Mr. De la BèreI desire, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention a matter of which I have given you previous notice. On Monday, 24th May, I handed in two questions at the Table in connection with agriculture. Those questions were rejected, and I was asked to come to the Table and explain. I was told that one dealing with the fertility of the soil was out of order as it had been answered in a previous question. In regard to the other one, no reason was assigned. On Wednesday I handed in two other questions and asked that if the other two were ruled out these might be substituted for them. No real reason was given for the rejection of the two questions I put in on Monday except that an answer from the Minister of Agriculture was expected on Thursday. Since I am not wrong, would you be so good as to put this matter right?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member will understand that there are certain rules and regulations regarding questions handed in at the Table, and the question whether they are put on the Order Paper or not rests entirely with me and with nobody else. It is certainly not the practice, and it would be establishing a bad precedent, for hon. Members whose questions have been refused at the Table to be given the reasons for their refusal in the House afterwards. I think we had better adhere to that practice. The present system meets, I think, with the general approval of the House.
§ Mr. ThurtleMay we take it it is not the case that you felt that the safety of the Government was gravely imperilled that you refused to accept these questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat was not one of my reasons.