On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been a very significant development in the case of Senator Pinochet. The divisional court has now held that he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. The democratic Government of Chile have also made it clear that they want these proceedings to come to an end. In view of those developments, may I ask that the Home Secretary come to the House without further delay—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] Right. I hope that, without any further delay, he will make a full statement on the Government's position. This has dragged on day after day, and we have not had a statement. It is crucial that would should have one. The issue is not answered by the Home Secretary sitting there without saying anything.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us are very concerned that the court decision could result in Pinochet leaving the country without a debate in this House. I recognise that what has happened so far has been strictly in accordance with the rules. The Home Secretary was not in a position to make a statement, because the matter was sub judice. However, should there be any possibility of that former murderous dictator leaving the country, the House should be able to have a debate first.

I have noted the ruling that you gave yesterday, Madam Speaker. However, you will have noted that there have, rightly, been endless articles in the media about Pinochet and the terrible crimes that were committed when he was a dictator. It would be most unfortunate, to say the least, if, because of court rulings, Pinochet were able to leave the country on Thursday, for example, without the House being able to debate the subject. I hope that you will give that careful consideration. I make no apology for my strength of feeling and that of my hon. Friends about that murderous criminal.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you feel that, rather than the Home Secretary being asked to make a statement, it would be helpful if the Attorney-General came to the House to give us some guidance on the international implications of what has happened. Although he has made decisions in that area in a different capacity, what has happened affects our understanding of international law and the circumstances in which people can be prosecuted in one country or another, and kept in a country for that purpose.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that early-day motions on the issue should be suspended. There is strong feeling in the House, and many of my hon. Friends wanted to add their names to those motions. I take it that, as the court has made a ruling and no appeal has yet been lodged, it is possible for the suspension to be lifted. I find the court ruling extraordinary. Is it a clear signal for heads of state such as Saddam Hussein that they can come here and have tea with Margaret Thatcher in future?

As the House is aware, I have no authority as far as Government statements are concerned. Ministers make statements when they consider it appropriate. As the House also knows, the procedures under extradition law and the circumstances of the case involving Senator Pinochet are very complex. I understand that an appeal is pending, but I have had no time to ascertain what the legal position is now, having been in the Chair since 2.30 pm. Until I have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation, I propose to regard the case as still sub judice.

I remind the House, as I did yesterday, that I do not make rules as I go along; I uphold the rules of the House. As soon as it is possible to do so, early-day motions that have been withdrawn from the Order Paper will be returned to it, and hon. Members will be able to question Ministers.