House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Apr 1990

Column 1727

with an alcohol content of 1 per cent., not 0.5 per cent. as the Bill sets out. The Minister's case, which was put much better than I could have done, made it clear why we have settled on 0.5 per cent. I wanted a level that was widely accepted throughout the industry. We must consider not only the brewers but the wine, cider and shandy producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes entirely forgot about those products in his argument.

I am afraid that the matter raised by Guinness Brewing GB is a vested interest. If the amendment were carried, the company would be in almost a monopoly position. It alone would be able to provide low-alcohol and no- alcohol drinks and everything else would have to be licensed. That would do us no good in respect of youth clubs or letting the housewife know that children can go to the corner shop and buy any drink, and that it will not contain alcohol that could affect them. It would be wrong to put one brewer in that position, which would be the effect of my hon. Friend's amendment.

The flavour of drinks and their ability to attract people to consume only those drinks would be massively reduced if the amendment were accepted. There would not be the variety of tastes. Certainly, wines and ciders could not be reduced to the level of alcohol in my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that that will find favour with hon. Members and that they will reject the possibility of proceeding to 0.05 per cent.

Mr. Gale : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I have had more than my fair share of time today. Will he reaffirm that, unamended, his Bill will allow a wide range of good British-made products to be made available to the public and in youth clubs?

Sir Peter Emery : Yes, yes and yes again.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made some helpful and interesting remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. He made several genuine points. Further clarification of the licensing laws is something that we should all like. I have already dealt with under-age drinking. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support from the Front Bench.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) also supported the Bill. He raised a genuine point about the accuracy of some of its wording. I believe that we have got it right, but I shall look at it again to make certain that, before it goes to another place, it is right.

In the hope that we shall not have many more speeches, I believe that the Bill will set a new era for youth clubs and make young people realise that it is not necessary to go to the pub and break the law in order to enjoy a social occasion. They can enjoy social drinking of low-alcohol drinks. Parents can encourage their children to participate in such occasions and Churches, youth club leaders and educationists can sponsor the social activities that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mentioned. I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friends not to press any of the amendmets and that we can get on with the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

Short title, commencement and extent

Miss Widdecombe : I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 20 leave out from appoint' to end of line 22.

Column 1728

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this we shall take amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out 30th June 1992' and insert 1st January 1994'.

Miss Widdecombe : I shall not detain the House for long on amendment No. 7 because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) wishes to speak to his amendment, amendment No. 11, which is a halfway mark between what I wanted to do and what the Bill currently proposes. I am happy to leave the matter in his capable hands instead of pressing my amendment because I am aware that other hon. member wish to speak.

I fully understand the frustrations of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about what has happened this morning. However, some of us have a solid record of speaking on licensing matters. I do so regularly and felt strongly in principle about the amendment that I moved earlier, although in practice it proved to be wrong. I apologised at the beginning of my speech for the fact that there would be times when I would be absent from the Chamber. I am now happy--

Mr. Dalyell : I acknowledge straightaway that the hon. Lady has shown me absolute courtesy. What I object to is hon. Members making speeches as long as that made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr Brown) and then not being present to hear the Minister's reply.

Miss Widdecombe : I do not wish to delay the House any longer by arguing the toss on that one. I am happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) can speak to his amendment, but if he wishes to pursue it, I shall ask him to move it formally later.

Sir Peter Emery : I have been persuaded to give a longer period to Government before the essential introduction of the Bill and to extend the date from the middle of June 1992 to 31 December 1994. I am not willing to see the Bill pass through the House only to sit, like some private Members' legislation, on the shelf without being introduced simply because it requires a statutory instrument from the Government. I wanted to ensure that there was a date on which the provisions had to be implemented. I am happy for the Government to introduce the provisions earlier and we have given them the powers so to do through a statutory instrument.

I have been persuaded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that because of the need to attempt to reach an agreement in the European Economic Community on labelling, and so that the industry would not have to implement two labelling alterations, implementation of the provisions might take longer than the period up to mid-1992. That being the case, it seemed reasonable to accede to the Ministry's request. I thought that another 18 months was long enough for the industry to get its finger out and to get on with the job. I hope that that is agreeable to the Government.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The original provisions allowed insufficient time for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to bring in the necessary labelling changes because they involved EEC regulations. The extra time will be extremely valuable to

Column 1729

my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton that the Government not only want to see the legislation on the statute book, but want it brought into effect. There will be no delay on the Government's part and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his co- operation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Do I understand that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) wishes to withdraw amendment No. 7?

Miss Widdecombe : Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made : No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out 30th June 1992' and insert 1st January 1994'.-- [Sir P. Emery.]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

1.58 pm

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I shall detain the House for only a moment. While I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the great progress that has been made today in bringing this Bill towards the statute book, I should like to comment on the role of the law in backing up the splendid efforts of not only my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic but his predecessor, in encouraging the brewers to produce and market effectively lower-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers and other beverages. Remarkable progress has been made during the past few years. This step, more than any other, has had an effect on drink driving.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : Does my hon. Friend agree that a great virtue of the British system of Government is that this progress has been made voluntarily and by the action of independent interests rather than, as happens in so many countries, by means of statutory regulation?

Mr. Waller : I agree with my hon. Friend. The effect of random breath testing would be minuscule compared with the work that has been done to encourage people to drink beverages that are unlikely to lead them to drive while under the influence of alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has backed up that approach by introducing sensible legislation which will work hand-in-hand with the voluntary efforts being made. I congratulate him on promoting the Bill and I look forward to it becoming law.

2 pm

Mr. Dalyell : May I address, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in two different capacities? First, he should be congratulated

Column 1730

on promoting the Bill. However, there is a great lacuna in the House of Commons. We pass legislation, but there is no systematic monitoring of what we have achieved. In a year or so, therefore, it would be interesting if there could be an Adjournment debate on how the proposals have worked out in practice and whether they have led to the strides forward for which some of us hope.

Secondly, the hon. Member is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that he will not just go away and forget what has happened today. There are lessons to be drawn from this debate. The Select Committee on Procedure should consider how we go about our business.

2.1 pm

Sir Peter Emery : I very much liked the first suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that both he and I will be able to consider monitoring not just this Bill but other private Members' Bills to find out whether they have been brought into operation and whether they are achieving what it was hoped they would achieve. We need to follow up what we have passed to find out whether we have been successful. If one is trying to make profits, that is particularly important. There is just as much reason to do that for social and educational reasons. That applies especially to those who are concerned about the consumption of alcohol and drunkenness.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the second matter that he has drawn to my attention. If he does, it will, as he knows, be dealt with by the Select Committee on Procedure. I thank my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for their support ; it has been excellent throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank, too, the Government for their support. I was praised for the drafting of the Bill. It would be unfair not to acknowledge that I had assistance from the Home Office to ensure that the drafting was correct. I should not want that fact to be unknown. I thank the Minister sincerely for his support.

When the Bill becomes law, I hope that we shall send out a message to youth clubs, Church organisations and all those who are trying to deal with the problem of alcohol consumption by young people that this new structure will allow them to provide for the consumption of low-alcohol drinks in youth clubs and at other social gatherings. Parents will have the assurance that their children can go to those gatherings knowing that there will be no fear of drunkenness or alcoholism. If we have achieved that today we shall have gone a long way towards dealing with one of the social problems with which society has to deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1731

Horses (Protective Headgearfor Young Riders) Bill As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

Provision of headgear

Any person who owns, controls or possesses horses which are or may be available to be ridden by young people under the age of 18 (whether or not for hire or reward) shall be under a duty to make available a supply of headgear which satisfies the provisions of regulations issued under Section 2(b) of this Act.'.-- [Miss Widdecombe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.5 pm

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall not be pressing any of the other amendments that have been selected by Mr. Speaker, but I feel particularly strongly about new clause 2 and wish to speak to it, even given the restrictions on time.

The new clause seeks to put an absolute legal obligation on anyone who has horses available for riding without it having to be a commercial enterprise. The horses do not have to be available for riding for financial benefit or reward, they merely have to be available to be ridden by young persons. If I have any regret about the scope of the Bill, it is that it is limited to young riders and does not cover everyone. That said, it would be wrong for headgear to be made compulsory only in those establishments where young people could pay money to hire a horse and not if someone was lending a horse to the daughter of a neighbour, for example.

Most of us who derive great pleasure from riding are aware of the necessary protection that headgear provides. But I am sad, because the design of riding headgear could have been tidied up, specified and made subject to statutory regulation within the scope of the Bill. I speak with some feeling, having been thrown from a horse when I was younger than 18 and wearing the necessary headgear. I was wearing the standard design which is favoured by many riders--a peaked hard hat. A bull bellowed over a gate like a trumpet at the last judgment, and my horse reared up and threw me on to a hard road. I was not hurt by the fall beyond a few scrapes and bruises, but the force of the fall drove the hat down across my nose. Although it did not break it, it did a substantial amount of damage and was the only real injury that I sustained from the fall. Another form of headgear that is gradually becoming more favoured by riding schools, but not so much by individual riders, resembles a motorcycle helmet. it does not have a peak which can be forced down by a fall, so it protects the head without the possibility of damage being caused by the hat itself.

Any young person who rides his or her own horse or pony, a hired horse or a borrowed horse, in any place and in whatever conditions, should be made by law to wear protective headgear. It is very tempting to think, "I am only taking the horse down to the field. I am not out riding, so I do not need to put anything on my head and I do not want to have to go back to the house and fetch a hat." Young people are particularly prone to such lazy thoughts. Even on a 10-yard journey, if the horse reacts unexpectedly, even an expert rider can be thrown and

Column 1732

sustain severe head injuries. If we make headgear a legal requirement for motor cyclists, we should certainly make it obligatory for young people riding horses. I do not wish to develop that theme, but I shall press new clause 2 because the scope of the Bill is not wide enough and will leave many people vulnerable to injuries that can be sustained when riding.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I shall be brief. If my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) looks at clause 2(1)(b) she will see that the description of the protective headgear to be worn by children is carefully and firmly covered. It is important that that should be so and I take my hon. Friend's point. I was sorry to hear about my hon. Friend's nasty accident, but I hope that it will not colour her attitude to this important Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At 11 am, I raised a point of order, since when it has appeared on the tapes that the transcript of the conversations between the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and a third agency have, according to Downing street, come to light. Will the Government consider making a statement at 2.30 pm?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : That is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard.

Mr. Greenway : I have two reasons for asking my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone not to press new clause 2. First, owners of horses cannot possibly provide headgear for all the sizes of heads of children who will be required to wear it to ride horses. The safe, secure and firm fitting of headgear for riders is important. If headgear is not firm, safe and secure, it is valueless. One problem with the 80 per cent. of children under 14 who already wear protective headgear is that they may wear any protective headgear, but the Bill overcomes that and ensures that it is carefully and suitably fitted.

My second reason is on health grounds. I run a riding scheme for deprived and disabled children in London. In the early days of the scheme, 26 years ago, we provided the riding establishments that children attended for instruction with a range of 30 protective hats. The parents of the children did not like them wearing them for health reasons, and we must accept that important point.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone will understand that I am not happy about new clause 2, but I accept the warm spirit in which she moved it.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in resisting new clause 2, but I must say at the outset that I oppose the provisions of the Bill as a whole.

One reason why the new clause is not appropriate is that many riding schools simply do not cater for or require children to ride on a road. Those schools may be located in fields some distance from a road. The new clause will make it necessary for all riding establishments to provide protective headgear whether or not they intend or envisage young people riding on roads.

Miss Widdecombe : I do not follow the force of my hon. Friend's argument. It does not matter whether someone is riding on a field or road. If someone is going full gallop

Column 1733

across a field, he could damage himself quite horribly by falling off. Surely the Bill's purpose is to protect people wherever they are.

Mr. Waller : My hon. Friend is right, but the fact remains that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has brought before the House a Bill relating to riding horses on public roads. As it stands, the Bill includes bridleways, although I have an amendment seeking to exclude bridleways from the Bill.

2.15 pm

The Bill is essentially related to road traffic, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is present. It is not within the Bill's ambit to cater for the riding of horses in fields, although I fully accept that many accidents take place in fields. A study carried out in the midlands demonstrated that many more than half all accidents leading to medical treatment happen in fields or stables. However, the Bill is not about fields or anything other than roads. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the Bill's objectives to include a requirement that would be unreasonable for many riding establishments in this country.

I shall continue to relate my comments to the new clause, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me a little latitude because the Bill had no debate on Second Reading, but went through on the nod. Therefore, hon. Members have not had any opportunity to discuss the Bill's objectives, whether or not they include the provisions of the new clause put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : Does my hon. Friend agree that because the Bill received Second Reading on the nod, there has been no discussion in the House about whether such legislation, imposing a particular form of safety protection, is necessary? I speak not as a rider, but as a former rock climber. The belief 10 years ago that helmets, or some form of protective headgear, were essential at all levels of climbing, is very much out of fashion now. More and more of the country's leading rock climbers eschew headgear because they regard it as dangerous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Bill has received Second Reading, albeit on the nod, so it would be inappropriate to jog back to that stage now. We must stick to the new clause.

Mr Waller : I take note of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

The Department of Transport has said that resources have to be directed at major road safety problems. I heartily endorse that. Fortunately, there are few accidents involving horse riders compared with the number of accidents involving pedal cyclists. Bearing in mind the little discussion there has been in the House--even in Committee only two hon. Members apart from the Bill's promoter and the Minister, spoke--and that only two of the Bill's sponsors are here to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, it is important that the many amendments down for discussion should at least be considered.

Column 1734

The fact that a defence, included in the Bill that my hon. Friend originally brought before the House, has been removed from the Bill without debate is a good reason for debating those matters now. I do not doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity, and I recognise that he feels strongly about the matter. However, I hope that he will recognise that others feel that while the law has a part to play in many areas of life, we should be cautious and require good reasons before extending it into an area where many people still believe that personal responsibility, including that of parents and guardians, is important.

Mr. Stern : I intend to speak briefly on the new clause. I find a number of aspects of the new clause troubling and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will have time to deal with my doubts. I have two main doubts, First, the new clause refers to

"young people under the age of 18".

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that we are dealing with young people who are at different stages of physical development. As the hobby, habit and skill of riding become more popular and as riding becomes more frequently available in schools, I have no doubt that more and more young people of many different ages will take it up. Will my hon. Friend comment on the practicality of the universal obligation she proposes, which would have the effect that any provider of horses that are available to be ridden by young people must carry a range of protective headgear wide enough to protect children from the age of about four?

Miss Widdecombe : There is nothing in the new clause to prevent the young people in question from coming along with their own headgear. The new clause would insist that headgear should be made available. It would be in order for there to be an agreement between the owner of the horse and the person riding the horse that the latter would bring his own headgear. The new clause seeks only to stop young people borrowing a horse and riding it without headgear.

Mr. Stern : My hon. Friend misses the point. A young person and his parent or guardian may come to try out riding for the first time without such headgear--and given the cost of equipment for most sports, it is highly likely that a child trying riding for the first time will come along without such headgear. The hon. Lady would place an onerous duty on the provider of the horse. Under the new clause, it would be necessary to provide a range of headgear for young people from the ages of four to 18.

My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of health and social security matters. I am sure that she is aware of the increasing science involved in the study of head injuries and the necessity to provide different types of headgear for different bone structures. I am worried that the duty she seeks to impose is unduly onerous, especially for small riding establishments.

Secondly, who is to enforce that duty? Are we saying that under the law, it will be necessary for an enforcement body to check periodically whether a riding establishment provides a range of headgear to cover every potential customer? Where are the resources to come from to provide what would effectively be an inspectorate for riding establishments? Where is the register of riding establishments necessary for that inspection to work?

Mr. Harry Greenway : I must explain that all riding establishments have to be licensed and that they are

Column 1735

inspected before being licensed. Part of that inspection could easily include examining the headgear that should be available. However, I have two objections to the new clause, including an objection on the ground of hygiene.

Mr. Stern : My hon. Friend is quite right, but under any sensible inspection regime, a once-and-for-all inspection is wholly inadequate. An additonal duty will therefore be placed on the inspectorate to ensure that an adequate range of headgear is made available for the purposes of the Bill. I am happy for such a duty to be laid on the inspectorate if the Bill is passed, but I question what resources would be necessary and whether we should place such a duty on every single riding establishment.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Bill. My view on the new clause is that I do not think that we should complicate the Bill too much. I declare an interest because I was brought up on a pony and during an undistinguished career as an amateur steeplechase jockey I had the chance to ride in about 50 races. I owe my life to the fact that I was wearing a crash hat when I had a number of bad falls. We should do all what we can to get the details of the Bill right. I tabled several amendments to the Bill, but unfortunately they were not selected. I had the idea of adding after the word "horses" the words "cows and other large quadrupeds".

