Commons to summon the Lord Advocate or the new Solicitor-General for Scotland to the Bar of the House at Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Speaker

Order. First, I remind the House that in 1974 the Secretary of State for Scotland answered this type of question. So the situation is not without precedent; it did happen in 1974.

Mr. Canavan

Before I was here.

Mr. Speaker

I was here. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what I have said is factual.