MONITORING OF FLUORIDE LEVELS

HC Deb 26 February 1985 vol 74 cc195-250 'The Secretary of State shall make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Best.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.50 pm

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following: New clause 11—Monitoring— 'The Secretary of State shall establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

1. (a) benefit for teeth;
2. (b) harm to health;
3. (c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.'. New clause 18—Termination of applications under section 1(1)— If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).'.

Mr. Best

While I agree that it would be convenient to discuss the three new clauses together, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been informed by a number of hon. Members that they would like separate Divisions on each of the new clauses.

New clause 6 requires: The Secretary of State shall make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom. That would require my right hon. Friend to examine fluoride levels to see whether the health authorities and statutory water undertakers were abiding by the legislation, especially the provision that the level of fluoride added to water, so far as reasonably practicable, was one part per million.

New clause 11 is different, in that it requires my right hon. Friend to establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

1. (a) benefit for teeth;
2. (b) harm to health;
3. (c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months.'. That monitoring is designed to look at the effects of the addition of fluoride on health and the other aspects mentioned in the clause.

New clause 18 is different from the other two, in that 'If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1).'. The gravamen of that is to give the Secretary of State a power, which he would not otherwise enjoy, to act should it become obvious to him that there was harm to health. He would then be able to step in and prevent fluoride from being added to water. In other words, the clause would place on my right hon. Friend a duty to be, as it were, the guardian of the public health in this matter.

Although it may be convenient for hon. Members to debate the three clauses together, they are separate in their effects and, in those circumstances, I hope that we shall be able to have separate Divisions on them in due course.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member was kind enough to mention the matter to me during the last Division. Having looked into the matter, I believe that it is convenient for the House to debate them together, and I shall be prepared to allow a separate Division on new clause 11.

Mr. Best

I am grateful to you for that indication, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clauses 6 and 11 are concerned with monitoring. Other hon. Members may feel—I do not feel this—that the Government have scope to conduct monitoring satisfactorily. New clause 18, however, is totally different, in that it is designed to come into effect if something goes wrong. Under that provision the Secretary of State would have power to take action urgently, and in the circumstances with which that clause is concerned urgent action would be required. Is there any possibility of your reconsidering the matter and allowing a Division on new clause 18?

Mr. Speaker

I have looked at the matter carefully, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), in whose name new clause 18 stands, knows that it is somewhat defective in its drafting. I would not be prepared to allow a separate Division on that. I believe that this grouping of new clauses gives wide enough scope for a general debate, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) can advance the case to which he referred, even if he does not support it.

Mr. Marlow

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take on board everything that you have said. The Minister may comment on the issue later, and he may be able to satisfy the House that the subject with which new clause 18—even though it may be defective—deals is already provided for in the Bill. However, if the Minister does not have the opportunity to deal with that issue, or cannot satisfy the House about it, might you, in those circumstances, feel able to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Speaker

Let us wait and see what the Minister says on the subject, and then I may reconsider the matter.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I raise with you a matter concerning the notes on clauses, which I understand were available to hon. Members who were fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee? I have ascertained from the Vote Office as such notes on clauses as were available at that time are not available today. It would be helpful for hon. Members who wish to participate in debating what is an important matter to have access to the notes on clauses. I wonder whether the Minister has made arrangements for the Vote Office to make that information available for us.

Mr. Speaker

That is a matter not for me but for the Government. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Member has said, as a result of which something may happen.

Mr. Best

I can assist my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I asked the Department to provide me with a copy of that information, and it was good enough to do so. I regret that the documents which my hon. Friend wants are not available in the Vote Office. I agree with him that hon. Members might find the information useful. I think that that has been the practice in the past. I shall be schooled by others who may have a better recollection as to whether notes on new clauses and amendments have been provided in the Vote Office on other Bills. It is my recollection that they have been, but I am not sure.

5 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

Notes on clauses are provided by the Government as a matter of courtesy to Members of the Standing Committee. That is a courtesy on which I have always been keen when in opposition and in government. I am glad that the practice has been appreciated by individual Members. I do not think that it has been extended to an obligation on the part of the Government to provide, through the Vote Office, large numbers of notes on clauses for every hon. Member. I regret that this much-sought-after volume of notes is out of print, but I shall see what can be done to get a few spare copies which might be handed around the Chamber to those hon. Members who have been drawn here by the debate.

Mr. Best

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. It is not a matter for debate now, but it may be at another time and elsewhere, as to whether the courtesy extended to members of a Committee in regard to the provision of notes on new clauses should be extended to the whole House. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends protest too much. When they get a copy of the notes on new clauses, they may not be greatly assisted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I think that we have gone far enough on this matter. It is time to return to the new clause and leave the notes on clauses.

Mr. Best

You have very properly schooled me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am sure that the House would wish me at the outset to express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and to those responsible for having allocated a whole day's debate to the Bill today, following the difficulties that several of us faced last Tuesday when the debate was finally adjourned in the small hours, not having started until 10.30 pm. I want to place on record my personal gratitude to my right hon. Friend for having allowed us a full debate on a matter which is of great importance to us all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not under-estimate the importance of the matter. The debate has been going on for several minutes and I am still waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman move the new clause. Does he wish to move it?

Mr. Best

I have moved it formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall now address my mind entirely to the new clause.

As I was intimating a few moments ago, the three new clauses which we are discussing are similar in so far as they place a duty on the Secretary of State, but are different in the effect that they would have. Therefore, it is right to examine them as individual new clauses.

New Clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom. I tabled the new clause following the profound disquiet expressed by a large number of hon. Members from all parties represented in the House, and also because of great disquiet expressed by many of the general public. Indeed, I think it is right to say that there is a large measure of disquiet among members of the Government themselves. No fewer than 21 members of the Government have in the past expressed opposition to fluoridation. Of course, they are entitled to change their minds and it may be that they will go through the Lobby with the Govenment tonight. I do not intend to mention all those right hon. and hon. Friends by name, because I have not had the opportunity to say to them all that I would mention them, although I have to some of them. It is right to place on record that in the past, whatever the situation now, a quarter or more of the Government payroll vote were opposed to the artificial fluoridation of water supplies.

Mr. Marlow

I hope that I am not interfering with the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, which, as usual, is convincing and logical. My hon. Friend has passed over an important point and I hope that he will come back to it. His new clause specifies the United Kingdom. Can he tell the House why he has taken the United Kingdom as a whole? As I understand it, it is possible that in various component parts of the United Kingdom there are slightly different regimes and slightly different ways in which the matter is organised. Yet within his new clause he is grouping all parts of the United Kingdom together. Is there perhaps not a defect in his new clause? Perhaps he should treat the different parts of the United Kingdom in different ways. Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on this?

Mr. Best

I am grateful to thy hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not want to digress from the essence of my remarks, but the first reason why I moved the new clause as presently constituted to include the whole of the United Kingdom was as an act of charity, as it were, to the Government. The Government use as an argument in favour of fluoridation the fact that fluoride occurs naturally in the water in some parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, they ask why it should not be added artificially to the water in other parts.

If my new clause were to become part of the Bill it would enable the Government to demonstrate, through monitoring by the Secretary of State, what the levels of fluoride were in artificially fluoridated areas, compared to the levels in areas where fluoride occurs—I was about to use the word "naturally" but that would be wrong, because fluoride does not occur naturally as a constituent element of water; it is something that water picks up on its passage through the ground. That in itself is an important factor. That is one reason for drafting the new clause.

There is a second reason. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Bill, as drafted, applies to England, Wales and Scotland and that it is stated that an Order in Council will be dealt with by affirmative resolution of the House to include Northern Ireland. Therefore, for the sake of completeness, and in anticipation that other parts of the Bill will become law, I drafted the new clause to include the whole of the United Kingdom.

As I was saying, new clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to monitor the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 1(5) states: Any health authority making arrangements with a statutory water undertaker in pursuance of an application shall ensure that those arrangements include provisions designed to secure that the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to consumers in the area in question is, so far as is reasonably practicable, maintained at one milligram per litre. Grave concern has been expressed that that subsection is, if I may use a phrase that seems appropriate in the circumstances, wishy-washy. That subsection is regarded by many of my hon. Friends as carte blanche for saying, "Take a stab in the dark; take it or leave it; do not bother to get it right, but just have round about the 1 mg per litre level and everybody will be satisfied." There is no provision in the Bill for the level of fluoride to be monitored by anybody, let alone by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House.

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

I share my hon. Friend's fears. Has he evidence that any monitoring goes on at present where fluoride has been added? If his new clause should be carried by the House, is he of the opinion that inevitably the Secretary of State will appoint the water authority to do the monitoring, because it would be bureaucratic to appoint other officials to go all over the country to carry out this role?

Mr. Best

I believe that monitoring is done by some water authorities, but I cannot quote chapter and verse. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) may be able to enlighten the House, or my right hon. and learned Friend may be able to do so. If the new clause is passed, the Secretary of State might well appoint the statutory water undertakers to do the monitoring. The point of the new clause is to fix on the Secretary of State the responsibility for monitoring. There must be grave concern in the House that there is no provision in the Bill for monitoring.

Secondly, if it were a discharge of the functions and duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the new laws merely to appoint the statutory water undertakings to effect the monitoring, that would be regarded by many, and certainly by myself, as a matter of great concern. Effectively, that would be removing the burden from the shoulders of my right hon. Friend and placing it on the shoulders of the water authorities, which are not directly elected authorities. We have already had a lengthy debate about the state of democracy in the absence of local control. It would be a matter of concern if the water authorities were able to undertake monitoring without being subject to my right hon. Friend's control.

The essence of new clause 6 is to ensure that the buck stops somewhere. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington is nodding in agreement, and I am grateful to him. Surely the buck should stop in this place. We must not say to water authorities or health authorities through the medium of the Bill that they can have a stab at getting it right and that they need not bother to get it absolutely right at 1 mg per litre. We should not imply that they can stick in the fluoride as they wish, or within the terms of "as far as is practicable", and follow that up by saying that the Bill contains no monitoring provision. Surely responsibility must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water authorities have been set up as secret societies? The general public, the local press and the media generally do not have access to their meetings and cannot listen to their discussions prior to decisions being made. The hon. Gentleman must agree that there could be a complete cover-up if things went wrong. If the Government get away with the enactment of the Bill, an inspectorate should be set up to ensure that there is effective monitoring. We must remember that we are talking about a poison. In the mining industry, for example, there are inspectors whose role it is to ensure that everything is all right. If the Bill is enacted, an inspectorate should be established to ensure that there is proper monitoring in the interests of the people, bearing in mind that we are talking about a poison.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Best

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has raised two valuable points. He has suggested that secret societies will be making decisions, as the health authorities and water authorities do not allow the public access to their meetings. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment which has been selected for discussion by Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that he will be able to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that he will address himself to the secretiveness, as it were, of the authorities. I hope that I, too, will be able to catch your eye when that debate takes place, so that I can make my contribution to it. I have great sympathy with the view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is right that the general public should be present when decisions are taken in their name that will affect the health of every citizen. We must remember that no one can make a decision not to drink water. Therefore, we are discussing an issue that affects everyone.

The hon. Member for Ashfield made a second valuable point. He expressed his concern about the possibility of a cover-up. I do not indulge in arcane considerations of dark and devious methods that might be adopted by health authorities or water authorities. However, I can understand that those who are less charitable than myself, and perhaps more suspicious, might take the view that in certain circumstances those methods might be used. The hon. Gentleman has expressed a genuine fear, and it is one that should be assuaged by provisions in the Bill.

5.15 pm

In Annapolis in the United States there was a cover-up. Someone died as a result of too much fluoride being added to the water by mistake. The authority which investigated the matter said that it would never have been brought to its attention had it not been for the fact that those on renal dialysis units had been made ill and that one of them had died. That is a germane example to support the fear that the hon. Member for Ashfield has expressed.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

I invite my hon. Friend to compare new clause 6 with new clauses 14 and 24 which I tabled but which have not been selected. New clause 6 suggests that there should be monitoring but provides no method by which the public should be told of the results, whereas my new clauses would ensure that the information reached the public. In Annapolis the local water authority discovered that it had overdone the dosage and it decided to try to keep that quiet. Authorities would not have to publish figures under my hon. Friend's new clause, so the possibility of authorities deciding to keep things quiet would be even greater. Perhaps he will address himself to that.

Mr. Best

My hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable contribution to the debate, which we have come to expect of him. There is great concern about the way in which monitoring should be carried out and the effect of that monitoring.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Best

I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wishes to intervene. I do not want to give way on many more occasions, as I want to proceed with my speech. I do not wish to delay the House too much.

Mr. Marlow

I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening. I am grateful to him for giving way. I apologise, because I do not mean to be critical of my hon. Friend. This is a worthwhile new clause, but I take the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) about monitoring and inspection. My hon. Friend is putting it to the House that the Government or the Secretary of State should make provision for constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride in all parts of the United Kingdom. If that is to be done, it will have to be done somehow, by someone, by some people or by some organisation. I feel that it is unfair of my hon. Friend to bring forward the new clause to the Government, to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Health without telling them what he has in his mind as to how this task should be carried out. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Best

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a weakness in my argument. Perhaps it is my fault that he has done so, as I allowed him to intervene. I must confess to the House that the new clauses were drafted late at night or in the small hours of the morning. I do not pretend to be a parliamentary draftsman. I suspect that there may be defects in the clauses, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if that is the case. I hope also that my hon. Friend will consider the broad thrust of the argument and what I seek to achieve by way of the clauses.

In this instance, I am not prepared to accept the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and to agree that there is a defect, although there might be defects in other areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would introduce regulations to deal with the way in which monitoring should take place. The regulations would provide the detailed nuts and bolts if the new clause were to become part of the Bill.

I shall proceed to the other new clauses in the group, as I do not want to detain the House for too long on each one. However, before doing so I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health a rhetorical question which I hope will stimulate him to leap to the Dispatch Box to answer me affirmatively and helpfully. What is the Government's objection to saying that someone should monitor the levels of fluoride in our water? How can there be any objection to that?

I shall listen with great care to what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say. It may be that, on behalf of the Government, he will not wish to see this new clause as part of the Bill, in which case I shall be interested to hear the arguments that he advances. I cannot for the life of me see how in a matter so fundamentally affecting the health of every citizen of this country anybody could object to a provision to ensure that there is a responsibility to check the levels from time to time. I ask nothing more than that, and that must be right.

I see nods of assent from several quarters, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take on board the fact that this new clause ought to be accepted by the Government, because it merely establishes the point that the Government should monitor the levels of fluoride in the water.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

It is kind of my hon. Friend to allow me to anticipate the arguments with which I hope to persuade him in due course. At the moment, when fluoride is added it is regularly monitored by the water authorities, and has been for many years. We have been adding fluoride for 30 years and there has never been any untoward incident or anybody previously demanding that the Department should take on this obligation. There is nothing wrong with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but if a new obligation is to be taken on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services we shall need extra manpower to deal with that extra obligation, to no apparent purpose.

Mr. Best

I am deeply concerned, indeed, at what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. It seems to me that he is seeking to pass the buck by saying that the Government should not be responsible for monitoring the levels of fluoride. Surely the Secretary of State should be responsible to the House, and the only way that we can make him responsible is by placing on him a duty to monitor the levels of fluoride. My right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we cannot afford to employ more manpower.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

We have many methods of protecting public safety. We have here a perfectly harmless method of adding fluoride to water. There is fail-safe machinery and there are competent people in the water authorities who have been monitoring this successfully for 30 years, with no public complaint. There are one or two things for which the Department would like to employ manpower and resources.

Mr. Best

My hon. and learned Friend makes the point again that manpower is a problem, so let us concentrate on the other aspect of what he has just said that concerns me. I am sure that the people of Annapolis, before the incident which led to somebody's death, would have said that fluoride had been added to the water without any incident so far, so they need not bother about monitoring the levels. I am sure that that sort of thing is always said before there is a fatal accident or something else terrible happens. I am sure that the people of Bhopal said, before the accident, that there had never been an accident at the chemical works, so it must be all right.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend really seeking to make the case that since everything has gone all right in the past there is no obligation on the Government to do anything? I find that very unpersuasive indeed, and I can only hope that by the time he gets to the Dispatch Box he will have thought of a better argument. If not, I suspect that he will not carry the House with him.

Mr. Michael Brown

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health really ought to consider the appraisal by Lord Douglas of the report on fluoridation by the Royal College of Physicians in 1976, in which a comparative study was made of about 10 cities in the United States. An analysis was done of the cancer death rates. Some cities had been adding fluoride to the water since the war, while other cities had been adding it only since the 1960s. The jump in cancer deaths is most interesting. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), should take on board very seriously the appraisal in this report.

Mr. Best

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall quote some examples of studies which have demonstrated the problems resulting from adding fluoride to water supplies. It appears that some of those studies are not known about by the Government. I have a reason for saying that, which I will advance in due course.

I have not forgotten about new clause 11, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it would be convenient for the House, I think, if I were to concentrate next on new clause 18. It is very simple in its phraseology, but its effect is terribly important for the individual liberty of subjects of this country. The clause reads: If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1). I was advised a moment ago by Mr. Speaker and also by one of the learned Clerks, who was most helpful, that this new clause is defective in some way. I think that it is defective because the word "terminate" and the words "Secretary of State" appear in the same sentence. [Laughter.] I was not seeking to amuse the House.

Mr. Fairbairn

I should have thought, being a simpler person, that one cannot terminate an application. What is being terminated is what results from the application.

Mr. Best

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I must confess to sloppy draftsmanship again, for which I hope the House will forgive me. However, I hope this will mean that my right hon. and learned Friend can get the best of both worlds. He can ask the House to vote against the new clause because it is defective and say that the Government will move their own new clause which will effectively put things right and establish the principle which I am seeking to establish. I hope that such a new clause will be moved in the other place by the Government to ensure that the effect of my new clause becomes part of the Bill. I believe that this is fundamental, because the new clause says that if it appears to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride causes harm to health — I do not make any judgment on this in the new clause, although I shall advance arguments in a moment to demonstrate that there is significant evidence that fluoride causes harm to health — he will ensure that the artificial fluoridation of the water supply shall cease.

What can be wrong with that? What possible objection can there be to that? If it appears that it causes harm, the Secretary of State, with whom the buck should stop, and who is answerable to the House, should tell the statutory water authority to cease fluoridation forthwith. At the present time—unless my right hon. and learned Friend can correct me — there is no provision in the Bill for ceasing to add fluoride to the water supply even if it appears harmful to health.

Although it stretches the bounds of credibility a little wide to suggest that any health authority would not withdraw an application for fluoridation of the water supplies if it became obvious that there was a danger to health, how can one know the level of perversity of a health authority, a non-elected body? How can we in this House, who are answerable to our constituents, be sure that a health authority, composed of experts who now are prepared to recommend that people should have mass-medication through the artificial addition of fluoride to their water supplies, who are not subject to any democratic control whatsoever, who are adopting the attitude of Big Brother, the nanny state, and saying, "We know what is good for you; therefore you must have fluoride," when confronted with evidence that fluoride is harmful to the health, will withdraw its application? There is no guarantee whatsoever. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill as at present constituted which would ensure that a health authority, in these circumstances, would withdraw its application.

That is perhaps the Bill's gravest defect. There may be a great body of evidence to show that fluoride is harmful to health, but that will not stop the health authority saying, "Aha, but we do not believe that evidence. We know best. We know that it is not harmful to health. We will discount that evidence." If it discounts that evidence, there is nothing in the Bill — no matter how plausible and persuasive the evidence—to prevent it from continuing to add fluoride to the water supplies.

5.30 pm

Mr. Fairbairn

I have two matters that I wish to raise. First, we are talking, not about mass medication, but about the force feeding of a medicinal product. If we all had chicken-pox and were made to take something to cure it, that would be mass medication. We are talking about the forced feeding of a medicinal toxic product when people are not suffering from any relevant illness. Secondly, the important point is not that it may be shown to be harmful, but that if just one person can be shown to have developed an illness—whether or not it is reversible—as a result of adding that toxic medicinal compound to the water supply, we surely have enough evidence to withdraw fluoride from the water supply.

Mr. Best

I have to say with great heaviness of heart and disappointment that that is not the Government's view.

Mr. Fairbairn

I know.

Mr. Best

I share my hon. and learned Friend's views on this matter. I believe that the right of an individual—however insignificant he may be in society—not to be harmed by Government action is something that must be considered. We should view it with the gravest concern when that person stands to be harmed by the actions not even of the Government but of a non-elected body that is not answerable to anyone.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has touched on a significant point. People will not be satisfied when my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister says, "Just because it has been all right in the past, nothing will happen in the future." I hope that I have not done my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice in paraphrasing him in that way.

Mr. Fairbairn

What about thalidomide?

Mr. Best

I was not going to mention that, because I do not wish to be accused of scaremongering. There is a great danger of being accused of that when discussing this subject. Consequently, when I present my evidence that harm can be caused to individuals and other things, I shall choose my words very carefully. The debate will no doubt be followed closely by those who are directly concerned. Hon. Members should bear in mind, incidently, that everyone is directly concerned, because we all have to drink water. I do not want to be emotive or to cause those of us who passionately believe that the Government are wrong to be accused of using scaremongering tactics.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I would not want my hon. Friend to push the thalidomide example too far, but is not the importance of that example that we are dealing once again with doctors, dentists and medical scientists who assert with absolute conviction that it is safe to fluoridate the water, and who ignore all the warnings? We are saying only that there were doctors and scientists who asserted with equal conviction that thalidomide was safe. They also ignored the warnings and were ultimately proved wrong. There is, after all, some doubt about the safety that medical and scientific men assert with great conviction, and scientists who advocate foundation should remember how wrong the scientists were about thalidomide. They should remember also the other mistakes that the scientific community has made.

Mr. Best

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I also agreed with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross said about the importance of the individual. If it can be demonstrated that one individual, however insignificant, may be harmed, that is sufficient reason to say that there should be a safeguard in the Bill. I do not even have to go as far as my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and for Perth and Kinross, because the new clause says only: If … it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of flouride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application". Unless my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister can put forward a cogent argument, I shall remain unable to see what is wrong with giving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the right to stop the artificial fluoridation of water supplies when it has been demonstrated that it is harmful. The corollary of rejecting my new clause must be that the Secretary of State will be satisfied that it is harmful, and will do nothing. As drafted, that is the effect of the Bill. I wish to protect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from that invidious situation and from the criticism that will be levelled at him when it is demonstrated that the artificial fluoridation of water supplies is harmful to health and he sits back and does nothing, because he has no power under the Bill to do anything. That will lead to considerable concern, disquiet and criticism. It may cause his resignation and could even cause the Government to fall. I certainly wish to protect my right hon. Friend from that.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)

rose—

Mr. Best

I give way to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft).

Mr. Meadowcroft

Whatever else one might accuse the Minister for Health of, it cannot be said that he is shy about intervening. Indeed, he could sometimes be accused of intervening too much.

We keep returning to the principle of fluoridation. I understand that hon. Members feel very strongly about it, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that those in favour of adding fluoride to the water supply feel equally strongly about the possible dangers and about the need to monitor the situation? Is he aware that that point was raised in Committee in relation to perhaps the most minor of afflictions, that of discoloration and dental mottling? In response to a point made by me in Committee, which appears at column 50 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State said that water was already monitored where fluoride occurred naturally. Even if the concentration amounts to only two points per milligram, there may be a possibility of discoloration. If that happens, the water is diluted. The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to the principle instead of tackling the point about whether monitoring goes on now.

Mr. Best

With great—

Mr. Toby Jesse (Twickenham)

Respect.

Mr. Best

The word would not come out when referring to a Liberal. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman — because I and other hon. Members were grateful to him and his colleagues last Tuesday for supporting new clause 1 which requires the whole measure to be subject to some consultation and democratic control—we stand on opposite sides of the fence. He believes in the efficacy of fluoride and that it should be added to the water supply. Nevertheless, I suspect that what unites both him and I—

Mr. Fairbairn

Him and me.

Mr. Best

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps I should have said, "him and me". I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is right about that. What concerns the hon. Member for Leeds, West, and other hon. Members, including myself—if I may put it that way—is that whatever is said about the monitoring that goes on now, it is surely right that the Secretary of State should be charged with the ability to insist on cessation of the artificial fluoridation of water supplies if it appears to him — he is, after all, answerable to the House — that fluoride is harmful. However hard the hon. Member for Leeds, West puts the case, he cannot argue that if fluoridation appears to be harmful there is a provision in the Bill to stop it by order of the Secretary of State, because there is none. We must rely on the good offices of the health authority. I am not sure whether every hon. Member has consummate faith in the good offices of health authorities.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Best

I apologise to my hon. Friend, and I hope that he will forgive me, but I wish to continue. I have been most generous and given way often.

Mr. Marlow

It is an important point.

Mr. Best

I am sorry, but I must continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me and that he will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and advance his points in his own inimitable way. I have delayed the House for a long time, and I have a considerable amount more to say. I have not yet put to the House the evidence on which I base my argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue and will remain in a sedentary position.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must not persist. He has heard the hon. Gentleman say repeatedly that he will not give way.

Mr. Best

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must continue.

I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister a rhetorical question, which I hope will stimulate him to leap to the Dispatch Box and give an answer which will assuage all the fears of the House and leave me in a happy frame of mind. I hope he will say that, although the new clause may be defective, he will ensure that in another place the Government will table an amendment which will have precisely the same effect, of giving the Secretary of State the power to stop fluoridation where it appears to be harmful. I can see no objection to that. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give that assurance. I see that he is suffering from sedentary cramp and is unable to come to the Dispatch Box. In all seriousness, I regret that. It is sad, because I drafted the amendment most carefully and in a way that was as generous as possible to the Government so that they could accept it without demur and without its diminishing the other aspects of the Bill.

I make no bones about the fact that I oppose the entire Bill. However, we are not debating the principle of the Bill or having a Second Reading debate. That has been obtained, and I am now genuinely seeking to table amendments which will ameliorate the effects of the Bill and assuage some fears. I greatly regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is unable to make that one concession, which is more of a safeguard than a concession. I suspect that in his heart of hearts he believes it to be right.

Mr. Marlow

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and sorry to have been so persistent, but I, too, wish to be helpful. My hon. Friend has alarmed the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to respond to my hon. Friend's point, will my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, give the House some free advice? My hon. Friend has built up a vision of a rogue health authority to which proof has been brought that fluoride is causing harm to those who drink the water in its area. My hon. Friend has properly tabled an amendment to deal with that. If his amendment falls, people will be force-fed fluoride, knowing that it is doing them harm. That is terrifying. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that the Minister and the Secretary of State have power to do something about that appalling position, if it arises?

Mr. Best

My hon. Friend has a charitable view of lawyers if he thinks that any of them will give free advice. If what my hon. Friend describes comes to pass and the new clause is not incorporated in the Bill, no one will be required to stop artificial fluoridation if it appears to be harmful. One will have to rely on the better nature of the health authority or the statutory water undertaker. In those circumstances, if harm were done to an individual, there would be no way of stopping fluoridation by order, and therefore the only recourse would be for the harmed person to apply to a court for an injunction to have fluoridation stopped because the effect of the fluoridation had harmed him. The court would undoubtedly grant an injunction to stop the statutory water undertaker from adding fluoride to the water if it could be demonstrated that that was the best way to resolve the matter before the case was given a final hearing.

5.45 pm

The only remedy would be in damages. That is precisely why the Secretary of State indemnifies local authorities now. My right hon. Friend accepts that damage may be done. If he were satisfied that fluoridation could never cause harm, there would be no need for an indemnity. Why does my right hon. Friend indemnify statutory water undertakers in the event of their being sued by an individual who has suffered harm as a result of the artificial addition of fluoride to water supplies if he does not believe that fluoridation could cause harm? I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's point. My answer does not give me any comfort, and I doubt whether it comforts him, but it is the reality. I hope that I have interpreted the matter correctly. If I have not, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who is also a lawyer, will come to the Dispatch Box and correct me.

I took the new clauses out of order because new clause 18 followed naturally on new clause 6, and I shall now deal with new clause 11. It requires the Secretary of State to establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

1. (a) benefit for teeth;
2. (b) harm to health;
3. (c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months. What harm can such a provision do? What is wrong with putting a responsibility on the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, to monitor the effects of the addition of fluoride to water supplies to ascertain whether it benefits health and teeth, or harms health, and plant and aquatic life. Is that not of material significance and importance to every hon. Member and every member of the general public who is having fluoride added to his or her water supply without his or her consent? It is a fundamental matter.

I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, but I must deal with the evidence that gave rise to my tabling the new clause and to the grave anxiety that is shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the effect of the Bill if it is unamended by my new clause. Despite the greatly increased incidence of dental fluorosis, that is mottling, in fluoridated countries, parents continue to be advised to give their children fluoridated toothpastes, tablets and vitamin drops.

The evil of that advice is graphically illustrated in a letter to the American National Fluoridation News, in which a mother writes about the harm caused by giving fluoride vitamin drops to her second child. She wrote: This child was born in a year when fluoride vitamin drops were the 'in thing', and he is now a constant reminder of my brainwashing. He has turned eight and his second teeth are coming in yellow like his first. Jennifer, the little girl across the street, has also been given fluoride vitamin drops for the first five years of her life, causing her baby teeth to be discoloured. Now that she is five going six her second teeth are coming in and she is suffering from a disease that will not only affect her physically, but could very well submerge an already shy personality. Jennifer has fluorosis, and her top teeth are vertically striped and the bottom ones are mottled. In this mother's opinion the dentist should be sued for malpractice. She ends the letter: Those of us in the neighbourhood who have children with fluorosis are torn between the urge to show everyone the damage fluoride can do, and the desire to spare the children's feelings by not asking them to show their diseased teeth. I do not refer to the veracity of the claim by the mother in that letter. I do not advance her claim as being truthful or otherwise, but she expresses a fear, and it is right that I should articulate fears expressed elsewhere in the world where fluoride has been added to water supplies. It is for the House and the public to determine whether what that lady says is based upon truth.

In April 1984 Here's Health carried an article entitled "Fluoride—the Threat to your Children". Some of my examples are from Scotland because fluoride has been added to the water supplies in Scotland. The cause celebre of Mrs. McColl of Strathclyde led to the Government introducing the Bill. In that case, it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the addition of fluoride to the water was illegal. The Government seek to ensure that what is now illegal is no longer illegal. They are turning the law on its head.

The Government are entitled to do that. Parliament can pass a law declaring that black is white. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes. However, that does not allay grave anxieties. After all, a court of law has declared a practice to be illegal—ultra vires—and the House is now being asked to say that what is illegal should be made legal.

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not think that my hon. Friend should jump to the conclusion that if the Bill becomes law—pray God it will not—fluoridation will be legal. Page 276 of Lord Jaunceys extensive judgment points out that sodium chloride is a medicinal product. We are dealing with more complex substances in the Bill.

A letter from the Committee on Safety of Medicines says that the products, fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicate fluoride have not been considered by the committee and have not been licensed for sale as medicinal products. Even if the Bill became law — I trust that it will not — it would remain illegal for those products to be added to the water supply as medicinal products.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are straying towards matters which are more appropriate to the Second Reading and which were dealt with thoroughly in that debate.

Mr. Best

I shall resist the temptation to answer my hon. and learned Friend's intervention.

In a leading article entitled "The Water Argument" on 12 November last year, the Dundee Courier and Advertiser stated: Now that there is suspicion of cancer triggering by fluoridation, the responsibility on the experts and councilors who argue that the substance is wholly beneficial is greater than ever. The expert can plead that it was the best knowledge available at the time he advised the action. The councillor who votes for fluoridation has an even greater responsibility. He has to say that he, not them, gives the authority to carry out this project. Again, I make no judgment about the veracity or otherwise of the contents of that article. I merely present it to the House as an expression of concern. The House and the public must determine wherein the truth lies, if there be any truth in such a submission.

The House will agree that my argument is modest. It is that when such fears are expressed, it is the height arrogance for any Government to argue that there should be no capacity for informing the public of the effect of the artificial addition of fluoride to the water supply. I regret having to use the word "arrogant", but by rejecting the new clause, as I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to do, he displays that arrogance. I acknowledge that he acts, not personally, but on behalf of the Government.

I do not like that arrogance in anybody. I do not like to see it in a Government whom I have had the pleasure and privilege to support on so many of the measures that they have brought to the House and for the way in which they have governed the country for the last five years through a difficult time. I do not like to level that criticism, but I must do so, because for the Government not to accept the new clause is tantamount to saying, "We do not think that the people should be informed. We do not think that it is necessary or relevant. We do not think that people have the right to be informed about the effect of fluoride on health, on teeth and on animal and plant life."

The Government are saying, "Go ahead, fluoridate away to your heart's content." They are saying to non-elected bodies in England and Wales, "We shall not put any bars on your action. We shall not make you stop fluoridating water even if it is shown to be harmful. We are not even going to require you or the Secretary of State to tell people about the effects". All that my new clause seeks to do is to remedy that so that the Government take account of sensitivities and are mindful of the need to ensure that no legislation is passed without full account being taken of sensitivities and fears, rightly or wrongly expressed.

It is important that we do not display arrogance towards people. We are charged with the responsibility of legislating in ways that affect millions of our fellow countrymen. For us to say that it does not matter whether people are told what is going on is arrogant and wrong.

An article in the Kilmarnock Standard on 17 August last year stated: Compulsory medication is only allowed by a court order for the mentally ill. Each person is put into this category when the water is fluoridated. This is easily recognised as a form of dictatorship. Again, I make no judgment. I do not want those remarks to be attributed to me. I make no judgment about the veracity of that statement, but I draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend and the House because it is important that such fears are articulated. If the Bill is passed unamended, this is the last time that such fears can be articulated. They will not be ventilated through any mechanism in the Bill, because there is no such mechanism.

An article in the Glasgow Evening Times, on 31 October last year, stated: The World Health Organisation are quoted in the current autumn issue of Homeopathy Today as having reached a general consensus that 'all citizens have a right to health, and to medical care of their choice.' Both principles are about to be flouted by our Government in their proposed Bill to alter Scottish law to legalise compulsory water fluoridation in Scotland — thus annihilating the inherent rights of individuals and exposing those with allergies to fluorides to unnecessary illness and suffering. 6 pm

In the Sunday Telegraph on 18 November 1984, Mary Kenny said: I have always accepted that fluoride in the water supplies is a sensible, constructive measure. My dentist, among others, has convinced me of the evidence as to its benefits: he says it does no harm, and it is a powerful prophylactic against tooth decay, particularly in young children. Moreover, I have grown up with a prejudice against anti-fluoride campaigners, who have been widely regarded as rather eccentric. [Interruption.] There is a note of amusement in the House. It may be true that some of the campaigners are eccentric. Miss Kenny continued: Yet there are quite reasonable questions to be asked about fluoridation, and the anti-fluoride campaigners are by no means wild-eyed men and women with crazed conspiracy fancies … But why not just wait and see a little longer. It is always possible that the anti-fluoride campaigners really do have a point. On 25 November 1984 Commander Hyde Burton commented on that article, saying: A fact that Mary Kenny didn't bring out in last week's item about fluoridation was that 98–99 per cent. of all expenditure on fluoridation would be entirely wasted. Speaking as an ex-chairman of a statutory water company I think I am right in saying that of all water circulated only about 5 per cent. is used for drinking purposes and only a tiny proportion of that would go down the throats of children under 12 whose teeth might benefit. No less important, of course, is the ethical aspect of mass-medication and the possible side effects of fluoridation. In my view it should be prevented at all costs. On 28 January 1984 my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton tabled questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He asked my right hon. Friend (1) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the upper limit of consumption of fluoride before (a) the teeth begin to discolour through mottling and (b) harm to health may begin to result; (2) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the degree of mottling of children and young persons' teeth from water fluoridated naturally or artificially to one part per million;

(3) if he will list the sources of any evidence available to his Department of the effect of a high concentration of magnesium and calcium in water containing natural fluoride at levels at or above one part per million."

I cannot do my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State any more disservice than he was done in Standing Committee when it was pointed out that in a former incarnation he had been an opponent of fluoride. I do not criticise him for that, because people are entitled to change their minds. Thank heavens hon. Members are capable of changing their minds in the light of new evidence. In the past, my hon. Friend said that it was his duty to oppose the use of fluoride, but he is now the Minister responsible for fluoridation.

Mrs. Anna McCurley (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

Will my hon. Friend check whether those children who have signs of mottled teeth have also been on antibiotics, which, taken from an early stage in life, can lead to mottling of the teeth?

Mr. Best

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that there are many causes of the harm done to children's teeth. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not digress, because if I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order. I do not wish to digress into what other matters may cause harm to children's teeth. I am concerned about the mottling of children's teeth because fluoride has been added to the water supplies.

Mr. Lawrence

Has my hon. Friend grasped the significance of the intervention by our hon. Friend from Scotland—

Mrs. McCurley

I represent Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. I should like to represent the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Lawrence

I am sure that in beauty my hon. Friend does so. I refer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and all parts north, south, east and west. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said that children may have mottled teeth because they have drunk fluoridated water. If that fact were known generally, people might have different views on whether it is right to fluoridate water, since so many of their children have to be on antibiotics.

Mr. Best

If I have been misled, it may be because of the charm exhibited by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and the beauty of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). I apologise to the House if I have been so misled. I shall not develop that point. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Best

I am loth to give way, because I have given way on a number of occasions. I must draw the line. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.

In answer to that parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said: The question of dental mottling was studied in the United States of America before the introduction of public water fluoridation. It was found that at a concentration of fluoride of about two parts per million an increasing proportion of children had mottled enamel that was apparent and objectionable aesthetically (Dean HT and Elvore E Further studies on the minimal threshold of chronic endemic dental fluorosis — Pub Health Rep 52: 1249–64 10 September 1937). The Bill says to the water authorities, "Take a stab at it. Do not get it absolutely right with a concentration of one part per million. Get it right in so far as is reasonably practicable." What happens if the water authorities do not get it right? What will happen if "so far as is reasonably practicable" means that there will be a concentration, not of one part per million, but of two parts per million of fluoride in the water supplies? We know what will happen, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has given the answer. My hon. Friend will say that children will have "mottled enamel" which is "apparent and objectionable aesthetically". Will we condemn our children to that? Do hon. Members have a right to do that? They do not. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went on: There have been a number of studies contrasting the prevalence of dental mottling, which may have various causes, in comparable fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. A review of the evidence is, for example, contained in pages 349–354 of Lord Jauncey's opinion in the Strathclyde fluoridation case. Lord Jauncey concluded: 'if the drinking water in Strathclyde is fluoridated to one part per million there is likely to be a very small increase in the prevalence of mottling of a type which will only be noticeable at very close quarters and … is very unlikely to create any aesthetic problems for the owners of the teeth'. I hope that people are satisfied with my hon. Friend quoting Lord Jauncey's opinion: there is likely to be a very small increase in the prevalence of mottling", but do not worry about that because it will only be noticeable at very close quarters and … is very unlikely to create any aesthetic problems for the owners of the teeth." — [Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 55–56.] It will not create any problems for the owners of the teeth if they do not open their mouths and smile. It goes beyond the realms of credibility for the Government to introduce such a measure when the Minister, in answer to a parliamentary question as recently as 28 January, quoted Lord Jauncey who said that there will be mottling at one part per million, which is what is in the Bill—not at a higher level — in effect saying, "Do not worry. It will not be aesthetically unpleasant because it will only be noticeable at close quarters." The answer is not to be in close quarters with anyone because they might spot that one has mottled teeth as a result of fluoride being added to the water supplies. I find that completely unacceptable. I say that with all the force at my command.

The retiring chief dental officer of New Zealand, where fluoridation started more than 30 years ago said—

Mr. Lawrence

Auckland.

Mr. Best

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, but I believe that Auckland is in New Zealand. The retiring chief dental officer said: Children's teeth are being harmed by fluoridation. Tooth decay mercifully is not as rampant now as it was some 10–15 years ago. Studies have shown, for example, that there is less tooth decay among children in non-fluoridated Bristol, west Sussex and the south-west Thames region than in artificially fluoridated Anglesey, Scunthorpe and Newcastle upon Tyne. Does that not give the lie to those who say, "Put fluoride in your water supplies because it will ensure that your children's teeth will be all right"? That is rubbish. It may have some effect, but if people want their children's teeth to be all right they must tell them not to eat sweets and other sticky things which will cause dental caries.

There is a danger that if fluoride is added to the water supplies people will take a more relaxed attitude about whether children should eat sweets, because they will say, "That is all right. Go along. Have a sweet. It will not harm your teeth much because fluoride has been added to the water supplies and the experts tell us that that stops dental caries." That is a dangerous philosophy. Every dentist will say that the only way to stop dental caries is not by drinking fluoridated water but by not eating sticky sweets or anything of that nature. Taylor and Taylor of Texas university found that one part per million of fluoride increases tumour incidence growth by 13 to 17 per cent. I shall go through the points quickly, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House will forgive me—

Mr. Michael McGuire (Makerfield)

We must absorb it all.

Mr. Best

The hon. Gentleman says that we must absorb it all. Unfortunately, that will be the case for the citizens of this country. They will absorb it all if the Bill goes through. That is one of the matters that worries me. I hope that the House will forgive me if I go at some speed because I realise that I have been speaking at great length and I do not wish to detain the House for a moment longer than necessary.

Professor Mohammed of Missouri university has produced nine papers showing the mutagenic potential of one part per million that exists especially for mice. [Laughter.] My right hon. and learned Friend is consumed with mirth at the suggestion that genetic damage to mice may be caused by fluoride. I hope that he was not laughing at that, because if he were, that does not say much for the Government's belief that animals should be used for testing a variety of drugs before they are tested on humans.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend must not feel that the House is pressing him. These issues are vital and important and they are also complex. Please, please will my hon. Friend not rush what he is putting forward? It is complex. I am bearing with him so far. He mentioned the word mutagenic. My hon. Friend is a lawyer, perhaps he can explain what is meant by that word. I have a feeling that it means something can have a genetic effect upon unborn mammals or other animals which would mean that when they were born they would be missing some of their components or physical attributes. If that is what my hon. Friend means by the word, which I have not met before, it is a serious matter and I would ask him to slow down.

6.15 pm

Mr. Best

The word comes from mutatus genus. It is Latin, and it means what my hon. Friend says. It is something that has an effect on genetics. I do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) agrees with me. I shall not give way for fear that his knowledge may be superior and I shall be found wanting.

Dr. Goester of the rheumatology and rehabilitation centre at the University hospital of Lausanne in Switzerland found that the accumulation of fluoride in a patient's bone tissue led to spontaneous fractures in the neck of both thigh bones. Dr. Allen London, past president of the American Academy of Dental Medicine, said: Any degree of dental fluorosis, even the least detectable, is an abnormality and is due to the toxic action of fluoride on the tissues forming the tooth. Dr. Phillips, professor of biochemistry at the university of Wisconsin, said: A fluoridated tooth can become carious and once it does there is no satisfactory repair. The pro-fluoridation British Dental Journal in 1966 even said that 10 per cent. of children consuming water fluoridation at one part per million suffered from some degree of enamel mottling, indicating some degree of toxic effect. It would appear that the British Dental Journal and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security agree that fluoride in the water supplies causes enamel mottling, which, in the view of my hon. Friend — adopting Lord Jauncey's view — is aesthetically unpleasant only at close quarters.

The new clause deals with the effect of fluoride on teeth and the harm that it may do to other substances. In Seattle there was an investigation into the increase in plumbing corrosion as a result of fluoridisation. The study was set up by the Kennedy engineers in 1970 and it said that by 1976, plumbing corrosion costs in Seattle would be in excess of $7 million per year or about $30 for each dwelling. The report stated: Fluoridation significantly increases the rate of corrosion for copper, galvanised steel and black steel piping. In 1956, the newsletter of the Australian Institute of Plumbers said that the corrosive action of fluoride would require the replacing of the underground water mains of the North Andover public water supply. It said: Fluoride is softening the heavy rust formation that has collected on the inside of the town water mains over the years, to a semi-soft consistency. That is some of the evidence of the effects of fluoride on pipes and of its corrosive nature. I do not pass judgment on whether fluoride corrodes pipes, I merely bring these matters to the attention of the House because I believe that they should be mentioned so that hon. Members will be better informed about the matter when they go into the Lobby tonight, I hope, behind me.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should have had some knowledge of those matters and the problems of corrosion, but, alas, that does not appear to be the case.

Today, I received an answer to a parliamentary question of mine, in which I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment if any studies have been brought to his attention which indicate that fluoride when added to the water supplies has a corrosive or degenerative effect on the vessels through which it passes. Nothing could be clearer than that. I have already drawn to the attention of the House the evidence of corrosion. One would have hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been aware of these matters. He replied: No. Fluoridation schemes have been in operation in various parts of the country for up to thirty years and there is no evidence that the addition of fluoride at a concentration of one part per million has had any effect on the corrosive properties of the water. An American Water Works Association manual on fluoridation states that there has been no reported instance of pipeline corrosion in the United States traceable to the fluoride content of water. What of the evidence that I have just brought to the attention of the House? I have never heard of the American Water Works Association manual, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health may use it as bedtime reading better to inform himself about these matters before coming to the House to argue them out. It appears that it had never heard of the evidence to which I have just drawn the attention of the House, although the Government appear to be basing their case on the American Water Works Association manual.

Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

Does my hon. Friend have some regard for the employment implications of this argument? If he were right, we could fluoridate the water, destroy our drainage systems and sewers and then have a massive capital programme to replace them, which would employ a great number of people, which would fit in with the political dogma advanced from some parts of the House. How would my hon. Friend feel about that argument?

Mr. Best

I regret to say that I do not find my hon. Friend's argument persuasive, and I do not wish to adopt it. I speak as a Member with the privilege of representing a constituency that, sadly, suffers from an unemployment level of 23 per cent. Whatever the employment implications, this matter is of such fundamental importance to the individual's health and what should be the individual's right to make decisions affecting himself and his health, that they must be put on one side. One cannot ignore the importance of this matter as it affects the health of individuals.

I know that my hon. Friend will accept the sincerity with which I say that, as a Member representing a constituency suffering from such an alarmingly high level of unemployment. Not a day passes without my concerning myself about matters of unemployment in Anglesey. I suspect that he will have similar concerns for his constituency, as we all do. However, I hope that he will agree that this matter is of such importance that even these matters of employment, important as they are, should be secondary to ethical matters and matters of the individual's freedom and right to make decisions about his health.

Studies have been done into the enzyme effects. A Swedish biochemist, a Nobel prize winner for his work on enzyme chemistry has said: as far as is known the toxic effect of fluoride is due solely to its inhibitor effect on many enzyme systems. Dr. Robert Harris of the Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Rae, PhD in biochemistry and organics at the University of Toronto, McGowan and Suttie at the University of Wisconsin in the Journal of Nutrition—I could go on and on, but I shall not do so because I do not wish to delay the House any longer. The evidence is there and I do not have the time to articulate all of it, much as I would wish to. I do not wish to test the patience of the House. Therefore, I shall not develop the argument as I might do, and I can only hope that some of my hon. Friends will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and develop some points themselves.

Dr. Emsley, reader in chemistry in King's college, concluded that Fluoride's strong hydrogen bond with amides has markedly increased the credibility of earlier claims of genetic damage, cancer and allergy from low fluoride levels. I want the House to understand, and I hope that the general public will understand, that I make no judgment on the veracity or otherwise of the claims made in these studies. I do not pretend or purport to have the knowledge or understanding of these matters to enable me to make a valid judgment on those issues. All I do, and believe that it is right that I should do, is to bring those matters to the attention of the House. It is right that the House, when it votes on these matters of such importance, should do so as well-informed as possible of both sides of the argument, and not just on the argument that I seek to advance.

Mr. Jessel

Was not all that gone into and decided on in the Strathclyde case? Why is my hon. Friend talking as though the Strathclyde case had never happened?

Mr. Best

With great respect to my hon. Friend, one cannot talk as though the Strathclyde case had never happened, because if it had not happened we should not have the Bill before the House. It is because the Strathclyde case found that the addition of fluoride to the water supply was ultra vires that we have the Bill before the House.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

In the Strathclyde case, all the evidence, and the counter-evidence to which my hon. Friend has not referred, was heard. Lord Jauncey came to the conclusion that fluoride was a safe and useful additive to water. All the evidence that my hon. Friend has been giving was rejected because it runs in the teeth of more reputable and more acceptable scientific evidence that goes in the opposite direction.

Mr. Best

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will understand why, and I hope that he will make no criticism of me for having done so, I do not advance the evidence of the other side of the argument. It is right that the House should hear the evidence of both sides of die argument. I do not articulate the evidence against the propositions that I have put because I do not have the time and it would be wrong of me to delay the House to do that. I would willingly do it, because I think that it is right that all these matters should be put fairly so that the House can make its decision. I do not do that now because of the time factor.

What is more, I know only too well that my right hon. and learned Friend, who is second to none in his powers of advocacy, will come to the Dispatch Box and will use all those powers to advance the argument against my arguments. It is right that the House should have it in that way. I hope that, in those circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend will not think that I am being disingenuous or seeking to mislead the House by not advancing the arguments that I know that he will be advancing in due course. I must rest my case on the evidence that I refer.

Both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) spoke about Lord Jauncey having much of this evidence in front of him. It is true that he rejected much of it, but it is also true that in other courts of law in the world, that evidence has not been rejected, but accepted. I suspect that neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor my hon. Friend would wish to base their case on the single judgment of one judge in Scotland.

Mr. Jessel

The case took over a year.

Mr. Best

However long it took for the learned judge to come to his conclusion does not enhance the quality of the conclusion at the end. I must caution my hon. Friend. It would be wrong for the House to base this legislation entirely on the decision of one judge, however learned, authoritative and well-informed. As soon as the House does that it relinquishes its legislative responsibility to the judiciary. Although I hold the judiciary in high respect, an opinion that is foreign to some hon. Members, I do not believe that it would conclude that this House should relinquish its legislative functions to the judiciary.

6.30 pm

Mr. Fairbairn

I have had the privilege of appearing before every judge who has sat on the senior bench in Scotland during the last 25 years, Lord Jauncey included. My hon. Friend's point is fallacious. It is not for a judge to come to a decision on medical and scientific evidence, except for the purposes of a civil claim. It is not for a judge to say that Professor Blogg has said that one should have one's haemorrhoids surgically removed and that Professor Zogg has said that one should have them removed by means of an injection. I am in favour of the surgery, but that is not a judgment that I should like.

Mr. Best

My hon. and learned Friend is a formidable advocate. I can only hope that I never have the misfortune to appear before him on the question whether my haemorrhoids should be removed in one way or another. I hasten to add that I do not suffer from that complaint and I trust that I never shall.

Mr. Fairbairn

My hon. Friend may suffer from that complaint as a result of speaking for too long.

Mr. Best

My hon. and learned Friend says that I may contract this problem as a result of speaking for too long. However, because of the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been shifting about in a sedentary position, embarrassed by the evidence that I have drawn to the attention of the House which conclusively puts the mockers on his argument, he may be the first to succumb to that difficulty.

There is evidence of genetic damage. I do not seek to rely upon it as true evidence, nor do I seek to adopt it for scaremongering purposes. However, it is right that I should refer the House to the studies that have been undertaken. Then the House and the people of this country can decide whether they believe or reject the evidence, just as Lord Jauncey had the right to make the decision that he did.

In 1973, the Russian Research Institute of Industrial Health and Occupational Diseases found that fluoride caused genetic damage to a rat. In 1974 the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in the United States of America found that fluoride caused genetic damage in mice, sheep and cows. In 1978, the Pomeranian Medical Academy found that fluoride causes genetic damage in humans. In 1979, the National Institute of Dental Research in the USA showed that fluoride does not cause genetic damage in mice. We can be thankful about that. In 1981, the Institute of Botany in Baku showed in three studies that fluoride caused genetic damage in rats. In 1982, the University of Missouri, Kansas City, showed that fluoride caused genetic damage in a mouse, so unfortunately mice come back into the league of sufferers. In 1983, the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Kunming, in the People's Republic of China showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in deer. In 1984, the Nippon dental university in Tokyo showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in hamsters and embryo cells. Also in 1984 the same university study showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in a human cell culture.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to discredit those studies. He may be successful. Nobody would be more satisfied than I if he were to discredit those studies, because they cause me great concern. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not capable of discounting those studies and persuading the House to come round to his view, it would be an act of criminality on his part to allow this Bill to pass into law unamended.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend was asked what effect fluoride had on the teeth of a rat. I ought to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a document that I have received today, and that he may also have received, from Mr. P. Clavell Blount, who I understand is an expert on the subject. He maintains that fluoride is a valuable rat poison.

Mr. Best

I was unaware that fluoride is a valuable rat poison, so I am now better informed. However, from the evidence I have been given, it appears that that would be a natural consequence.

Mr. Michael Brown

This is no joke. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an article which appeared two years ago in The New Scientist. It was written by Mr. Geoffrey Smith, who is an Australian dentist. He suggested that there is a serious risk of fluoride overdose and that fluoride can be harmful, particularly when one looks at the studies on rats which show that blood ionic fluoride levels of 0.2 parts per million cause dental fluorosis, a serious form of damage to developing tooth cells; and rats are between one-seventh and one-tenth less sensitive to fluoride than humans".

Mr. Best

I shall not comment on that point, because I am not medically qualified. However, my hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to advance his argument.

The Japanese report shows in relation to fluoride that a potential for carcinogenicity of this chemical, which is widely used by humans, is suggested. The point is made no more strongly than that and I do not wish to make it any more strongly. However, the concern remains and until that concern is expunged this new clause should form part of the Bill. It would impose a duty upon my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the general public were made aware of all these studies and that they were fully debated.

If the Government are so certain of their case, why are they not prepared to debate these matters in full, through the medium of my new clause, which would place a duty upon the Secretary of State to make available all of these studies? No doubt he would pass his own comments upon them. If these studies are disreputable and are not to be believed, is it not right that this fact should be exposed in public rather than that a lurking doubt should be left in the minds of the general public and of hon. Members? That is what will happen if my new clause is not adopted.

An additional study was made by Japanese scientists which shows that fluoride causes DNA damage. It may be that this study can be totally invalidated.

Mr. Fairbairn

What is the definition of DNA?

Mr. Best

If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I shall not go into the question of definitions.

It is possible that this report can be discredited and that no value whatsoever can be attached to it. Why, therefore, should one fear these matters being drawn to the attention of the public in the way that my new clause suggests, with my right hon. and learned Friend making his own comments upon them every 12 months? At least the general public would then be aware of the studies that existed and of the arguments for and against. No right-thinking person could disagree with that proposition. It is right that the matter should be discussed widely in the manner that I suggest rather than left to create lurking fears.

Fluoride accumulates in the human system over a time. That is why no dentist or doctor will say what is a safe dose of fluoride. There is no such thing because fluoride is a poison. One of the problems of the Bill is that people will ingest fluoride for the purposes of mass medication—I know that that is not accepted by some of my hon. Friends — when we do not know the nature, age and physical attributes of the recipient, or the total accumulation in the body of any one recipient.

What kind of medicine is that? We would not know who was getting it or how much they had had before. Fluoride is a poison and is cumulative. Is that what we shall see in Britain in 1985? We still like to pretend that Britain is a free country where people are not mass medicated against their will.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that fluoride in significant quantities is contained in water as a natural constituent element. It is picked up by water as it passes through the land. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Handbook: Airborn fluorides have caused more world-wide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Best

I must not give way. I have given way a number of times to my hon. Friend and I have delayed the House for long enough. In the interests of brevity, I must not give way to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will understand and will forgive me.

In my constituency I have Anglesey Aluminium, a plant which produces aluminium, as the name suggests. It also produces fluoride as a by-product which comes out of the chimney and is spread around the surrounding land. I make no criticism of Anglesey Aluminium because the level of fluoride is closely and effectively monitored. Close care is taken to safeguard the health of people living nearby. I am satisfied with the way that the fluoride is monitored. But that does not alter the effect that fluoride has on various substances around. In a report entitled "The Effects of Industrial Emissions on the Trees at Penrhos, Holyhead" by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Natural Environment Research Council, it was said: The damage recorded to many trees in the vicinity of the works is typical of that caused by emissions of fluoride, similar damage has been reported near several other fluoride sources and aluminium works around the world. It is not unusual for trees to be killed by fluoride in the immediate vicinity of aluminium works. Of course, we are talking about levels of fluoride far in excess of anything contemplated in the Bill. The level that is contemplated in the Bill of one part per million will not cause death or anything like that. I would be the last person to make any such suggestions. But I mention that because my new clause requires the Secretary of State to make studies available on the damage to plant and animal life. The general public should be aware of the effect of fluoride, if not on themselves, at least on other substances. It does kill plants and trees and it is a poison. That should be well known to everybody before anyone contemplates the artificial fluoridation of water supplies.

6.45 pm

I said that the levels contemplated in the Bill would not cause damage to human beings which led to death. I am satisfied of that, and I hope that I am right. But I have to be careful about what I say because there are studies which show that that is not true. There are studies which show that there may be cancer links. I put it no higher than that. As I said earlier, I do not want to be accused of scaremongering. But is it not right that those studies should be thoroughly discounted before we have a Bill under which fluoride is added to water supplies?

I referred earlier, in answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), to what is perhaps the greatest problem. In Committee, my hon and learned Friend the Member for Burton said: Water authorities know what happened in Annapolis in the United States in November 1979, when it all went wrong. A mistake by a waterworks employee caused the discharge of 1,000 excess gallons of fluoride into the drinking water, increasing its concentration to 15 times its normal level. As a result, eight patients at a private clinic suffered nausea, vomiting, weakness and a burning sensation in their chests after an hour or so of treatment on their dialysis machines. All were taken off the machines, one patient died and the doctors were at a loss as to what had caused the illness of the dialysis patients. When they learned that a flock of people were going to the hospital suffering from diarrhoea and nausea and that an accident had occurred at the waterworks, one of the local officials said 'We did not want to jeopardise the fluoridation programme'. The authority said that it would never have detected the error of the employee had it not been for the kidney patients on the dialysis machines."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 29 January 1985; c. 17–18.] I am leaning heavily on the evidence given in Committee on this matter. What answer did my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) give to that serious point about death being caused as a result of a mistake causing more fluoride to be added to the water supply than was intended? He said: If we look at the Annapolis accident, where one unfortunate patient died during or after dialysis as a result of an excess of fluoride and an excess of aluminium in his body, we find that the reason was that the operator of the dialysis machine was not following the well-laid-down and well established safety precautions and was using totally untreated water. We in this country give very clear instructions that all water must be treated to screen out undesirable elements for those going through the long-drawn-out business of kidney dialysis." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 February 1985; c. 99.] I am sure that the Government give clear instructions that all water should be treated to screen out undesirable elements such as fluoride. It was accepted by my hon. Friend that it was undesirable and should not be present in water used by renal dialysis patients. I am sure that the Government use every best endeavour. I would be appalled if they did not. Some people can sustain that argument on the basis that we should not worry about the future because there have been no accidents in the past in Britain. I am sure that this is what the peope of Bhopal said and I am sure that that is what the people of Annapolis, where one person died, said.

That is what people in Britain say now. But I do not expect it to be said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health on behalf of the Government, because that would be irresponsible. The House is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the health of every citizen in the land. If we fail in that sacred duty, we fail in our duty to ourselves and in our duty as Members of Parliament. All that my new clause seeks to do is to try to put that right.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

When I was induced by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Lawrence

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard one speech on the subject, and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak about these important new clauses. By getting to his feet, my right hon. and learned Friend appears to be not prepared to consider further arguments advanced in support of the new clauses. It looks very much as though he is trying to cut off further debate. If he does not want to give that impression, I ask him to sit down so that other hon. Members may make their contributions.

Mr. McGuire

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was asked through the usual channels whether I wished to speak because one or two of my hon. Friends not presently in the Chamber want to speak. I am here and I have listened to the lucid address of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). I said that I wished to speak, but was told that the Minister wanted to intervene. I am disappointed at that. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), that all arguments should be heard before the Government move a closure motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not need to hear any more points because it is not a question that I can answer. It is not unusual for the Minister to rise after a speech — which, after all, has lasted one hour and 50 minutes—to put a point of view that might possibly be helpful to the debate. That does not cut off the debate.

Mr. Marlow

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may well be constructive and helpful to the House for my right hon. and learned Friend to put forward his points at this stage. However, it is obvious that other right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who has tabled a new clause, wish to speak and, after that, to have a reaction from the Government on the points that they make.

Can you tell the House, Mr. Speaker, whether in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend wishing to catch your eye a second time he would be successful in that endeavour before this matter is put to the vote?

Mr. Speaker

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks the leave of the House to speak a second time, and the House gives him that leave, he may do so.

Mr. Clarke

I have not yet decided whether to seek the leave of the House to intervene a second time because I have only begun to intervene for the first time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) is almost a debate in himself. Therefore, I am justified in trying to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this time. During my hon. Friend's speech I was twice drawn to my feet and I commented on his impatience to hear my case in response to the new clauses. I now acquit him of impatience and congratulate him on the comprehensive nature of the case that he presented to the House.

In so far as it was relevant and in order, he touched on some of the arguments raised from time to time in various parts of the world about adding fluoride to water. He felt that the opinion of some of the studies was that that would damage most of the parts of our bodies plus those who inherited our genes, would kill our mice, damage our rats, poison our deer and rot our pipes and sewers. Even given the current controversy in some of the alarmist newspaper reports in this country, I am glad that no study has yet suggested that fluoride can give AIDS to anyone. I suspect that if the debate goes on much longer it will be only a matter of time before that is earnestly suggested.

The new clause was moved eloquently by my hon. Friend. New clause 6 would place an obligation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make provision for the constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom. I can make one general point in response to that which could be made also about the other new clauses. There is nothing between us in principle about the objectives of the new clauses. It is an important part of the Government's case and the case of those who approve of fluoride that it is a welcome additive to water provided that it is added at the recommended level of about 1 mg per litre.

Fluoride as a substance taken in large quantities or put in water at a significantly higher level than that is, indeed, undesirable and could even be a dangerous substance. It is extremely important that we continue to ensure—as we have ensured for the past 30 years in this country and as has happened, with the exception of one incident, in every other country where this applies—that fluoride is put into the water at safe levels so that it has the desirable effect, which it undoubtedly has, of reducing dental caries in children and, eventually, the general population without jeopardising people's health or even the health of their pets and rodents.

Mr. Best

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I shall give way in a moment.

The last time that we debated the matter, and had a brisk debate on the first new clause selected, those hon. Members watching the progress on the television screens accused me of attempting to talk out my own Bill. In my defence, I refer them to Hansard and point out that I gave way on that occasion to my hon. Friends about once every 30 seconds. I shall perhaps be a little less generous on this occasion.

Mr. Best

As my right hon. and learned Friend is his usual generous self, I hope that he will not change his view on giving way, as this is a debate. Is he satisfied that there will never be an accident in which more than the recommended amount of fluoride will be added to the water supply? If he is not satisfied, and if there is an accident, what will he do?

Mr. Clarke

It is, of course, important that I am able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the risks of accident. I cannot simply rely on our extremely good record to date. However, I must point out how that record has been achieved and how we believe that it can be maintained without my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needing an additional statutory power — indeed, an obligation—to undertake constant monitoring.

As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, the new clause deals with all water in the United Kingdom — both natural water supplies and those where fluoride has been artificially added—

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I shall give way periodically, but I must be allowed to finish a sentence before doing so.

I begin by dealing with the natural fluoride concentrations in water, which is an important point. All water has fluoride in it; we are talking about the actual level. There are some places, most notably Hartlepool, where the natural level is already at the level to which we propose water authorities should have the power to raise it. All other water has fluoride in it. It is a naturally present ingredient. We are talking about a possible step that could be taken by water authorities to raise the natural level to the level where experience has shown that it has a beneficial effect on the population.

It is right to take a view about natural fluoride concentration. Nowhere in this country is the natural concentration above the recommended level, although that is the case in some other countries. But even the natural fluoride concentrations in this country are periodically monitored by the water undertaker in areas that are not artificially fluoridated. That has never given rise to great problems because the natural fluoride concentrations do not vary significantly throughout the year. There is no need to place the Secretary of State under a duty constantly to monitor the level. Fluoride exists naturally and has never given rise to any health hazard. It is also present in the earth and the air, so the natural ingestion of fluoride is something that none of us can avoid. There is no need to undertake new, continuous monitoring.

Mr. Marlow

It is accepted that in parts of the country there is a level of fluoride naturally in the water supply, but in those areas there are also other impurities such as magnesium and calcium that counteract the effect of fluoride. If we were to put that level of fluoride into water in parts of the country that do not have it at the moment, at the high level that my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting and without the other trace elements, there might be effects that have not yet been properly monitored.

My right hon. and learned Friend asked why the Secretary of State for Social Services should be responsible for monitoring. As I understand the new clause, it says nothing about the Secretary of State. It is something that could quite properly be done by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If that were the case, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would look at it in a slightly different way.

Mr. Clarke

I shall explain what the monitoring is, where it is relevant — which is where the level in the public water supply is raised by water authorities—and why I do not believe that there is any need for additional monitoring.

I do not know who has misled my hon. Friend about magnesium and calcium counteracting the adverse effect of natural fluoride. I do not accept that there is any scientific case to support his assertions. There is absolutely no harm from the natural level of fluoride in the water in Hartlepool. Indeed, it is the good fortune of the population of Hartlepool to have that level of fluoride in their water, and we are seeking to ensure that water authorities in other parts of the country bring the same benefits to their populations.

Mr. Lawrence

rose—

7 pm

Mr. Clarke

I will not give way until I have developed my speech.

I come to the question of the monitoring of fluoride in the public water supply. It is important that the level of fluoride, where it is raised in the public water supply, should keep as close as is reasonably practicable to the 1 mg per litre level, and we have arrangements for doing that. Those arrangements will, in practice, be strictly adhered to.

Fluoridation in this country is carried our to guidelines laid down by the Water Quality Advisory Committee. For practical reasons, it is not possible to prevent the concentration varying for most of the time between 0.8 and 1.2 mg per litre. The upper limit imposed by the guidelines of the advisory committee is 1.5 mg per litre. That range is entirely acceptable on health grounds and leaves a wide margin of safety.

The guidelines are consistent with the World Health Organisation's recommendations and with the EEC directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. Within those guidelines, the water authorities must take care that the level of fluoride is maintained.

They make sure, therefore, that their staff regularly monitor the water to ensure that it keeps within the guidelines. By the machinery which we use, the fluoride dosing is stopped automatically if it reaches 1.5 mg per litre. The cut-off point is set at less than 1.5 mg per litre in many cases. In a few schemes, regular monitoring is carried out manually and in all cases the fluoride concentrations are continuously recorded by an automatic monitor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said that that had worked perfectly well in this country. I trust that he has some confidence in the competence and credibility of the water authorities and agrees that their automatic equipment and fail-safe devices should be regarded as adequate.

My hon. Friend prays in aid one incident which took place at Annapolis in 1979. It is no disrespect to him and those who agree with him to say that a feature of all the arguments adduced against putting extra fluoride in water rely on the statements of obscure, bizarre scientists in odd parts of the world, on curious incidents or, as in this case, on one minor incident on which a great mountain of argument is based, most aspects of which, when examined, do not sustain the argument.

An extremely unfortunate incident occurred at Annapolis in 1979 which caused the fluoride level to rise to 20 times the optimal level. That one incident gave rise to the only case of which I am aware in which a person died, and we have equipment which would make it impossible for that to happen here, because we set the cut-off point at one and a half times the optimal level.

In that case, nobody died among the general population of Annapolis. However, there was an unfortunate incident involving a number of dialysis patients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn pointed out. One of those subsequently died, not from fluorosis but from cardiac arrest, no doubt because of the unpleasant experience he suffered in respect of the fluoride.

The operator of the kidney dialysis plant on that occasion had not been following the advice of the United States public health service and used untreated tap water in the dialysis machines. In Britain we give the same advice—that dialysis should not be carried out with untreated tap water—the main point being to reduce the aluminium, which is far more dangerous for dialysis patients, and the processes used to remove the aluminium have the effect of lowering the amount of fluoride in the water.

Putting all that together, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn can find, from examining years of experience in every major city throughout the world, only one case—and that was an accident by a water worker—when an individual was killed, and that person died from a heart attack as a result of the unpleasant experience he had had with fluoride. We have equipment in this country to prevent such a massive overdose from occurring. We also have arrangements to ensure that dialysis patients are not exposed to risk in that way. The points that my hon. Friend makes underline the importance of monitoring. The arrangements that we have had for a long time, in Birmingham and elsewhere, would prevent such an occurrence, and those arrangements can continue to be relied on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made great play with the suggestion that, somehow, we were trying to keep the practice of monitoring away from the public, and he seemed to suggest that the public would not have access to such material so that they could feel sure that monitoring was occurring. I shall demonstrate how he is wrong. Indeed, we seem to be flooding the world with paper on the subject of fluoride. The trouble is that nobody reads it.

It is possible to have access to the monitoring done by water authorities. Water consumer consultative committees may approach water authorities about the results of monitoring; they have the right to have that information from the authorities. Thus, people can check the records of their water authorities in monitoring the level of fluoride added to the water.

New clause 11 seeks to require the Secretary of State — I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that the legislation enables the Government to decide that any Secretary of State may carry out the duty that the new clause would impose—to establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

1. (a) benefit for teeth;
2. (b) harm to health;
3. (c) harm to plant and aquatic life

and to report the result of such monitoring to each House of Parliament every 12 months. I will deal with the general proposition. I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, that the public are entitled to have all the information from the Secretary of State that they require to be reassured and be up to date with information on the benefits to health and the possible harm that may flow from adding fluoride to water.

We in this country have already carried out fluoridation for nearly 30 years. We introduced it here only after close study by an expert team who visited the United States to assess fluoridation schemes already in progress there. That team published its report in 1953. Since then, we have published a vast amount of information both on the benefits to dental health and the results of inquiries into possible risks to health carried out by, or on behalf of, the Government and various public agencies.

We have always kept the evidence on safety under review, and we shall continue to do so. I do not believe that a new statutory duty and requirement for an annual report would add much to all the work that has been done and will continue to be done in this sphere.

The Government have established a research committee to keep the evidence on safety under review. This was done by contracting general practitioners practising, first, in test areas and by having an analysis of the relevant statistical data by means of investigations carried out on sample sections of the public. Their methods and results were set out in two reports which were published by the Stationery Office and which were entitled: "The conduct of fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the results achieved after five years" and another document of the same type but after 11 years. The conclusion of the second report, issued in 1969, stated: Apart from demonstrating the beneficial effects of fluoridation, the report has confirmed its complete safety. During the 11 years under review, medical practitoners reported only two patients with symptoms which they felt might have been associated with fluoridation. Careful investigation in both cases failed to attribute the symptoms to the drinking of flouridated water. I shall not delay the House, but I will give some examples of the type of matters that were looked into by the research workers who produced the two reports, which were readily available to the public.

There was a pilot study of urinary fluoride concentration in naturally high-fluoride areas; a pilot survey of consumption of liquids; a dental survey in high-fluoride areas; dental examinations in fluoridated areas; regular inquiries to medical general practitioners in fluoridated areas; scrutiny of vital statistics in high-fluoride areas; specific investigations of the prevalence of osteochondritis juvenalis of the spine, the accumulation of fluoride in bone, the suggested association between malnutrition and dental mottling, the incidence of mongolism, peptic ulcer, and school absenteeism; the size of the thyroid gland in schoolgirls; the incidence of rheumatic disorders in fluoridated areas; and the incidence of osteoperosis in fluoridated areas. I shall not go on, as my hon. Friend did not go on, to burden the House with too much of the detail of his inquiries. I seek to demonstrate the other side of the argument. Government studies have gone into similar obscurities of the kind examined in such detail by my hon. Friend and by other people who have challenged fluoridation.

During the past 30 years a faction of people has sought to establish links between fluoride and various conditions and diseases—some obscure and some not so obscure—and there has been a great deal of research and scientific evidence devoted to knocking all these things down. Every time they are knocked down another idiot idea is raised by a retired dental officer in New Zealand or someone like that and there is considerable trouble taken to challenge that as well.

Mr. Michael Brown

rose—

Mr. Fairbairn

rose—

Mr. Clarke

No, I am not giving way. The debate is not yet balanced in terms of time or argument.

To come up to date, the campaign against fluoride helped a lady in Glasgow — I somewhat unfairly described her the other day as toothless; I discover that the jargon in the medical world is non-dentate—to bring an action against the water authority. Lord Jauncey sat for a year hearing all the evidence of leading experts on both sides. This was all at public expense because the good lady had legal aid. A vast amount of evidence was heard by the Scottish judge. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that a judge is not absolutely the right person always to give an authoritative judgment. I am sure Lord Jauncey had a better opportunity than any of us has had to weigh up the conflicting evidence and come to conclusions. As everyone knows, he came to conclusions on health grounds which were wholly in favour of the policy of putting fluoride in water.

Mr. Michael Brown

rose—

Mr. Clarke

Lord Jauncey was diplomatic in his judgment. Some of the medics who were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn received rather harsh treatment at the hands of Lord Jauncey when he described what he finally decided was the quality of their work.

Mr. Fairbairn

The people will hardly be reassured if my right hon. and learned Friend, who is not even a judge yet, dismisses scientific research as idiotic because it does not happen to agree with his argument. Surely we are entitled to better than that.

Mr. Clarke

There has been a suggestion that all the pipes will rot. After 30 years no one has discovered any problems with the copper piping in Birmingham or anywhere else. This reference was based on an incident that happened in Seattle of which, so far as we can find out, the American water authorities were completely unaware. My hon. Friend immediately dismissed the American water authorities, which are responsible for the public water supply in America, as being misguided.

Mr. Michael Brown

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I shall give way to my hon. Friend at some point.

The latest work which the Government commissioned has just been produced—a report by a body of leading epidemiologists chaired by Professor Knox entitled "Fluoridation of Water and Cancer". It is a comprehensive review of the epidemiological evidence which I quoted on Second Reading. Its conclusion is that no link has been established between cancer and the addition of fluoride to the water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was fair when he pointed out that he had time to present only one side of the case. But what happens when the Government respond to the constant desire and pressure to give more public information is that those who are convinced that they do not want fluoride in the water do not take the slightest notice of what the Government do. We spent a great deal of time and public money on the work of leading epidemiologists. They produced a study which is available to the public at the price of £6.70 from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. So far I do not think that any opponent has made the slightest reference to it. Indeed, from everything they say it is obvious that none of them has bothered to open its cover. They are prepared to rely, as I said, on a retired dental officer from Auckland—

Mr. Michael Brown

rose—

Mr. Clarke

—about whom I have heard half a dozen times already, on letters in the "Kilmarnock Bugle" and on obscure evidence of campaigns against fluoride in America.

Mr. Michael Brown

My right hon. and learned Friend has worried me and many of my hon. Friends by the statement that he has just made. In the House of Commons Library I have read in an eminent magazine, New Scientist, an article entitled "Fluoridation — Are the Dangers Resolved?" which says: Fluoride is now added to drinking water to protect teeth and Australian dentists now suggest that there is a serious risk of overdose. I expect my right hon. and learned Friend, a Government Minister, to take an article of that kind seriously. I was greatly upset to hear that any article that might appear in a magazine of the eminence of New Scientist dismissed airily in an arrogant and unreasonable way.

7.15 pm

Mr. Clarke

I confess that I have not read that article. My hon. Friend has probably never read the Knox report. That article appears to use phrases such as "Australian dentists now suggest". Before it is taken seriously, someone should ask for the identity of the Australian dentists and for the basis on which they made the suggestion. Apparently it referred to the dangers of an overdose. Of course there is a danger of overdose; mottling becomes serious when the level of fluoride is twice that recommended and people may be killed if they are given enough fluoride. At 1 mg per litre health authorities not only in this country but in many countries throughout the world are satisfied that it is safe and efficacious.

Mr. McGuire

rose—

Mr. Clarke

We are monitoring, and we will continue to review the evidence. If my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) says that we should address ourselves to articles in New Scientist, we will do so. But when it comes to the suggestion of a new statutory duty, it is plain that we have spared no efforts, no public expense and no pains in reviewing the evidence, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. McGuire

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I do not believe we need an annual report or that we need to start examining the harm to plant and acquatic life, which no one has established anywhere, which is hardly surprising because fluoride is naturally present in the sea at a concentration of about 1 mg per litre. Therefore, I trust that all those who oppose the Bill do not go swimming when they visit the seaside because they will expose themselves to what they regard as a dangerous concentration of fluoride.

Mr. McGuire

I wanted to intervene when the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to other countries. Why does he think that other countries abandoned their schemes? Did they not have the same duty as the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Does he not think that they abandoned their schemes because they had doubts, apart from the principle of mass medication?

Mr. Clarke

The same argument has gone on in most countries where fluoride has been added to the water. I accept that in some countries it has been maintained more vigorously. I well remember meeting the Minister of Health for Ireland who could not understand all the fuss in this country because the Irish Parliament had just passed, with the minimum of opposition, legislation to make fluoridation compulsory. Sweden is the only country of which I am aware that has gone the way the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) suggested. Other countries have arguments about written constitutions that do not apply here but in large parts of the United States, in the Soviet Union and in many other developed countries fluoride is added.

Mr. Jessel

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Royal College of Physicians, the highest medical academic body in the country, studied the matter fully a few years ago and produced a comprehensive report vindicating completely the fluoridation of water to prevent dental decay in children? Why should this House pay less attention to the Royal College of Physicians than to some chap who writes an article in New Scientist or an obscure American when the opinions of all those people have been weighed at great length by Lord Jauncey and found wanting?

Mr. Clarke

No royal college or reputable body of medical or dental opinion in this country is against the adding of fluoride to water. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow

Does my right hon. and learned Friend include the British Medical Association as one of those reputable bodies? What is its view?

Mr. Clarke

The BMA is a formidable trade union on behalf of the medical profession. I have not consulted it on its views on fluoride. I have been too busy consulting it with great assiduity on other matters. I refer to the royal colleges and those responsible for medical standards. New clause 18 provides: If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to the water supply is harmful to health he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1). I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, who pointed out to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn the defects in the drafting of the new clause which has already led the Chair to say that it would not be suitable to allow a Division on it.

A helpful note has been passed to me by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for health that the BMA is in favour of fluoridation and has said so. On that basis I am happy to add the BMA to my list of organisations which are in favour of adding fluoride to our water supplies.

New clause 18 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to terminate any application made under the appropriate section. It is clear that my hon. Friend believes that if at any stage in our copious investigations it appears, even in the opinion of unrepentant sinners such as myself, that there is serious doubt about the safety of adding fluoride to water supplies, the fluoride should be withdrawn. Whatever the defects of the new clause, I agree that that should be so.

I do not agree that there is a serious risk that any health authority would defy health evidence of the sort that I have postulated and would continue adding fluoride to the water supply in its area. Following the judgment of the Lord Jauncey, Stranraer, in the Strathclyde region, immediately withdrew fluoride from the water in its area. We would expect water authorities and health authorities to combine to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn the moment that any serious doubt was raised. If there were any hesitation on the part of a health authority, I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the necessary powers to issue a direction. In such circumstances, I am sure that he would issue a directive to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn. That would certainly be done if it appeared that there were certainly doubts about safety.

It is unfortunate that in this instance my hon. Friend and I are dividided on the merits of the issue. However, the Bill is merely proposing that water authorities should be empowered to add fluoride to their water supplies on the application of health authorities. The issue will be resolved eventually in practice by local authorities consulting public opinion throughout the country. It will not be resolved in this place.

I agree with the arguments and aims behind all of the three new clauses which have been tabled by my hon. Friend. I hope that I have satisfied him that we shall ensure that levels of fluoride are monitored and maintained. Indeed, health authorities will ensure that that happens. They will continue to monitor all the evidence, including that which is beneficial and any claimed adverse effects on health. We would act promptly to ensure that fluoride was withdrawn if ever the evidence changed. I realise that my hon. Friend will not be too satisfied with my reply, but I hope that in the light of the undertakings that I have given he will accept that there is not the greatest division over the details in the Bill between the Government and himself.

Mr. Dobson

It may be helpful or unhelpful if I intervene now. I find myself in the curious position of supporting generally the case advanced by the Minister for Health. It is not my normal relationship—

Mr. Best

Creep! Sycophant!

Mr. Dobson

—with the Government Front Bench. However, I differ from him in my view of the three new clauses before us. New clause 6 requires the Secretary of State to make provision for the constant monitoring of the levels of fluoride in water supplies throughout the United Kingdom. Given what the right hon. Gentleman does most of the time—for example, attempting to ruin the National Health Service, destroying social services and tearing the social security system to pieces—a new clause that required him personally to go with a plastic bucket to take samples from every river, water course, lake and reservoir would be seen by me as a proposal that would be of benefit to the nation's health. Unfortunately, we do not have that proposition before us.

It is clear from the Minister's explanation that our arrangements for monitoring what goes into water supplies are considerably superior to those that apply in most other parts of the world. That is one of the reasons why the standard of control and cleanliness of our public water supply has been a source of envy to many other countries. I hope that it will continue to be so. It is only recently that citizens of a number of countries have been able, because of an improvement in public water supplies, to stop drinking Perrier water from bottles.

Some of those who wish to see special monitoring of fluoride levels in water seem to forget the myriad of chemicals that are introduced into our water supply. Apparently this is done with the full approval of certain Conservative Members. However, they seek to distinguish between fluoride and other chemicals. I am not aware that anyone has suggested that the amount of chlorine that goes into our water is unsatisfactory. There is no evidence that the arrangements for monitoring the amount of fluoride in water are in any way inferior to the arrangements for monitoring chlorine levels.

Mr. Fairbairn

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform the House what are included in the myriad of substances that are added to water. I do not know what "myriad" means, but presumably it involves many substances. Is he so stupid and prejudiced that he cannot see the difference between making water fit to drink by adding chlorine and making it a form of medicine for some, perhaps, and forcing everyone else to drink it? Can he not see the difference?

Mr. Dobson

I was attempting to address myself to the clauses before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman approves of monitoring of substances that go into water of which he approves, and that principle and the principle of monitoring a substance of which he disapproves are exactly the same. If he cannot recognise that, he is even more stupid than he thinks I am.

Mr. Fairbairn

That would be difficult.

Mr. Dobson

I am a supporter of adding fluoride to our water. I believe that it benefits children by going a long way towards abolishing child toothache. That seems to be a good idea. I speak as someone who suffered from it, and my children have suffered from it from time to time. However, I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept new clause 11, or something on its lines. If the benefits that have flowed from the introduction of fluoride into Birmingham's water supply had been reiterated year after year in annual reports, that would have helped convince those who have genuine and legitimate doubts about the benefits of fluoride and concern about potential harm from adding fluoride to water supplies. That would have been to the benefit of the truth and that would have been the result if the Government had undertaken regular monitoring. It would be beneficial if the Government would accept new clause 11 or something similar.

I am convinced that the evidence provided by the monitoring will sustain the case that dental health will improve greatly as a result of fluoridation. It will produce no harm to general health and no significant harm to plant and aquatic life. I am convinced that that is so, and if the Minister is equally convinced he should welcome the opportunity to churn out every year a report that will bolster, strengthen and help progress the case for introducing fluoride into the water supply. I hope that the Minister will listen to this argument and to those which will be adduced by the opponents of fluoride. Of course, there is only a small number of Members present who are in favour of putting fluoride into water supplies. Nevertheless, I hope that he will listen to our arguments and come to the conclusion that there is some strength in the proposition that he should accept new clause 11 or something on its lines.

I understand Mr. Speaker's ruling that the drafting of new clause 18 is so far off the mark that it is not worth putting the clause to a vote. I am aware that Conservative Members are strongly in favour of the Government forcing through the privatisation of ancillary staff activity in the NHS. Apparently they support the Government's action in issuing directives and instruments in writing which health authorities cannot ignore. If they accept that they must accept also that instruments instructing health authorities to desist immediately from their involvement in adding fluoride to water supplies, should there ever be evidence that the practice is damaging to the nation's health, should be acted upon by the authorities. It is fairly clear that the Government have powers already to stop fluoride being added to water and that the Secretary of State, should he desire, could implement them.

7.30 pm

Mr. Best

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He claims that the new clause is defective—

Mr. Dobson

Not I, but the Secretary of State.

Mr. Best

Well, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it might be defective. Clause 1(2) states: For the purpose of section (1) above, an application shall remain in force until the health authority, after giving reasonable notice to the statutory water undertaker in writing, withdraw it. Therefore, the application remains in force. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I drafted a new clause stating that the application should be terminated. After all, the Bill states that the application remains in force.

Mr. Dobson

The hon. Gentleman should not address that point to me. If he disputes whether the new clause is insufficiently well drafted that it merits being put to the vote, he should raise that matter with Mr. Speaker as it was he who ruled it out on the ground that its drafting was unsatisfactory. I do not know the particular in which it was unsatisfactory, but a further reason for not debating it at length is that it is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has the necessary powers to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes without a change in the law. If hon. Members think about it, they will have to accept that.

The House should not support new clause 6, but it should support new clause 11 or a promise from the Minister that his noble colleagues in the other place will introduce a similar new clause. It appears that we shall not be bothered with a vote on new clause 18.

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for supporting new clause 11. As he will see, it is an all-party new clause, and it gains in strength from that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of fluoridation. He always supports it because he knows of no evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary.

In his brief but otherwise welcome speech the hon. Gentleman referred to harm to aquatic life. I refer him to that part of new clause 11 which deals with that as a harm which results from fluoridation of the water. I wish to bring to his attention, perhaps for the first time, reasonably convincing evidence of the harm that is done to aquatic and plant life, or may be being done. I say that because we are talking about introducing into our waterways and drinking water something which in substantial amounts is known to be a deadly poison. Therefore, any question of doubt about its safety is one which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to see resolved in favour of those who are opposed to it, rather than in favour of those who wish to inflict this poison upon us.

There is a lot of evidence of the effect on plant and aquatic life, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an investigation which was conducted as recently as 1979 by the Quebec Government committee of inquiry. It was set up by the Minister of the Environment for Quebec. This was not a committee of nuts, but a committee of experts. It said: The accumulation of fluorides in aquatic plants and fauna is a very important phenomenon because of its potential impact on all animals consuming these organisms. Recent studies suggest that the concentration of fluorides along the food chain is certainly not less than 10 to one. The information available has shown that, at the level of 1.9 parts per million, fluorides lower the rate of growth of the green algae `Chlorella' which is an important link in the food chain. It is also known that several aquatic plants can easily accumulate fluorides at levels which exceed by far the level reached by their environment". It went on to say: Fishes and other aquatic species tend to accumulate fluorides in their body mainly within the skeleton and the exoskeleton. These accumulations may be very important according to different species. Furthermore, in the case of certain organisms (for example the crab) this accumulation may be responsible for lowering the rate of growth with a corresponding loss of weight and reduction of size of the individual. In other cases, such as the frog, the embryonic development of their eggs is delayed when they are submitted to a concentration of 1 part per million of fluorides. Similar effects are observed when tadpoles (larvae of the frog) are exposed. For certain species of fish, we can observe the noxious effects of fluorides on the eggs exposed to levels of 1.5 parts per million of fluorides. More specifically, the eggs of trout do not hatch when they are exposed to concentrations of 1.5 parts per million of fluorides". The committee concluded: Although there is a lack of information regarding the effects of the accumulation of fluorides along the food chains, there is enough evidence to conclude that the actual presence of fluorides above certain levels in the aquatic environment is causing important biological damages to both plant and animal systems". That committee recommended an indefinite moratorium on the fluoridation of water in the province, and that was immediately put in hand.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can say that he knows of no evidence. I am sure that he will forgive me for saying so, but if there were, a conflict between us, I would prefer to accept the evidence of an official committee of experts, set up by a properly formulated and responsible Government, than the opinion of the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will not be insulted—when he has clearly not advised himself of the conclusions of that important report.

Mr. Fairbairn

My hon. and learned Friend has quoted from a report published in 1979. Research was carried out in Renfrewshire up to 1983 on plants such as lettuces and on the development of seeds and tomato plants. The capacity of the seeds to germinate, grow and to produce fruit is depressed if fluoride in the water in parts less than one part per million is fed to them.

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, as ever. That is additional information. I did not seek to delay the proceedings of the House by referring to all the available information on the subject, but I thought that by citing one responsible and authoritative report that would show conclusively that harm may be caused to plants and aquatic life, as a result of which it is that much more important for the water to be monitored.

No hon. Member has a higher regard than I have for the advocacy and powers of advocacy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. In a gust of laughter he sought to brush out of the way many years of concern by many people. That is the advocate's art, and those who wish to see the advocate's art at its best will come not to hear my speech but to hear and read the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend.

It is all very well to joke about these matters, but we are not talking about things that do not matter. We are talking about things that affect life, pain and suffering.

Mrs. McCurley

Like toothache.

Mr. Lawrence

My hon. Friend says, "Like toothache", and that of course must enter into these considerations. It is not enough to laugh these matters away. It is no joke if people are dying of cancer as a result of drinking fluoridated water. There is at least one study, the most thorough epidemiological study ever undertaken, which comes to the conclusion that 10,000 people are dying of cancer every year in the United States of America as a result of drinking fluoridated water.

It is not a laughing matter if our children grow up with mottled teeth. Mottled teeth are not only an embarrassment, but are the first signs of dental fluorosis—that is, the dental poisoning that comes from drinking fluoride. The harm that has been done to the development of teeth has been well investigated and set out by a large number of very authoritative dentists, dental surgeons and dental investigators.

My right hon. and learned Friend referred to Hartlepool, where there is natural fluoridation in excess of one part per million. The proportion of youngsters there suffering from mottled teeth is very substantial. The evidence shows that one in five of the children who drink Hartlepool's fluoridated water have some degree of mottling of the teeth. That does not seem to me to be a laughing matter.

Mrs. McCurley

Tetracycline.

Mr. Lawrence

My hon. Friend has not stopped muttering since the moment I got to my feet. Of course I shall give way to my hon. and beautiful Friend in a moment. I know that she is very much in favour of fluoridation and that she is married to a gentleman who is even more in favour of it. I always listen to what she has to say with great interest and concern, and I shall now sit down and give her an opportunity to articulate more loudly her mutterings of the past five minutes.

Mrs. McCurley

What studies have there been in connection with the lettuces in Hartlepool? If there are obviously lettuces in Renfrewshire which were fed with fluoridated water, have they in any way suffered? I have never heard of anything like that.

Secondly, will my hon. and learned Friend also consider the point that I made previously about antibiotics like tetracycline having an effect on children's teeth? It may be that the doctors in Hartlepool prescribed antibiotics to children at an early age and caused the mottling about which my hon. Friend is talking.

7.45 pm

Mr. Lawrence

Unfortunately, the words, "I have never heard of anything like that," do not mean that such a thing has not been said or that such work is not being carried out. However, it would not surprise me if the work had not yet been carried out, because the medical and scientific people who carry out this kind of work have probably not yet got around to Hartlepool's lettuce. When I was on the Select Committee on Social Services—one of the most distinguished members of which, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is listening avidly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench — we looked into preventative medicine. We received a submission from a lecturer from Liverpool, Mr. Tolley, who warned us that the work he was doing on the effect of fluoride on watercress led him to the conclusion, which he wanted to share with the Committee at the earliest possible moment, that the accumulation of fluorides in watercress indicated a very high level of danger indeed to the food chain. It may be that that was Liverpool's watercress, and it may be that that gentleman and others will soon get round to Hartlepool's lettuce.

I wish merely to rely upon the much more all-embracing conclusions of the Quebec departmental committee to make the point — and I do not want to spend too long on plant and aquatic life—that there is a very real danger to plant and aquatic life from fluoridated water.

Mr. Marlow

Perhaps I could take my hon. and learned Friend off plant and aquatic life, which is important to the food chain and, thus, to human beings, and bring us back to human beings. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there had been fluoride in the water for some 30 years and that there was no evidence that this had caused any damage to human health. My right hon. and learned Friend is the Minister for Health, and as such he is responsible for the drugs issued to humans. He will know, and my hon. and learned Friend will know, that before a drug goes on the market it is subjected to an exhaustive process lasting many years before being validated for human consumption. Even when that has been done—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. Will he be brief, please?

Mr. Marlow

I am just coming to the burden, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of what I am going to say.

Ten, 11 or 12 years after that scrutiny, we discover that there is something badly wrong with those drugs which have been allowed and have been consumed for a considerable period of time. Drugs have to be taken only if a person has something wrong with him. Water is something that we must all drink. Is it not much more dangerous that we are doing something with the water supply and we do not really know what the outcome will be?

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting far more felicitously than I could a point which I had intended to make later in my speech. Now I do not have to make it.

My hon. Friend touched on something which reminded me that I had not properly dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). She asked me about tetracyclines. It may be that antibiotics helped to cause the mottled effect on the teeth—we do not know—but if the mottled effect is caused, whether by tetracyclines or by any other antibiotics, as a result of drinking fluoridated water, does that not make the case of those of us who are opposed to it that much stronger, because there is not just the effect of fluoride but the effect of tetracyclines, which are widely used throughout the country?

If people were to think that any danger, or even discolouration of their teeth which they do not believe will lead to danger, was the result of antibiotics plus water fluoridated at one part per million, the public would not want it. That is why many people feel strongly that the kind of intervention which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde made is not very helpful to her cause.

I come back to the point which I was making before those interventions, about the joking approach of my right hon. and learned Friend. People dying of cancer have nothing to joke about. People with mottled teeth have nothing to joke about. People who have kidney diseases which may be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water would not find it funny. People with allergies would not find it funny. There is a list of very distinguished scientists throughout the world who have documented the allergic effects on some individuals of fluoridated water at one part per million. Diabetics who may be affected by drinking fluoridated water would not think it very funny. Those with thyroid abnormalities who might be affected by drinking fluoridated water would not consider it a laughing matter. Women who are on the pill who might be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water would not think it a joke, any more than arthritics who may be harmed by drinking it would think it one.

Despite all the miracles of modern science, we still do not know why children die in cot deaths within the first year of their birth. I am not saying that I have any evidence on that subject, but in a moment I shall show how the fluoridation of water could possibly affect children in the first year of life. Furthermore, pregnant women who might be adversely affected by drinking fluoridated water, and people with heart disease, would not think the matter very funny. I do not suppose that there are many Conservative Members who think that the loss of individual freedom that is involved in fluoridation is a laughing matter.

Thus, although we were greatly amused by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, and although it was a great feat of advocacy to laugh our opposition out, on cool reflection the joke will not be found to be funny by many people who may be adversely affected by drinking such water. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) asked my right hon. and learned Friend why so many countries had given up fluoride if this was such a hilariously funny matter and if it was possible to blow out of the way the evidence of tens of scientists around the world who have studied the evil effects of fluoridation.

I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been imperfectly briefed once again. He said that Sweden was the only country that had given up fluoride. I hope that he will not mind if I draw his attention to the position in other countries. An investigation that took place in November 1978 was told that Austria would not carry out fluoridation—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When remarks are being addressed directly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, should he not do the House the courtesy of returning to the Front Bench and listening to what is being said? I am sure that the debate will go on for much longer, because there is much evidence to be advanced, but if he were present now, at the end of it he would at least be in a position to give some answers instead of merely making jokes in response to the extremely cogent case being advanced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

I think that the Minister has responded by returning to his place.

Mr. Lawrence

I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for returning. I did not think that he was doing me any discourtesy. As he is convinced that there is no evidence that fluoridation is bad and that people want it in their water supplies, it must be difficult for him to hear the harsh truths that we are trying to put his way. It is perhaps more than the human frame can stand to hear me pushing harsh truths in his direction.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

It seems to be thought that I had somehow left the House during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but I was six in from the end of the Front Bench, consulting those in the Box who advise me. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that his voice is penetrating and that his advocacy is clear, and I was following his points with the closest interest, without the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Lawrence

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that he will not be insulted when I say that I had rather hoped he was telling off his civil servants who have obviously briefed him so inadequately about the responses of other countries. I shall tell him what the responses were to a very thorough inquiry. Countries were asked what the fluoridation situation was. Austria said that there was no fluoridation and that it would not be carried out. Belgium said that there was no fluoridation and that one small fluoridation plant had now been discontinued. Chile said that it had no fluoridation. It was fluoridated in 1953, but discontinued it in 1977, after 24 years, as the result of a professor's work, which showed that it was harmful.

Denmark said that it had no fluoridation and that it was forbidden by law in food and water. Egypt said that there was no fluoridation and that American pressure to fluoridate had been rejected. Finland said that there had been one small experimental plant since 1959, involving only 1.5 per cent. of the total population. Twenty years later no further plant had been installed. France had no fluoridation and said that the Government did not allow fluoridation as safety had not been sufficiently proved.

Portugal had one small experimental plant still in operation. I have already read out the report of the province of Quebec. Scientists visiting Russia report no evidence of artificial fluoridation there. After 33 years of experimenting on people, less than 40 per cent. of the American populating are fluoridated and hundreds of cities are giving up fluoridation.

Mr. Marlow

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was disagreeing with my hon. and learned Friend about the Soviet Union, and seemed to be praying it in aid as if it had fluoridation.

Mr. Lawrence

I want to try to keep my remarks within reasonable bounds, and have been tempted to go into the matter in detail only because I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister would want me to give chapter and verse in reply to something that was perhaps said in jest — it shows the danger of saying something in jest—about Sweden being the only country to give up fluoride. Sweden is not the only country to give up fluoride. In Australia, compulsory fluoridation legislation Acts have been passed in the states of Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. The decision artificially to fluoridate in other states is made by local authorities.

About 10 per cent. of Great Britain is artificially fluoridated. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister keeps talking about the proportion of Britain that is naturally fluoridated, but fewer than 500,000 people in this country drink naturally fluoridated water. The average level of fluoride in the water is so low that to top it up to one part per million would require a tenfold increase in the amount of fluoride. So when my right hon. and learned Friend refers lightly to "just topping up", as if we were just putting a little cream on top of the milk without anyone noticing, it should be borne in mind that we are talking about a tenfold increase in areas where there is natural fluoridation.

West Germany has no fluoridation. It was discontinued in 1971, after 18 years of continuous use, for "health and legal considerations." Greece has no fluoridation and no programmes have ever been introduced. In Holland there is no fluoridation, as it was discontinued in 1976 after 23 years of experiments involving 9,800,000 people. By royal decree, all permissions to fluoridate were cancelled. India and Italy have no fluoridation. Japan has no fluoridation, and the Government do not favour or encourage it. In Luxembourg there is no fluoridation and it is said: The method is a naive utopia without practical effect". Norway has no fluoridation, and legislation designed to make fluoridation compulsory was rejected by the Norwegian Parliament in 1975. Sweden has no fluoridation and it is forbidden by law. It was discontinued in 1969 after 10 years of artificial fluoridation. The World Health Organisation was asked by the Swedish Medical Board to produce evidence to support the WHO's claim that fluoridation was safe. No evidence was ever produced, and Parliament declared fluoridation illegal on 18 November 1971.

Switzerland has had one experimental city since 1959, involving only 4 per cent. of the total population. In December 1975 the health department of Basle advised the Baselstadt city council to stop fluoridation because of its ineffectiveness.

I do not know how a Minister, who proposes both fluoridation and to allow water authorities to force the population by mass medication to drink fluoridated water, and who is faced with the evidence that practically every other country in western Europe except Eire does not have it, does not want it or has rejected it, can come to the Dispatch Box and say that only Sweden is opposed to fluoridation.

Mr. Marlow

It is mind-boggling.

8 pm

Mr. Lawrence

If that is the level of intelligence that informs my right hon. and learned Friend, who has great abilities, the mind must tremble in fear at the prospect of a Government who feel that all my evidence is of no interest, no avail and no purport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I named Sweden, and having listened to my hon. and learned Friend, I believe that that is still the case. Sweden is the only place where a parliamentary vote has reversed a fluoridation scheme which had previously been enacted. In one or two other countries there have been doubts about the constitutional grounds. There are 40 countries in five different continents where fluoridation is practised. As my approach to the debate is a little more succinct than that of my hon. and learned Friend, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not name them all.

Mr. Lawrence

I am afraid that I must beg to doubt that. Although I have not covered all the countries of the globe, I have covered all countries in western Europe. There is no evidence from the countries that I have listed that they are grabbing at fluoridation as fast as they can for its beneficial and safe effects.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate)

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not stay, because I have to leave to address a meeting about fluoridation. Has the Council of Europe ever been asked to pronounce on the matter? If not, as he knows, the House is represented on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it might be useful to see whether it supports the rather strange argument that mass medication should be imposed on a democracy. Will my hon. and learned Friend think of suggesting to our representatives on the health committee of the Council of Europe that the subject should be investigated?

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, until recently, was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, and has also served at the Department of the Environment. It is clear from his intervention that he has considerable doubts whether it is good sense to fluoridate our water. It is encouraging to know that men of his experience have those doubts, and it is discouraging to me that he is no longer able to influence the Government in making a decision. He is welcome as a supporter of all hon. Members who oppose fluoridation. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) aspiring to become a Minister?

Mr. Marlow

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has just said that there are 40 countries in which fluoridation takes place. Would it be in order for my hon. and learned Friend to ask our right hon. and learned Friend to do the House the honour of attaching the names of those countries to the Official Report so that we can have that information?

Mr. Lawrence

Those who read the Official Report tomorrow will see listed the countries that I mentioned, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will respond to my hon. Friend's invitation.

My right hon. and learned Friend sought to pour scorn on hon. Members who are in favour of the new clauses, which merely provide for monitoring so that the British people can be reassured that there is not too high a proportion of this poison entering their water supplies. That does not seem to be a bizarre request. I shall deal with two points that he raised.

My right hon. and learned Friend berated us for not referring to the Knox report. He said that it looked as though the Knox report had not even been opened. That was a trifle patronising, because some people have spent a long time trying to read it, to see what light it throws on these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend will not wish to make an unfair point. The Knox report was published on 31 December 1984, and therefore has been available only for the past four weeks. Scientists take longer than four weeks to come to sensible and properly worked out conclusions. However, we have already received some preliminary conclusions.

I have received an open letter from Dean Burk, who is the leading anti-fluoridationist of the Western world. He has been much maligned by those who have not bothered to find out his antecedents. For 35 years that now elderly and highly respected gentleman was the chief cyto-chemist for the National Cancer Institute of America. When someone with that amount of experience and knowledge about fluoride and cancer produces a report, it must be listened to. He and Mr. John Yiamouyiannis were responsible for the report, which was first produced in 1975, and was given to the Royal College of Physicians to analyse. The college did not do so before it reported in February 1976.

Since then, the report has been constantly under attack from pro-fluoridationists throughout the world. Nevertheless, the 10 largest American cities where there was fluoridation were analysed for cancer deaths, as were the 10 largest American cities without fluoridation. The two men did what no one else seems to have done in epidemiological studies — that is, they investigated the position before fluoridation. Often the flaw in the fluoridation argument is that, because something has happened since fluoridation, it must have happened because of fluoridation, and that because there has been an improvement, it must be because of fluoridation. Frequently, the position before fluoridation is not considered.

Burk and Yiamouyiannis decided that, although there was a gradual increase, as one would expect, in the 20 largest American cities — for 18 years they studied the fluoridation effects, and for five years they studied the cities when neither group of cities had artificial fluoridation — the cancer death rate was roughly comparable. In the 18 years after fluoridation, the cancer death rate in the fluoridated cities rose significantly. They conclude that it costs 10,000 lives of American citizens a year.

That report has been attacked. When Burk and Yiamouyiannis tried to answer the attack, the ostriches buried their heads in the sand. During an Adjournment debate I warned the Minister that I was about to tell him how the survey had been weighted for age, race and sex and not to reply by saying that that was not the case. I made my speech and the Minister said that the trouble with the survey was that it had not been weighted for age, race and sex. That is what his adviser wrote into his speech. It took a long time before the Department of Health and Social Security admitted that the figures had been weighted for age, race and sex. They are again examined by the Knox report, and I can say only that the argument is about how to standardise mortality death ratios. One group does it one way, and the other group does it another, and each believes that its method is correct. If we sweep that away and say, "A plague on both your houses; never mind how you examine the standardised mortality ratios, just consider the broad figures," we discover, whichever way one looks at it, a substantial increase in cancer deaths in the 10 American cities that have been fluoridated during those 18 years.

Let me read from the open letter that comments upon the Knox report — we were taken to task for not referring to it, so I feel emboldened to refer to it now—from Dean Burk dated 10 February 1985: With or without standardising adjustments for the factors age, sex, and race, there is a large increase in the cancer death rate trends in the ten largest fluoridated American central cities compared to an equivalent, matched ten cities that were not fluoridated. The increase amounted to 31.5 excess cancer deaths per 100,000 population over the period of 1950 to 1970 in the unadjusted data, and after standardisation adjustment by conventional methods, the adjusted excess still amounted to the large value of 21.8 cancer deaths per 100,000 population over the period of 1950 to 1970. In short, standardising adjustments for age, sex, and race reduced the observed cancer death rate trends by only 30.8 (not 100) per cent., leaving 69.2 per cent. thereof ascribable to artificial fluoridation clearly harmful to human health in terms of increased cancer mortality alone. If all the critics of our system of assessing mortality rates are right, we should sweep the figures away and simply talk about the bald facts, which show that there has been a significant increase in cancer deaths in the fluoridated American cities.

The evidence is not limited to that, because we have examples in England. Birmingham has been fluoridated since 1964, and it has experienced a substantial increase in cancer deaths. Compared with Manchester, where the cancer death rate was roughly the same as that in Birmingham, before fluoridation there has been an 8.2-fold increase in the cancer deaths in Birmingham compared with a 1.5-fold increase in cancer deaths in Manchester during the same period.

Those who say that fluoridation is perfectly safe say that the evidence is a load of rubbish. But the bald figures show, however one weights them, an excess of cancer deaths in fluoridated Birmingham compared with non-fluoridated Manchester.

I do not know who is right, and I have never tried to decide who is right. I merely say that if leading men of integrity, science and eminence have two conflicting views on the safety of fluoridation, why do the Government side with those who arrogantly deny, in the face of all the evidence, that there is evidence to the contrary? If there is doubt among leading antagonists on both sides, the British public must be entitled not to have the doubt resolved by forcing this stuff into their mouths every time they drink water.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I trust that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to cause needless alarm in Birmingham. The Government did not side with either group about cancer rates in Birmingham. We commissioned a comprehensive study by epidemiologists, which is the Knox report to which I referred. My hon. and learned Friend has done his homework thoroughly, so he will have read chapter 7 of the report, which concentrates on Birmingham and Anglesey. The conclusion, after weighing up all the evidence, is as follows: The examination of cancer rates for up to fourteen years after fluoridation in Birmingham, and up to eighteen years after fluoridation in Anglesey, and the investigation of cancer rates in areas with various levels of naturally occurring fluoride, provide substantial reassurance concerning the safety of fluoridation in respect of cancer. All statements to the contrary were based on errors. Those errors are carefully analysed in the report.

