§
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 71.
266| Division No. 129] | [10.00 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ancram, Michael | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
| Arnold, Tom | Bottomley, Peter |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Boyson, Dr Rhodes |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Bright, Graham |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. |
| Burt, Alistair | Normanton, Tom |
| Butcher, John | Onslow, Cranley |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Coombs, Simon | Pawsey, James |
| Cope, John | Penhaligon, David |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Pollock, Alexander |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
| Dicks, Terry | Powley, John |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Rathbone, Tim |
| Dunn, Robert | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Durant, Tony | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Eggar, Tim | Rowe, Andrew |
| Fatchett, Derek | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Ryder, Richard |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Fox, Marcus | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Freeman, Roger | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Gow, Ian | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Shersby, Michael |
| Harris, David | Silvester, Fred |
| Harvey, Robert | Sims, Roger |
| Hayes, J. | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Henderson, Barry | Spencer, Derek |
| Hind, Kenneth | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Howard, Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Squire, Robin |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Stanley, John |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Jessel, Toby | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Key, Robert | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Lang, Ian | Thurnham, Peter |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Tracey, Richard |
| Lilley, Peter | Trippier, David |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Trotter, Neville |
| Luce, Richard | Viggers, Peter |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Waddington, David |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Wallace, James |
| Major, John | Waller, Gary |
| Marland, Paul | Ward, John |
| Mather, Carol | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Watson, John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Watts, John |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Wheeler, John |
| Mellor, David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Wood, Timothy |
| Moore, John | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Neale, Gerrard | |
| Neubert, Michael | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Newton, Tony | Mr. T. Garel-Jones and |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Mr. M. Lennox-Boyd. |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Carttiss, Michael |
| Beith, A. J. | Cash, William |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Best, Keith | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Dalyell, Tam |
| Boyes, Roland | Dixon, Donald |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Eastham, Ken |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Budgen, Nick | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Forth, Eric | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Galley, Roy | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| George, Bruce | Merchant, Piers |
| Greenway, Harry | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Grist, Ian | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Ground, Patrick | Pike, Peter |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Haynes, Frank | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Holt, Richard | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Knowles, Michael | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Mr. M. Brown and |
| McGuire, Michael | Mr. A. Marlow. |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill may be proceeded with, although opposed, until any hour.
§ As amended, again further considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Fairbairn.
§ Mr. McGuireOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had only given way to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) when he was interrupted by the necessity to put the Ten o'clock motion.
§ Mr. SpeakerHas the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) finished? Do not let me provoke him.
§ Mr. FairbairnI cannot remember where I had begun. I had put down an amendment that did not receive your favour, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that local authorities could put substances in the water to prevent schizophrenia. We have a Government who at one moment say that they want us all to have dinner, and as totalitarians try to cut short the debate, but when we all want to go to bed they prolong the debate.
§ Mr. McGuireThe proceedings were interrupted by our Standing Orders, and I am not certain at what point the hon. and learned Member wanted me to give way to him, but he has said something that I hope will give the Minister food for thought.
In support of this new clause, which I believe that the Government have accepted, I want to develop the point about how these meetings, to which the public will be allowed to go, will take shape and form. I cannot see the sense in simply having the public come into a meeting that they cannot influence. Decisions will be taken that they would object to in a normal democratic way, but they have no right of recall and cannot even chastise these people because they are appointed undemocratically.
Here we have a democratic House of Commons, giving tremendous powers to certain people that we should not be giving them to. However, given that they will have them, 267 it is not merely a matter of allowing the public to come in to observe the undemocratic procedures, even though they rail against what has been decided. It is essential that we should be able to influence these people before they take these decisions, and I do not know of what the Minister was approving.
§ Mr. FairbairnI have now recalled the matter that I was raising when I was rudely interrupted once more by the Government managers. The hon. Gentleman referred to mass medication. When I studied medicine I was one of the first guinea pigs of mass radiography. This form of screening was provided to help everybody who underwent mass radiography. The mass medication referred to by the hon. Gentleman is not intended to help everybody who has to swallow it. However, everybody will have to swallow it in the hope that it will help somebody else.
§ Mr. McGuireThis matter was thoroughly thrashed out on Second Reading and in Committee. It remains one of the principal objections of those who support my point of view. I recall the famous saying of John Stuart Mill that over his mind and body every citizen is sovereign. The Bill takes away one of his sovereign rights. He has to receive a substance which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, is assumed to benefit a small number of people but which cannot possibly help the vast majority of those who will have to take it, whether they like it or not.
