| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order, because it gives me yet another opportunity to remind the House of the conventions that relate to the officials box. I made a full statement about this matter a year ago, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, but it is apparent that some Members and officials need to be reminded of the salient points. I am happy to take this opportunity to do so.
The officials box is intended for civil servants and political advisers with civil service status whose attendance is deemed essential by the Minister concerned. Their admittance into the box is by my permission, and their function is to provide information and briefing to Ministers as required.
The only Members who should be in communication with officials in the box are the Minister concerned, the Parliamentary Private Secretary or, in the latter's absence, another Member operating with the Minister's authority. Officials in the box should not provide information to any other Member, nor should Members engage in social discussion with officials in the box.
Those in the box are required to conduct themselves discreetly at all times, and should on no account show any partiality while they are present.
I regret to say that, in recent weeks, there have been instances of every one of these requirements being breached. I trust that there will be no recurrence.
As regards the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, my investigations have revealed that there was indeed a breach of the conventions. The Minister concerned has expressed his regret to me, and I accept it.
I am drawing this statement to the attention of all parliamentary clerks and to the Cabinet Secretary. I do not want to see any recurrence at any time.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I always take responsibility for matters for which I am responsible. I was one of those Members who, when in opposition, used to draw attention to this rule frequently. The person who breached the rule on Monday was one of the my
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance--not for the first time--on two points.
First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to retract an incorrect statement about another hon. Member, even when his error has been drawn to his attention? Secondly, although I recognise--as, I think, does the House in general--that, since 1 May, the format of Prime Minister's Questions has been changed, I was not aware that it was in order for the Prime Minister to ask an hon. Member to answer a question during Prime Minister's Question Time. If it is in order, is it in order for me to answer that question now--or has the Prime Minister forgotten that he is Prime Minister, and does he mistakenly think that I am?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can bring the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) up to date. I sat on those Opposition Benches for 18 years and asked all sorts of questions, some of which were difficult to answer. Sometimes, when a Minister was asked a difficult question, he would ask me one. I understand that, and the hon. Gentleman must understand it. In the real world, he must get used to the idea of being on the losing side. I have been inured to defeat for many, many years. I say to the hon. Gentleman: stop whingeing, stop whining and get on with the job.
Madam Speaker:
Perhaps I might respond to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), as he asked me a question. I shall deal first with the second part of his point of order. Of course, all Ministers are responsible for the decisions they make. They are the ones who should be responding to questions; they should not be asking them. The Executive are responsible to the House, and should be answering questions.
Mr. Dobson:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
May I finish my answer first?
In answer to the first point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, let me say that all Ministers--indeed, all Members of Parliament--are responsible for the comments they make. That has nothing whatever to do with me.
Mr. Dobson:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Does it deal with this matter?
Madam Speaker:
Well, I am not going to allow a debate on the matter, but, if the right hon. Gentleman is raising another point of order, I must accept a point of order from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dobson:
As I understand it, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) objected to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's saying that he had been
Madam Speaker:
I shall draw a line under that. I call Mr. Dalyell.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a dreadful suspicion that I may be on the losing side, but let me try in any case. It is a matter of whether the House of Commons should have a say before important events take place, rather than being presented with a fait accompli.
You may recall, Madam Speaker, that you were kind enough to call me at Prime Minister's Question Time. I asked about Madeleine Albright and her visit to the Arab states. On 20 November, a vital meeting will take place between our Foreign Secretary and those of China, Russia, the United States and France. The issue may be military action or not military action.
Would it not be a matter for the House of Commons if the Foreign Secretary at least asked if he could make some kind of statement before attending the critical meeting in Geneva, which may affect what happens throughout the middle east? Should not the House have an opportunity to have a say before a decision is made?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is never on the losing side--as far as I am concerned, he is usually on the winning side. I remember granting his Standing Order No. 24 application for three minutes only a few days ago, when he was able to raise this issue--an issue about which I know he feels passionately. He has also made other submissions to me about it.
I was delighted to be able to call the hon. Gentleman today. He was one of the few hon. Members whom I had discretion to call at Prime Minister's Question Time, when he was also able to raise the issue. If the Minister wishes to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about a meeting that he may attend tomorrow or on Friday, I will, of course, be in the Chair to hear it; but it is for the Minister to determine whether he wishes to make a statement.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives):
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, to have to interrupt the proceedings of the House to raise a matter that is of great concern in my constituency--
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Is this a point of order?
Madam Speaker:
I must make it clear, because I want to be helpful to hon. Members, that a point of order does not have to be on a serious matter, but it must be a matter to which I, as Speaker of the House, can respond. I must have some responsibility.
Mr. George:
My point relates to a missing fishing boat with four fishermen. I know that the House will be as concerned as I am about this matter. I seek a ministerial statement on this incident and on the searches that are being carried out to ensure that the boat is found.
