On a point of order. I apologise for not notifying you earlier Mr. Speaker, that I intended to raise this point of order. On a number of occasions during Question Time today Ministers have used the following formula in replying to Questions, "It is not our practice to disclose information."

I submit that it is the job of hon. Members to probe Government Departments for information of public interest and concern. Yet, whenever a Minister uses that formula, the Table Office takes it as justification for the rest of the Session to refuse to allow Questions on the subject. It is not unusal for a Minister continually over a period not to give the House the information required, but it surely ought not to prevent hon. Members continuing to probe and to learn from the way that refusals of information are given.

What action can you, Mr. Speaker, take to protect our right to ask Questions about major matters of public importance, even when Ministers have said that it is not their practice to disclose information?

Order. This problem will occasionally arise on Questions about defence. It is for a Minister to decide whether he gives information publicly which he thinks might damage the security of the country. This has happened during all my time in Parliament. I do not think that it can be changed.

Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend has raised a substantial point. Would you, Mr. Speaker, consider making a statement to the House later in the week on the matter? It appears, from what my hon. Friend said, that that form of reply by Ministers may prevent Questions being put at a later date and that this concerns the operation of the Table Office. Therefore, may I ask whether you will make a statement on the important matter that my hon. Friend has put to the House?

Further to that point of order. Although a Minister can reply in any way that he likes, surely Mr. Speaker is the custodian of the Table Office on behalf of the Legislature. I do not think that the Table Office should be motivated in any way by the answers that Ministers give. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will accept that this is a substantial point on which the Legislature should supervene the Executive, at least in the right to ask a Question, whatever the Answer may be.

Further to that point of order. There is a point of substance here. When a Minister says that he cannot give information he may be quite justified. But it ought not to follow that the Table Office should refuse Questions on a particular point at a later stage. Is it possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this matter and advise the House at a later date?

I will certainly look into it. I ruled off the cuff on the specific case put to me. I imagine that the reason always why a Minister refuses to give information is sometimes because of day-to-day business in a nationalised industry and, secondly, because of security. But I will certainly look into the problem. It is not a light one.

Further to that point of order. Is not the point of sub- stance not the undisputed right of a Minister to refuse to answer, but the consequence that a similar Question or a Question in that category is not then accepted by the Table Office? Is it not within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was recently submitted by some of us to the Select Committee on Procedure, which has just reported, so I am in order in referring to it?

As you, Mr. Speaker, gave evidence to that Select Committee, are you not aware that a recommendation was submitted, by at any rate one of us, in the precise terms of the submission by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), but not, I regret, accepted by that Select Committee? Will not the matter, therefore, be likely to come before the House when we consider the Select Committee's Report?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have just had passed to me the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. from which I quote one suggestion that the Committee had put to it: A further proposal was submitted to Your Committee that a Minister's refusal to answer a question should bar the tabling only of such questions as are precisely covered by the original question, and that the rejection of a class of questions as the result of one answer should no longer take place. The Select Committee has considered this matter. Sooner or later the House will be considering the report in which this suggestion has been discussed and its views on it. I will certainly look into the matter.

On that point of order, Sir. Until the House has discussed the Select Committee's Report, is not the power in the control of the Chair? Is it not possible now for the Chair to rule that the inability or the refusal of a Minister to answer does not mean that the Table Office must refuse any other Questions on the same theme?

I have already undertaken to look into this matter and give it careful consideration.