Mr. Laurie Pavlitt (Brent, South)My hon. Friend and I have crossed swords from time to time on this question. Nobody is consulted about the inclusion of the 33 chemicals that are introduced into Thames water, including a highly toxic substance, sulphuric acid. They are a prophylaxis. We are referring on the one hand to mass medication, which is an emotional term, and on the other hand to the provision of a prophylaxis, which is an unemotional term. The difference between my hon. Friend and I is that he is referring to medication while I am dealing with the prevention of illness.
§ Mr. McGuireMy hon. Friend said that 33 artificial substances are added to the water and that I am making a big cry about adding a 34th. However, I understand that all of those artificial substances are added to make the water wholesome and to take out the bugs which would otherwise make people ill. That is completely different from adding a substance which does not increase the wholesomeness of the water and which we believe could possibly have bad side effects.
§ Sir Dudley SmithThe hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but I believe he is wrong to refer to mass medication. He is not right about that, nor, with respect, is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) who referred to force feeding. Surely this is preventive medicine, the idea being that children under the age of five should not develop dental caries. What possible excuse there can be for saying that the remainder of the population of this country should have to drink fluoridated water I do not know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten me.
§ Mr. McGuireI do not disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. Those who say that a Bill of this kind is needed believe that fluoride should be added to the water at a specified level because it will have lasting benefits, and that it is even better if a child benefits from fluoridated 268 water while it is being carried in its mother's womb. Then the benefits are lifelong. The promoters of the Bill believe that fluoridation delays the onset of dental caries, although it does not eliminate it. Nobody has tried to pretend that the answer to dental hygiene is to provide fluoridated water for people, even to a child when it is being carried in its mother's womb, and then to say that they will not need to do anything else. It is being said that the very young will get some benefit for a time and it may well be that that benefit will last a long time. But I return to the main proposition. If they are not educated when they are in the care of their parents properly to look after their teeth by means of their diet, we can put fluoride in the water until we are blue in the face and it will not have the lasting benefit that people say it will have.
§ Mr. PavittMy hon. Friend will have studied the Royal Commission's report. He is right to say that the addition of fluoride is only one of 23 ways of preventing oral disease, malfunction of teeth and gastro-enterology. But it is one thing that would help ordinary working class kids. If, after 1 April, when dental charges will be massively increased, parents are able to take children to the dentist every six months, pay extra for fluoride milk and do a number of other things, all that will be helpful. But fluoridation will be one method of helping the children of the 4 million unemployed, at a cost of 10p per citizen per year, by giving them some protection for some considerable time.
§ Mr. SpeakerBefore the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) is tempted to go down that track, may I bring him back to the new clause, which is about admission to meetings. That point is rather broad of the new clause and may lead him to indulge in a Second Reading speech.
§ Mr. McGuireOne gets led down many alleyways and byways that one did not intend when giving way. However, I say with great respect that this is a debating Chamber and we devalue it if we simply read out rather quickly a speech without giving way. In fact, that is contrary to our tradition. Whether one can debate with great expertise or simply with great determination and sincerity, one must defend one's argument, and that is what I am trying to do.
I am trying to consider the form of the meeting and the purpose of letting the public in. Is it merely to rail against those who have taken decisions which we disagree with or to try to influence those decisions? We should be trying to find out the best use that can be made of those meetings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and I have been friends since I came into the. House. He has been here for longer than I have and we all know how he approaches matters and what motivates him. He is motivated by what I would call his Socialist: principles. However, they do not motivate me any less. I am proud to be a Labour Member, and I too want to help anybody who is disadvantaged in life. My hon. Friend is trying to persuade me that we should try to find a means to help the 4 million unfortunate children who, if they do not receive some assistance from the State by means of a fluoride additive, whether it comes from water, medicine or in some other way, will grow up with bad teeth or with teeth that will be subject to more stresses and strains than 269 if the Government had taken on board the need to help them. I hope that my hon. Friend is persuading the Minister because that is the most important, thing.
That is a dangerous argument because we must then ask about other important or more important matters with which the State should concern itself in the upbringing of children. Let us consider a better way in which to help children get fluoride into their bodies at an early age. I am only saying that it cannot be right to ram it down the throats of 40 million or 50 million who will gain no benefit at all. I am glad that I have carried my hon. Friend with me—
§ Mr. BestI have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and I agree with much of what he said. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that there was no substantial difference between adding chlorine to the water to make it potable and adding fluoride for the purposes of prophylaxis. But is there not a fundamental difference between adding something to a substance to prevent it from doing harm and adding something to a substance to have a positive effect on somebody's health?. Those are the two issues. It is manifest, axiomatic and patent from the argument about where the difference lies that the hon. Gentleman has not carried his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South with him.
§ Mr. McGuireOne tries to accomplish many difficult jobs in life. I doubt whether I could carry the hon. Gentleman with me in a 10-minute intervention. The hon. Gentleman and I serve on the same Committee and must declare an interest in that we are both opposed to artificially fluoridating water for whatever assumed benefit.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must return to the new clause.
§ Mr. McGuireYou are right, Mr. Speaker, to remind me of that. However, as I said earlier, part of our tradition — in which I know you are a great believer, and you uphold the rights of Back Benchers — is that we give way to our colleagues. If we did not, your job would be made much more difficult as you would continually be calling order and there would be absolute pandemonium. We must try to defend our arguments. I realise that I am doing that in a botched manner, but it is the best that I can do.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) must try to persÚade my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) that this matter is not on all fours. This point is relevant to the issue of meetings because such matters will have to be debated. No doubt someone will try to explain why there should be more fluoridation. I understand that 33 substances are already added to the water, and some may ask what difference 34 would make. I do not know whether 33 is the correct number; it could be 23, 33 or 43. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South is an authority on these matters. Indeed, if I get the opportunity to read a list in my possession, I shall keep the debate going for a few more minutes. I have no doubt that the substances have wicked-sounding Latin names that would frighten us to death — other than those who understand Latin, and I am not one of them. The meetings 270 will have to persuade the public that they add those 33 substances to the water to make it wholesome and potable and to take out any bugs and pollution. However, none of them is put in to achieve the same purpose as fluoride—
§ Mr. LawrenceIs not the truth of what the hon. Gentleman has said borne out by the fact that the decision of the Strathclyde court that fluoride did not make water potable has caused the Government to introduce the Bill? Other additives to water help to make it wholesome. But, according to the court ruling, fluoride does not do that. Therefore, the distinction is well and truly made legally and the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That may be, but it has nothing to do with the committee meetings about which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) is speaking.
§ Mr. McGuireThere is no doubt that whether or not the public know that there are 33 substances or 83 substances added to the water, I want them to be aware that another substance is either already in the water or about to be added to it which should not and need not be put in.
What will be the point of the public being able to attend the meetings if they cannot influence those who will be taking the decisions? The decision-makers will not be elected. Indeed, their position must affront the democratic instincts of hon. Members. While I would not impugn the integrity of Conservative Members and say that they are in favour of secrecy whereas Opposition Members are not, I urge them to agree that we should not have secrecy where it is not necessary, especially when, as in this case, a dark cloak may be thrown over the deliberations of those who, unlike hon. Members, are not subject to recall or, to be topical, any form of reselection.
§ Mr. MarlowBefore the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of reselection—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that reselection will be discussed at the meetings about which the hon. Member is speaking.
§ Mr. MarlowThe hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about consultation, participation and the involvement of the public. Does he think that the public have been involved thus far in this process of fluoridation? For example, has there been a clamour for the water supply to be fluoridated?
§ Mr. McGuireThe thought of reselection concentrates the mind wonderfully. I wish reselection applied to those who form the district and regional health authorities. The same would then apply to them as applies to me. If I do or say something to which a number of my constituents object reselection gives them power to do something about it.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public should not only be admitted to these meetings but should, under reasonable conditions, be allowed to address them and put their point of view?
§ Mr. McGuireI was about to deal with that point. I agree that it would be cosmetic simply to say that the public will be admitted if that will be the end of their role and they will have no influence over those who take the decisions. Such meetings will then be a fraud and a charade, especially as there has been no clamour from the public for the water supply to be fluoridated.
271 The 5 million people who are at present receiving fluoridated water have not been informed. When I first came to the House I had no definite views on fluoridation. How are Members of Parliament enabled to make decisions on matters on which they have no great knowledge? We receive much bumf but also much informed correspondence which gives expert views on different subjects, including fluoridation. When I read the information about fluoridation, I formed the opinion that it was not a good thing. I sense that I am incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. I shall come back to the narrow point of the form and content of the meetings. If the public are to be informed, there will have to be a public debate. The views of people who are passionately opposed to fluoridation must be heard and not just the views of John Public.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) gave an impressive list of people who had written learned articles on the dangers of fluoridation. These were not corner boy doctors but men of great eminence who can be subjected to questioning and counter argument. If the meetings are to be open to the public, there should be informed participation in the debate. If it is the intention of the Government that the public will be informed in this way, I rest content that not much fluoridation will take place. Most of all, those 5 million who now receive fluoridated water will want fluoridation discontinued.
§ Sir Dudley SmithThe hon. Gentleman is making a salient and important point, that apart from the public the people who make up these bodies may not themselves have expert knowledge. He said that he had to find out the information when he became a Member of the House. Surely those who serve on the health authorities will need expert advice. The hon. Gentleman referred to 37 or 38 substances which are put in water. In these circumstances, it is important that members of these bodies should be properly briefed.
§ Mr. McGuireThat is a most salient point.
Most hon. Members have received recently a letter headed "Fuel for the fluoridation bandwagon". It refers to deception by a man whose evidence is listened to with great interest; I think it is better that I do not mention his name. It persuaded many people to take a view contrary to that which I would wish them to have. This man said:
If I thought that there was the slightest risk from fluoridating water supplies to bring the concentration of fluoride up to the low levels naturally existing already in many parts of Britain and elsewhere, I would certainly say so.The letter we received from Dr. W. W. Yellowlees from Aberfeldy in Scotland said that that statement was written by this eminent person in 1982. I wrote to him pointing out that of the total population of the United Kingdom only about 500,000 drank naturally fluoridated water.The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has made a relevant intervention. The public must be persuaded and informed, and it must be understood that some of those who are to take decisions are in possession of false information and will act upon it. It is proposed that we should add fluoride to the water and the hon. and learned Member for Burton has said that there will have to be a tenfold increase in the level of fluoride in the water to reach the assumed natural level. We must remember that only about 500,000 receive that water. If the average 272 John Public picks up only parts of the argument, he will think that the Government want to make available something which is naturally beneficial. He will have the impression that he and others are deprived because they are not receiving that which is naturally beneficial. In effect, the Government are saying, "We cannot do anything about that in a natural sense but we shall do so in an unnatural sense."
It is important that on occasions the experts should have their evidence checked and that they should be cross-examined. We require an informed debate so that the public can be made aware of what is in store for them. There will be those who say, "I think that fluoridation is a good thing and I am willing to take the risk." They will be willing to surrender the principle of John Stuart Mill that over his own mind and body the individual is sovereign. They will be prepared to delegate that responsibility to another body. The public should be in a position to challenge the assertions of the so-called experts.
§ Mr. FairbairnI am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to intervene, but I was not asking him to do so. However, now that he has given way to me, as it were, I shall make an intervention. That is the sort of thing that John Stuart Mill might well have said.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will be helpful to the House by keeping the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), who has now been speaking for an hour, on the rails. We must concentrate on the proceedings in the committees that are under discussion. The debate should not be carried any wider that that.
§ Mr. FairbairnAs one who is anxious to contribute to the debate myself, Mr. Speaker, I would rather keep the hon. Gentleman on the buffers. Even if the requirements that the hon. Gentleman suggests are implemented, whereby water authorities in England and Wales would be involved in the consultative process, what possible power would be in the hands of the ordinary member of the public who was convinced that fluoride was a cumulative poison to avoid fluoridated water?
§ Mr. McGuireI thought that earlier in my speech the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to catch my eye to tell me, as it were, that he wished to intervene. I probably mistook the hon. Gentleman for someone else. I shall await with interest the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I am sure that he will illuminate dark corners and stimulate most hon. Members, especially those who are convinced that fluoridation is not a bad thing, to participate. In fact, one of the worst things that they could do would be to allow fluoridation.
I have tried to direct myself to the heart of the new clause, which is that the public should have a presence at the authorities' meetings. If that means that they can be present without playing a positive part in the deliberations that ensue, that cannot be said to be good enough. I would not want to touch the Bill with a barge pole, but we must deal with it as it is. If there is to be real participation, a cosmetic change will not be sufficient. However, if the new clause, which has been accepted by the Government, means what I understand it to mean, we have made some progress in improving a bad Bill.