Madam Speaker:
I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is asking me whether a Minister has given me notice that he wants to make a statement on that matter. The answer is that I have not been given notice of a ministerial statement, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I hope that they will pass on his comments.
Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield):
I beg to move,
Older paint is that used in houses in the pre-1950s, and certainly pre-1960s. High levels of lead were used in paint manufacture at that time, but have since been phased out. Such paintwork constitutes a serious hazard. We have known for some time the general hazards, which resulted in a reduction of lead in petrol some years ago.
The paintwork in up to 8 million homes that were painted in the first half of this century still contains significant amounts of lead. About 50 per cent. of the population live in older homes. The young are at particular risk, because they are more susceptible than adults to the effects of lead in their bloodstream. Pregnant women are also at risk, as are adults if they suffer lead poisoning.
A testing centre carried out random tests on 10 children and five adults over a month. Three of those children had lead poisoning, and were severely affected. Some of those tested were poisoned through exposure to paint. The adults had stripped paint using hot air strippers--I gather that blow torches are the worst possible thing to use--and the children had eaten small amounts of paint.
Low levels of lead in the population as a whole, and particularly in children, tend to skew abilities downwards, and have other side effects. People are exposed to risk in two ways: I was not aware of either of them until recently, and I am sure that many members of public have no idea about the risks either. Adults are exposed when they strip paint, and children are exposed when they eat very small flecks or specks of paint that are lying on the floor. Children may be playing on the floor with toys that pick up specks of paint. If they put those objects in their mouths, it may result in lead poisoning. A child of two or three years of age needs to put only a tiny speck in its mouth each day for about two months. Such a speck would fit on the head of a matchstick, but over time that is enough to cause serious lead poisoning.
There are also problems with milder forms of lead poisoning. Many people are not aware that the symptoms produced are exactly the same as those for all sorts of other problems that are caused by, for example, a virus. People could experience repeated and unexplained stomach ache, diarrhoea or sickness, which may show that there are rising levels of lead in the blood. The average
parent, and, I fear, the average doctor, would not necessarily worry, even if such symptoms were repeated, that a child was suffering from lead poisoning.
Children who have ingested 600 or 700 microgrammes of lead per litre of blood will develop encephalopathy, which is a serious medical condition. Before the poison accumulates to that level, there is damage to the bones, nerves, bladder, kidneys, heart and brain. Lead is a serious poison.
It is possible to treat the condition by removing the causes, but that can be done only if it is known that the person is acquiring the poison. The process by which that is done is called chelation, which is the medial extraction, the clawing back, of lead in the bloodstream. I am not a medical person, but I am assured that that process is time-consuming and difficult, not least because lead remains in the bone, and as the lead is removed from the blood of people with serious blood poisoning, the lead in the bones enters the bloodstream.
That means that permanent correction of the condition is difficult and expensive. It is only by repeated and expensive medical treatment, and if the condition is caught in time, that serious damage can be prevented.
A consultant at a London hospital estimates that about one child a week is being admitted to hospital with dangerously high levels of lead in the blood. There is a terrible human cost, because the health of those children will never be the same again. Some children have died from the condition. There are also serious health risks for adults. The condition relates to health and quality of life, but as matters are currently arranged, there is also a financial cost.
Some areas of the country are more affected than others. I do not want to over-dramatise the problem, because the paintwork in older homes is safe if it is left alone, if it is not chipped and if there are no children. However, if the paint is removed by the wrong technique, it is damaging to adults and children in the vicinity. Interestingly, professional decorators are advised to take elaborate precautions when removing older paint, but at the moment there is no mandatory requirement on do-it-yourself equipment manufacturers to print on hot-air and other paint-stripping equipment advice about how it should be used. Perhaps, under such circumstances, such tools ought not to be used at all.
It is ironical that leaflets currently supplied with DIY equipment in the United States are not available with the same equipment in this country, although the leaflets are printed here and placed in the packets that are to be sold in the United States.
In 1992, the United States passed the Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, which provides a national framework for dealing with the problem. Many states have their own programmes now--for example, for testing children's blood lead levels and for ensuring that people who sell homes are advised of any known high-lead paint work. Canada, Australia, France and other countries are also taking action.
4.30 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the manufacturers and retailers of paint stripping equipment and fluids to provide consumers with information about lead in paint manufactured before 1960; to require the Secretary of State to provide information to the general public about the dangers of lead in older paint; and to provide for the testing of children under the age of three years living in older housing to determine whether they are at risk from lead in older paintwork.
With all this talk of being on the winning or losing side, I trust that on this subject there will only be winners, and that hon. Members will all be on the same side. Many hon. Members are parents, and I am sure that many of us have done do-it-yourself: I do so reluctantly, and seldom have time for it. Very few members of the public are aware of the dangers of stripping older paintwork. I was not aware of them until I heard the BBC's "Face the Facts" programme.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |