§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This afternoon we seem to have fallen among lawyers, of whom I am not one. Is it not a tradition of the House that those occupying the great positions of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have special obligations to the House, outwith party politics, and one of those obligations is to give direct and factual answers to questions? You will have noticed that, on Question 29, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), no direct answer was forthcoming, either to the original question or to the supplementary question. Is there nothing you can do about these lawyers?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that—whether it is the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General or any Minister of the Crown—they respond to questions as they think fit. It is not for the Speaker to make further comments on the answers given by Ministers of the Crown.
§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerIt cannot be a further point of order on that issue, because there is nothing more I can do about it.
§ Mr. BatisteIt is a separate point of order on the same issue, Madam Speaker. Have you noticed that, on many occasions in the House and outside, laymen who do not like the advice they get from lawyers often complain about it? Would it not enhance the proceedings of the House if the Law Officers were not criticised for party political reasons?
§ Madam SpeakerThat is a very reasonable comment.