| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the latter point, no; but it is not a matter for the Chair to have a view on. The hon. Gentleman's point of order was presaged by a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and, in the course of exchanges, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), set out the exact position. I understand that the matter is already being handled by the Committee and, following the due process, the matter may come before the House at some subsequent time.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a clear distinction between the procedure that the Foreign Affairs Committee must adopt, and that has quite rightly been put in train with the Procedure Committee, to deal with the leaking of the report, and the reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was disingenuous in suggesting that the first sight the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers had of the report
was on the morning of its publication, when it is clear from the statement by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that the Foreign Office had sight of the report a month earlier? Have the Foreign Secretary or any of his Ministers given any indication to the Chair that they want to correct that misapprehension?
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accepting--you have already guided us most helpfully on the point--what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said about the role of the Foreign Affairs Committee in investigating its side of the matter, which it properly must do, can you advise the House whether there is anything that we can do to find out what the role of the Foreign Office was in the matter?
The role of the Committee and its members will be properly investigated, as the Chairman has said, but how can we pursue the role of the Foreign Office, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) have said about the inadequacy--I put it no more strongly--of recent Foreign Office answers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Those are not points of order on which the Chair can rule. I have answered the question whether notification of any statement has been received. No such notification has been received. When Ministers make statements is entirely a matter for the Government. There are, of course, many ways open to right hon. and hon. Members to raise points of debate, and I am sure that it is not beyond their ingenuity to find those ways if there are points of argument that they want to pursue.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that that again is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. The Leader of the House will have heard the request that was made, and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It was made at an earlier stage.
The Leader of the House will have the matter drawn to her attention, but it is entirely a matter for the Government to decide when and which Ministers make statements to the House.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reputation of the House is largely in the hands of the conduct of its Members, and a more onerous responsibility falls on the senior Members, and especially the Prime Minister. In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) earlier today, the Prime Minister made a remark--I am not certain that it will have been picked up by the reporters--about the cracked Wedgwood argument. He then failed to address the points that were put to him. Could you draw his attention to the fact that such conduct does not do the reputation of the House any good?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I did not hear the remark and I cannot make a retrospective ruling as to whether points of propriety are raised. There can be no further point of order on which I can rule. We now come to a ten-minute Bill.
5.20 pm
Mr. Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington, East): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in certain premises; to raise public and professional awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning; to make new provision with respect to the maintenance of fuel appliances; and for connected purposes.
Thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who are present in the Chamber, many of whom are here because they have had similar experiences in their constituencies. They have had to sit down with the parents and loved ones of those who have lost their lives through carbon monoxide poisoning. I know that there are people observing our proceedings today who have also recently lost loved ones through similar terrible tragedies.
The Bill is in memory of those who have died, as well as an attempt to prevent such deaths in future. It is a sad fact that, statistically, every Member of Parliament will at some stage in their parliamentary careers have to deal with a similar tragedy in their constituencies. Recently, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), four people--a mother, father and two young sons--died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The Bill is a reasoned, long-overdue and sensible measure. That is endorsed by the support that it has received from my hon. Friends and from Conservative Members, Liberal Members and the minor nationalist parties. I am grateful to all those who have supported the Bill.
The Bill is in three sections. The first would provide, initially, for the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in houses in multiple occupation. The second part would place a duty on the Government to raise public and professional awareness of the dangers, and the third would make new provision for the maintenance of heating equipment and introduce tougher penalties for those who abuse it.
I accept that carbon monoxide detectors are a second line of defence, but they are important. We must ensure that all equipment in the home works correctly, but detectors should be installed as a second line of defence. I would like to see in Britain the same culture for carbon monoxide detectors that we have for smoke alarms. Twenty years ago, smoke alarms were costly and rare. Today, they are relatively cheap and many houses in Britain are much safer because of their installation. We should develop the same attitude to carbon monoxide detectors. That would help to reduce their price, although they are relatively inexpensive at the moment at around £30.
Before I came into the Chamber at 2.30 pm, I talked with a Mrs. Smith whose husband tragically died 10 days after their house had been checked by an engineer.
Everything appeared to be in working order, but carbon monoxide--an evil, silent and insidious killer--had crept through and killed Mr. Smith. So detectors are important.
Another case of which I am aware involves a Mr. Nigel Cullen, who had read about the existence of carbon monoxide detectors. Part of the problem is that not many people know that audible detectors can be purchased, as can other equipment that will shut down the supply if it detects the gas. Mr. Cullen read about the detectors in the Nottingham Evening Post and decided to buy one, which he sent to his daughter, a student at Newcastle university.
Mr. Cullen's daughter shared a house with four other people. As soon as the detector was fitted in that house, it registered carbon monoxide present at 10 times the danger level. There is no doubt that that detector at least prevented Mr. Cullen's daughter and her housemates from becoming seriously ill, and it may have saved their lives.
The press has been criticised in the House over the past couple of days, but some newspapers with which I have been involved--such as the Nottingham Evening Post, the Sunderland Echo, The Northern Echo and The Journal--have played an important part in recent months in raising public awareness and making sure that lives are saved.
My second intention with the Bill is to raise public awareness. I am grateful to this Government, and also to the previous Government, for spending some money on television advertising. A campaign is running at present, and hon. Members may have seen it over recent weeks. That is another factor in helping to raise awareness, as is the inclusion in 20 million gas bills of a leaflet with a helpline number which people can contact if they are worried about the problem. Public awareness is important, and Parliament should place a duty on Secretaries of State to ensure that major safety campaigns take place.
Professional awareness is also important, especially in the health service. We must ensure that there is good co-ordination between health service professionals. One of the problems is that carbon monoxide poisoning is very slow. Because its symptoms include headaches and sickness, it is often mistaken for influenza and can be hard to identify, even for people in the medical profession. The question of public and professional awareness is therefore very important.
Finally, the Bill would require landlords to ensure that equipment is checked annually. Such maintenance is vital: no one would get in a car that had not been MOT-ed, for fear that it was dangerous. We should have the same attitude to equipment in the home, which should be installed by qualified people. Landlords who want to install such equipment on the cheap, and play God with people's lives, should suffer the consequences.
Legislation is not tough enough, and we need to send out the message that we will not settle for anything less than the highest standards, which are needed to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. I accept that carbon monoxide poisoning does not respect class or housing tenure, but the evidence is that those at the bottom end of the housing ladder are more likely to suffer from it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |