HC Deb 17 June 1954 vol 528 cc2246-8
2. Miss Burton

asked the President of the Board of Trade what tests, technical or otherwise, were made by the experts whom he asked to examine the gauntlet gloves submitted to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South; and for what reason they were not given a technical examination by is Departmental experts.

Mr. H. Strauss

The experts whom my right hon. Friend consulted applied a surface microscopical test. They have now had the opportunity of considering the result of the tests made by the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association. Both sets of experts are now agreed that, while the wearing parts (namely, the palm and the back) are of hide, the remainder is probably hair sheepskin. There are no technical experts on the staff of the Board of Trade to carry out such tests.

Miss Burton

I am sorry to seem disagreeable, but does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that I did not discuss the backs? I told him that these gauntlets were made of sheepskin. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will refresh his memory. He took me to task very severely on that. Now I am proved to be right. He has been very courteous on these matters this afternoon, so may I ask him, as he said that the Board of Trade would initiate prosecutions if it was proved wrong, whether it will now prosecute in this particular case?

Mr. Strauss

Let me assure the hon. Lady that she is never disagreeable. On the previous occasion the hon. Lady spoke of the expert evidence on which she relied, and I gave particulars of the expert evidence upon which we relied. I am sorry there was a difference, but I am very glad that subsequent discussion has led to agreement among all parties. I do not think that I did anything more in that debate than to reply to a very vigorous attack by the hon. Lady.

In answer to the last part of her supplementary question, I would say that the revised opinion of the experts does not alter the decision, conveyed by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question by the hon. Lady on 8th April, that there were not sufficient grounds for prosecution.

Miss Burton

On a point of order. If, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been proved wrong in a statement, and as he gave a guarantee to the House that he would initiate a prosecution if these gauntlets were made of sheepskin, is he not now compelled to do so?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. The hon. Lady may attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment if she is not satisfied. We have had a very long supplementary question, and we must get on.

Mr. Robens

The Parliamentary Secretary did say to my hon. Friend that if it was found, subsequently, that these gloves were made of sheepskin he would initiate a prosecution. He is now saying that he did not say that. It is in HANSARD, column 696, and we must ask him to keep to his bargain.

Mr. Strauss

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not guilty of any such alteration of plan. If it had been moved that they were made of sheepskin certainly the position would be altered, but the fact that they contained some sheepskin does not alter it sufficiently.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate the matter now. There seems to be a conflict of evidence on this.