On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, last week, Mr. Justice Kay discontinued the trial of people accused of escaping from Whitemoor prison. One of the reasons that he gave for doing so was the deteriorating health of the accused as a result of the conditions in which they were kept in the prison. Has the Home Secretary given any indication that later today he will seek your leave to interrupt business, to make a statement about the debacle of that trial?

I have not heard from any Minister, and certainly not from the Home Secretary, that he is seeking to make a statement later today, although, of course, the House will be sitting and any Minister is able to make a statement later in the day, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may surprise you to know that in the past, two members of the royal family have communicated their approval to me of campaigns that I have run, but—following "Erskine May"—I have never mentioned that fact in the House. I should like us to consider what is stated on page 376 of "Erskine May": The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament. Today, we heard the use of the Queen's name as approving a controversial decision, and there were similar examples last week. We all regret the fact that the Queen's name has been dragged into a controversial political matter. May we have a ruling on whether the rules of the House have been broken?

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I would refer any Member who is interested to page 376 of "Erskine May", where it reminds us that it is disorderly to use the Queen's name to influence a decision"— or the judgment of this House. In this instance, I heard the remark that was made, but did not hear anything irregular in any of the exchanges this afternoon—just as I did not during the statement last week, although many remarks got close to being objectionable. I should, however, take this opportunity—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter—to remind all Members, whether they are Ministers of the Crown, Front Benchers or Back Benchers, that the Queen's name should not be used in this House during such exchanges.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that, once I have given a ruling, I do not accept further points of order on the subject. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. If he can make a different point, I will of course hear it.

It is an extension of the point.

Now who is rewriting the constitution?

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you will see my point to be an extension. I accept entirely your ruling that one must not use Her Majesty's name in such matters. Is not it also part of the rule that one should not embroil the Crown in party political disputes in the House—which is a wider point? Was not what happened on Wednesday a calculated and deliberate attempt to do just that on the eve of an election? Is not the matter even more serious, given that the statement last week could not have been made without the Prime Minister's consent? If what I have put forward is a rule of the House, should not the Prime Minister therefore come to the House to explain his conspiracy in breaching that rule?

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to involve the Speaker of the House in party political exchanges. I am not prepared to be so involved. I have given my ruling and I stand by it.