– in the House of Commons at 4:14 pm on 9 June 2008.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that last Thursday, during business questions, I asked the Leader of the House whether she could persuade the Minister for Housing to come to the House to initiate a debate, or make a statement, on the Government's eco-town policy. The Housing Minister perhaps heard half of what I said, because she appeared on "Newsnight" on Friday night to address what she no doubt thought was the nation. Are there any means by which you could persuade her that, once she has got as far as the BBC studio—
Yes, it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is a point of deep frustration that I am raising as a point of order so as to persuade the Housing Minister to go not to a BBC studio for once, but to the House of Commons, to tell us about her eco-towns policy.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is not a point of order, but I am interested in the area referred to, because it once belonged to the great co-operative movement, in which Springburn was involved.
And it still does.
And it still does. It is not a question of me persuading Ministers. Ministers know that they are always very welcome here, and are welcome to make a statement. That point will be heard.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week at business questions, the issue of the privacy of Members' addresses was raised with the Leader of the House. Her house is now subject to—well, it is not quite a terrorist attack, but some people might find it quite terrifying to have people climbing all over their roof. Surely that illustrates why we need further action to protect Members' addresses, and to protect our rights under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
I will not be drawn into the matter, because the issue could come before the courts.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I learned this morning that an oral question of mine that was on the Order Paper had been unstarred by the Home Office without any discussion, or even the courtesy of notification of the occurrence. In my view, the question was in order; it was about the number of offences created by the Government, most of which were undoubtedly created by the Home Office—there are probably some 3,500 such offences, according to the best estimate. What is to stop Ministers and Departments from unstarring questions that it is politically embarrassing for them to answer?
I think that the answer to that latter point is: nothing at all. It might help the hon. Gentleman to hear that transfers are a matter for the Ministers concerned, and not for the Chair, but transfers of oral questions can deprive a Member of the chance to put a question in the House. Oral questions should therefore be transferred with particular care.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that Departments have discretion over whether they answer an oral question. However, I, too, was listed to ask the Home Office a question; it was on migration. If the Government avoid difficult questions by bumping them off to the Cabinet Office, how on earth do we get the Home Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions on migration?
May I say that that is the same point? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to repeat my statement.