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to amendments that may or may not be discussed later. He must stick to the new clause.

Mr. Bellingham : In an ideal world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill would also refer to cows and other large quadrupeds. We say that we are concerned about children riding horses and ponies but I have seen children riding bulls, elephants and camels. They could well ride such large quadrupeds without the proper headgear. However slim or remote the evenutality may seem, we should be aware that that could happen and I trust that the Minister will refer to it in his remarks.

We should be careful about complicating the Bill by adding the new clause. The Bill is excellent and I have always supported it. I particularly welcome the growing trend in riding circles for children and riders of all ages to wear proper approved crash hats rather than hunting caps, bowler hats or other forms of headgear. More and more responsible riding establishments, parents and horse owners will not let a horse out of the yard unless the rider is wearing a proper crash hat. We all know that, as a result of the move towards better safety standards, many lives

Column 1736

have been saved. In the past, a large number of jockeys and stable lads at racing stables were seriously injured because they were not wearing proper headgear when they fell off a horse on the flat. Ten years ago, before the Jockey Club introduced rules whereby all riding stables had to insist on everyone wearing a proper crash hat, many accidents occurred that could have been avoided. That was probably the start of riding circles' increased efforts to insist that children in particular wore crash hats.

The Bill is a move in the right direction. I should have preferred it to be wider but, bearing in mind the objections expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am prepared to accept it as drafted. It would be a mistake to complicate the Bill by an unnecessary new clause and it might prevent this excellent Bill from proceeding.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins) : I have only a few moments and I do not intend to be on my feet at the close of play. Let me record first of all the Govenment's support for the Bill in general terms but our worries about the new clause, which would require persons who own, control or possess horses available to be ridden by young people under the age of 18 to have a supply of headgear that satisfies the regulations. A similar clause was moved in the Standing Committee, of which I was not a member. The clause is tangential to the purpose of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that children riding horses on the road should have to wear helmets. Irrespective of the place from which they set out and in what circumstances, an offence will prima facie have been committed if a child is discovered riding on the road without a helmet.

The problem about new clause 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), is that a riding establishment may allow horses to be ridden only in the field, which is not within the scope of the Bill. It would be inconsistent to impose an obligation to hold helmets at a riding school whose horses are ridden only in fields, so we cannot support the clause.

Miss Widdecombe : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Waller : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for me to speak on amendment No. 16--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order.

It being half-past Two o'clock the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 April.

Column 1737

Private Members' Bills

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were in the Chair at 2.10 pm when I raised, on a point of order, the statement by No. 10 Downing street to the effect that the transcript of conversations between the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and a third agency had now come to light. I ask that a Minister should come to the House to explain exactly what had happened and why it was that when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry offered a statement on that subject on Wednesday, the transcript at that time

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks more to the Government than to me. What is the point of order?

Mr. Dalyell : My point of order is on whether you have had any approach from any Minister. I warned Mr. Derek Kerr, one of the Private Secretaries in Downing street, that I would raise the matter. Have you had any requests from any Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence or a representative of the third agency--which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister--to come to the House to explain precisely what has happened, when those transcripts came to light, when they were brought to the knowledge of Ministers and when the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), first knew that there was a problem about the export orders to Iraq, which is the question that I and other hon. Members have been asking since last Wednesday?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I can deal with the hon. Member's point. I have had no such request, but I am sure that the issues he has raised have been noted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not generally accepted that even on a Friday, when a lot of hon. Members leave the building, Ministers should always be available? That even applies during the long recess. It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave due notice at 11 am today about the purpose of his remarks and the fact that there is a cover-up involving No. 10 Downing street, and various other Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry, over the Iraqi gun fiasco. We are reaching a sorry state when we have a Government who supposedly believe in defence but do not know the difference between a gun barrel and a pipeline. My hon. Friend is trying to get to the root of the matter. Parliament should deal with it. The Chair is being placed in an invidious position because Ministers are not available to answer such important questions. Every day that passes, Ministers are failing in their duty.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has openly declared his desire to see his Ministry abolished. Is there any wonder that the Iraqis are able to buy guns and God knows what else when a Minister says, "I want to get rid of my Department." That really is a scandal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I can merely reiterate that I have had no request in respect of a statement.

Column 1738

SECURITY SERVICE ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Next Section

Home Page