On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government have released a written ministerial statement on the vexed subject of garden grabbing this afternoon. However, it was clearly briefed to journalists some 24 hours beforehand, as The Daily Telegraph reports not only its contents, but the intended actions of the Minister for Housing. The statement was therefore clearly briefed out with his explicit consent. As you have previously advised, Mr. Speaker,

"Ministers ought to make key statements to the House before they are made elsewhere."-[ Hansard, 24 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 798.]

Would you agree, therefore, that first sight of that important statement should have been given to the House and that it should have been debated?

I hope that the hon. Lady, and more particularly the House, will understand that, in the course of a busy day thus far, my eye has not chanced on the particular article to which she refers. I think that it would be prudent for me, and fair also to the Minister to whom she refers, first to make inquiries and try to check the position and ascertain the vantage point of the Minister before reaching a definitive view. What I can say, however, is twofold. First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the matter. It is in the public interest that she has done so. Secondly, I think that she knows-and the Ministers on the Treasury Bench are also aware-that I strongly deprecate the practice of leaking when it takes place. It is very important to establish the facts in this case, but important statements must be made first to the House. They should not be given to the media, either through direct speech or through briefing by others on Ministers' behalf. I hope very much that that has not happened in this case, but I will look into the matter and revert to the hon. Lady.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the matter of a £21,000 donation that was made to the office of the Shadow Health Secretary on 17 November by a Mrs. John Nash, the wife of the chairman of a private health care company. Was it in order for the hon. Gentleman to lead the Conservative party in the health debate on the Queen's Speech two days later, on 19 November, when he had not registered that interest?

The registration of interests is a matter for Members to undertake, and there are rules within which they must operate. If I were a cynical or suspicious soul, I might suppose for one moment that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to inveigle me into a political debate or argument; but as I am a charitable character, I must assume that that is not his intention.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For clarification for Members, if donations-for instance, to the Health Secretary, whose office I have notified that I would be raising this point of order-are properly declared, they do not influence policy, so where is the problem in what is being brought up?

I have already ruled on the matter. Just as I was charitable enough to conclude that Mr. Harris, from the Government Back Benches, was not seeking to inveigle me into an argument, I feel sure that, notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary, Mr. Bone is not seeking to persist, or to encourage me to persist, with any such argument. That would be very wrong, and the hon. Gentleman would not invite me to do anything that was very wrong.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House will have been expecting a statement on Cadbury today. It cannot be right that a successful, progressive, iconic British company can be taken over by a foreign predator for short-term gains, with huge potential long-term dangers. Will you make inquiries as to whether a Minister will come to the House and make a statement?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. A decision on whether to volunteer a statement is, of course, a matter for the Government. Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and their colleagues in the relevant Department, will have heard the point of order. I think that it is fair to say that Members who have an interest in the matter will be looking for, and are almost certainly already exploring, other means by which the matter can be highlighted in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and hope that Ministers will have noted it. I feel sure that we have not yet heard the end of the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Shortly after your election, I suggested to you that it would be a useful democratic innovation if those Cabinet Ministers based in the House of Lords were able to come to the Commons to answer departmental questions-a point to which you responded in a positive manner. I appreciate that those Cabinet Ministers now respond in the Lords, but that does not quite meet my concerns. Can you update the House on the latest position on that matter?

As the House will know, Norman Baker is usually conversant with what is going on and takes a keen interest in all such matters. He will, I am sure, be aware that there have been ongoing discussions on the subject. It is no secret that I have commented on the issue, underlining the importance of Lords Ministers' accountability to the House. Indeed, I have done so recently in a number of speeches and interviews.

I should say to the hon. Gentleman, in case he is not aware of it, that I have asked the Procedure Committee to look at the matter, and have encouraged it to do so with some dispatch, as, frankly, this is not a matter of any complexity. It does not require the garnering of large quantities of written or spoken evidence. What is sought is the expression of an opinion and the reaching of a judgment. Certainly, I am keen that we should not delay reaching a satisfactory conclusion on this important matter. I call Dr. Bob Spink.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most obliged. Have you had notice that a Minister will make an early statement to the House about today's Court of Appeal judgment in favour of Meletios Apostolides and against Orams, which establishes enforceable property rights for Cypriot refugees? We should have such a statement so that no more British people make the expensive mistake of buying occupied Cypriot property from the Turkish occupiers-property that must be returned to the rightful owners without compensation.

What the hon. Gentleman has raised is, I am sure, a matter of great interest, and possibly also of considerable complexity. I have to admit that it is a matter on which my ignorance is unequalled by any other Member of the House. What is more, it is not obvious to me, as of this moment, that it constitutes a point of order, but the Minister for Europe is stirring from his seat, and I feel sure that we will hear his words of wisdom.

Well, I do know slightly more about this subject that you do, Mr. Speaker, so might I help? The judgment was given only this morning; we hope to update the House as soon as possible.

Well, we seem to have exhausted points of order. We are all very grateful for that, and none more so than the person responsible for the ten-minute Bill, Mr. Frank Doran.