8.15 pm

Mr. Lawrence

I shall deal with those errors in a moment, but I wish to read to the House Dr. Burk's conclusion about Birmimgham. He said: Upon fluoridation of the Birmingham public water supply in October, 1964, its population of approximately one million showed one of the most abrupt documentable increases in observed cancer death rate of any large city in the world—far greater than reported for any non-fluoridated English city such as Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Coventry, Bradford, Sheffield, Greater London, etc., or for any of 20 previously studied large American cities whether fluoridated or not. The errors to which my right hon. and learned Friend alluded were the failure to weight age, race and sex. The proposition is simple. If one takes an older population, there is obviously a higher tendency for them to die of cancer. Therefore, age is a factor that must be weighted into the figures. Race must also be weighted into the figures, say some people, because, for one reason or another, since black people tend to concentrate in urban areas, whether there is a higher proportion of blacks in an area is a significant factor. I do not follow that argument, and experts doubt whether that is a reasonable criticism. However, it is one that is made. As for sex, if an area has a higher proportion of women, who are less prone to cancer, that is another distorting feature that must be taken into account.

All that I can say is that Burk and Yiamouyiannis and others have taken into account age, race and sex and have been criticised for so doing. Therefore, they have said, "Do not take those factors into account. Examine the bald statistics, which show a substantial increase in the cancer death rate in Birmingham." My right hon. and learned Friend and the people who wrote his report may not like it. I do not know whether Burk and Yiamouyiannis or the people who wrote my right hon. and learned Friend's report are right. But if distinguished and eminent men who have made a lifetime study of this subject are divided about the results, there must be a doubt about it. That doubt should be resolved in favour of the British people. It should not be resolved in favour of dentists, doctors or scientists, who believe that the mass medication of the water supply will lead to Utopia.

Mr. Best

rose—

Mr. Lawrence

I would like to get on, because I can see the gathering of the crowd. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has not had the courage to listen to much of what I have said so far, that the Government have given us this prime time to debate the matter more fully and at a time when the press can report the proceedings, so that more people outside the House can be made aware that this is not just a matter of whether there should be freedom. It is also a health and safety matter. I am grateful to those who arranged the business for allowing us this opportunity, but it is slightly soured by the fact that, although it is supposed to be a free vote on the Conservative side, I notice that we have had a two-line Whip since 3.30 pm. That means that everyone must be here and that everyone who wishes to toe the Government line will soon go into the Lobby when no doubt a closure motion will be moved.

Mr. Best

My hon. and learned Friend talked about doubt. Does he accept that there was no doubt in the minds of hon. Members who signed early-day motion 65 on 25 February 1982, which referred to the West Midlands regional health authority, to which there was an amendment signed by 23 hon. Members? It stated: The decision of the unelected West Midlands Regional Health Authority to mass-medicate 2,000,000 people under its control by adding an industrial effluent containing the toxic chemical fluoride to the public drinking water should be deplored when, (a) to do so is expressly against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of elected local authorities in the region which have voted on the issue; (b) the legality of such decisions is being tested before a Scottish Court; (c) it involves a flagrant violation of the individual's freedom to choose whether he wishes this medical treatment or not"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken at great length. I hope that he is not seeking to make another speech. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Best

The early-day motion refers to other issues expressed by those hon. Members who signed that motion, among whom are two Ministers, whom I shall not name, and two Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Perhaps their views have substantially changed. I welcome a change of view, but that fact remains.

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be unkind to my Government. I do not want to rub salt in the wounds of any of my hon. Friends who have, as a matter of principle, been against fluoridation, but not just their knowledge but their principles have changed. I realise that substantial pressures are placed upon those who seek to hold two principles. I regret that, but it is a fact of life.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

It appears that the Minister for Health was being extremely selective in the report that he held to be of importance. He seemed to dismiss Dean Burk with a joke and an aside, yet he is prepared to quote from the recent Knox report which many people have not yet had the opportunity to study in depth. Is it not extraordinary that the DHSS, which is supposedly in favour of the nation's good health, is prepared lightly to dismiss the eminent reports to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred?

Mr. Lawrence

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is worse than that. It is not just a question of Burk and Yiamouyiannis and other eminent people, but a large number of eminent scientists believe that this stuff is unsafe, is evil and should not be put into our water. I shall give the House a list of names. Professor Butenandt, a chemist from Munich university—a Nobel prize winner; Professor Murphy, a consultant physiologist — also a Nobel prize winner; Professor Semenov, a chemist at Leningrad university — another Nobel prize winner; Professor Louis Steyn, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Victoria university; Professor Albert Shatz, a co-discoverer of streptomycin; Professor Burgstable of the University of Kansas; Dr. James Ebert, vice-president of the United States National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Philip Sutton, former senior lecturer in dental science at Melbourne university.

In the United Kingdom I list Dr. Paul McCormick, research fellow at Nuffield college, Oxford; Dr. R. A. Helman, senior lecturer in bacteriology at Barnet hospital; G. J. Roberts, a lecturer in children's dentistry at the Royal dental hospital, London; Dr. C. W. M. Wilson, consultant physician in geriatric medicine at the Royal hospital, Lanarkshire and the department of physiology at Strathclyde; Dr. John Enslie, a lecturer in chemistry at King's college, London; Dr. Paul Wix, of the south bank polytechnic.

They are just some of the distinguished and eminent scientists who have said that this stuff should not go into our water. That is how selective my right hon. and learned Friend is. One can pour scorn on the odd individual, but a catalogue of Nobel prize winners and men of distinction in all the spheres covered by fluoridation say, "Don't touch it. The stuff is bad. It will poison society." To pretend that their views are not important is preposterous and I find it difficult to understand how any Government, let alone my Government who purport to believe in freedom for the individual, can pretend that.

Mr. Fairbairn

Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that according to the Minister the people that he has just named are idiots. He told us that they were. We are about to vote on the closure on a matter of importance so that those who have jobs can get rid of their consciences. I am whipped by a vice-chairman of the Scottish Pure Water Association. How is that for freedom of conscience?

Mr. Lawrence

Once again, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.

I was talking about the cavalier brushing aside of experienced and expert people on the anti-fluoridation side of the argument. The Minister could not understand how we can still be opposed to fluoridation. A court in Scotland under the eminent and careful custody of Lord Jauncey concluded, after a long consideration, that fluoridation was utterly safe and that there was no evidence that it was unsafe. He concluded that it was absolutely beneficial to teeth — I have not begun that argument yet. Lord Jauncey, with all his eminence and wise judgment, made the judgment of only one man. One man, however eminent, can be wrong.

Against Lord Jauncey I set the conclusions of three courts of law in the United States recently. They all heard the same evidence from the same witnesses, but they came to different conclusions.

In Philadelphia fluoridation and its safety was considered at great length with a massive amount of evidence from the same people who appeared before Lord Jauncey's court. Judge Flaherty said: This court is compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were the people who wanted to stop the fluoridation of water in Philadelphia. They went to the court with their scientists and their doctors. The pro-fluoridationists took along their doctors and scientists and the judge said that he was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs. That is one-all between Lord Jauncey and Judge Flaherty. In February 1982 the case was heard again at Houston in Texas. The judge said: Artificial fluoridation of public water supplies may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling in man … and may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man. A third judge in the Illinois case in February 1982 concluded: The artificial addition of fluoride to the public water supply may have adverse health effects … It exposes the public to a risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy side effects. Three American judges came to those conclusions. They heard the same witnesses as Lord Jauncey, but they came to different conclusions.

If men of good will and, integrity with the ability to analyse the statistical, scientific and medical data come to different opinions about the safety of fluoride, surely there must be a doubt about its safety. That doubt should not be resolved against the public who do not want the stuff force-fed through their mouths via the drinking water from their taps.

Mr. Marlow

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I know that he wants to come to a rapid conclusion. My hon. and learned Friend is pursuing this matter in the wrong way. We know that there are two sides to this argument, and, in that case, the argument should go against fluoridation. That is not the Government's problem. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, at this stage of a party's period in office initiatives are not what they were, institutions are taking over, the Government are in the hands of a machine and the Civil Service has discovered that it has a problem. There has been this wretched court case in Scotland and this edentate woman. The Government have decided that something has to be done about the problem. They have the Knox report—

8.30 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Marlow

I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Government have said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, "Off you go. Here is the report. Get the Bill through. This is the Government's duty." This is the hook that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has to get our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister off. That is the way to solve the problem

Mr. Lawrence

There is only one way in which to solve the problem, and that is for the Government to withdraw the Bill. That action would have the overwhelming support not only of the people but of, I think—

Mr. John Cope (Northavon)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think we have had a speech from an Opposition Back Bencher. I do not think that an alliance member has spoken. Is this not a rather early time for the Government to call for closure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Whether a closure motion should be accepted is entirely a matter for the Chair. It is not debatable or open to challenge.

Mr. Fairbairn

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent in the history of Parliament for a closure motion to be moved in a debate on any Bill which has a free vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. and learned Member is not expecting me to rake my memory to answer that point. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Lawrence

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to find some way to give the Government the opportunity to reconsider whether they want to give the rest of the country the impression that they are trying to stifle debate on this important matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 162, Noes 68.

Division No. 126]	[8.31 pm
AYES
Ancram, Michael	Marland, Paul
Arnold, Tom	Mather, Carol
Ashton, Joe	Maude, Hon Francis
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Meadowcroft, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Mellor, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Moore, John
Bottomley, Peter	Moynihan, Hon C.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Neale, Gerrard
Bright, Graham	Needham, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Nelson, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Neubert, Michael
Burt, Alistair	Newton, Tony
Butcher, John	Nicholls, Patrick
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Normanton, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Onslow, Cranley
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Ottaway, Richard
Chapman, Sydney	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Colvin, Michael	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Coombs, Simon	Pattie, Geoffrey
Cope, John	Pavitt, Laurie
Corrie, John	Pawsey, James
Couchman, James	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Penhaligon, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Pollock, Alexander
Dicks, Terry	Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Dorrell, Stephen	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Dunn, Robert	Richardson, Ms Jo
Durant, Tony	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Rifkind, Malcolm
Eggar, Tim	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Favell, Anthony	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Forman, Nigel	Rowe, Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Ryder, Richard
Freeman, Roger	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
George, Bruce	Sayeed, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gow, Ian	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Gregory, Conal	Shersby, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Silvester, Fred
Gummer, John Selwyn	Sims, Roger
Harvey, Robert	Skeet, T. H. H.
Henderson, Barry	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth	Spencer, Derek
Howard, Michael	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Stanley, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jessel, Toby	Stradling Thomas, J.
John, Brynmor	Terlezki, Stefan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Kirkwood, Archy	Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Thurnham, Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Trippier, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Trotter, Neville
Lilley, Peter	Viggers, Peter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Waddington, David
Lord, Michael	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Luce, Richard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Lyell, Nicholas	Walden, George
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Macfarlane, Neil	Wallace, James
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Waller, Gary
McQuarrie, Albert	Ward, John
Major, John	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Watson, John	Younger, Rt Hon George
Watts, John
Wiggin, Jerry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wolfson, Mark	Mr. Ian Lang and
Young, Sir George (Acton)	Mr. Archie Hamilton.
NOES
Alton, David	Irving, Charles
Ashdown, Paddy	Knowles, Michael
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Lamond, James
Best, Keith	Lawrence, Ivan
Bidwell, Sydney	Leadbitter, Ted
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Caborn, Richard	McCartney, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Carttiss, Michael	Marlow, Antony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Monro, Sir Hector
Dalyell, Tam	Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Dixon, Donald	Paisley, Rev Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.	Patchett, Terry
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Fookes, Miss Janet	Pike, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Forth, Eric	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Foster, Derek	Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Galley, Roy	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Greenway, Harry	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Grist, Ian	Skinner, Dennis
Ground, Patrick	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Hancock, Mr. Michael	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)	Wainwright, R.
Hawksley, Warren	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Haynes, Frank	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Hickmet, Richard	Wigley, Dafydd
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Howells, Geraint	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Mr. Nicholas Winterton and
Hunter, Andrew	Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

s Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have to put the Question immediately after the closure, without any interruption.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Cocks

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be the last to interfere with the Government in obtaining their business, but I should like your guidance as to when it would be appropriate to ask the Lord Privy Seal, who is by fortunate chance with us, whether he would like to make a statement about the premature closure motion on a group of three substantial new clauses when only a handful of Members have had the opportunity to give their views to the House. Is it in any way related to the recent articles that have appeared in The Times on his anxiety about the late sittings of the House? At what stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you think it would be appropriate to ask the Lord Privy Seal to give the House the benefit of his views on whether the almost precipitate closure of discussion on this important clause is related to his windiness about Government business proceeding after midnight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that no one is more sensitive than perhaps the occupant of the Chair to the times of the rising of the House, but the arrangement of business is not a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman's question about whether the closure motion was premature is a matter entirely for the Chair. I have exercised my judgment and it is not open to challenge or debate.

Mr. Cocks

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the most appropriate time to ask the Lord Privy Seal to make a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Doubtless the Lord Privy Seal, who the right hon. Member said was in the House, has heard what has been said.

The House having divided:Ayes 76, Noes 148.

Division No. 127]	[8.43 pm
AYES
Alton, David	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Ashdown, Paddy	Knowles, Michael
Best, Keith	Lamond, James
Boyes, Roland	Lawler, Geoffrey
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Lawrence, Ivan
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Bruce, Malcolm	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Lightbown, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale	McGuire, Michael
Clay, Robert	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Marlow, Antony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Craigen, J. M.	Monro, Sir Hector
Dalyell, Tam	Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Dixon, Donald	Ottaway, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.	Paisley, Rev Ian
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Penhaligon, David
Fookes, Miss Janet	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Forth, Eric	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Galley, Roy	Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Greenway, Harry	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Grist, Ian	Rowe, Andrew
Ground, Patrick	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Hancock, Mr. Michael	Skinner, Dennis
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Stan brook, Ivor
Harvey, Robert	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Haynes, Frank	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hickmet, Richard	Temple-Morris, Peter
Howard, Michael	Terlezki, Stefan
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Howells, Geraint	Wigley, Dafydd
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Hunter, Andrew
Irving, Charles	Tellers for the Ayes:
John, Brynmor	Mr. Michael Brown and
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Mr. Nicholas Winterton.
NOES
Ancram, Michael	Burt, Alistair
Arnold, Tom	Butcher, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Caborn, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Bevan, David Gilroy	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Colvin, Michael
Bottomley, Peter	Coombs, Simon
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Cope, John
Bright, Graham	Couchman, James
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Dicks, Terry	Newton, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen	Nicholls, Patrick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Normanton, Tom
Dunn, Robert	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Eastham, Ken	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Eggar, Tim	Pattie, Geoffrey
Fatchett, Derek	Pavitt, Laurie
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Pawsey, James
Foster, Derek	Pollock, Alexander
Foulkes, George	Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Freeman, Roger	Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
George, Bruce	Richardson, Ms Jo
Gow, Ian	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Gregory, Conal	Rifkind, Malcolm
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Henderson, Barry	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Ryder, Richard
Hind, Kenneth	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Home Robertson, John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Howard, Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Shersby, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Sims, Roger
Jessel, Toby	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Snape, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Soames, Hon Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom	Spencer, Derek
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lang, Ian	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Stanley, John
Leadbitter, Ted	Steel, Rt Hon David
Lee, John (Pendle)	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lilley, Peter	Stradling Thomas, J.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Luce, Richard	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Lyell, Nicholas	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Macfarlane, Neil	Thurnham, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Trippier, David
Major, John	Viggers, Peter
Marland, Paul	Waddington, David
Mather, Carol	Wainwright, R.
Maude, Hon Francis	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Maxton, John	Waldegrave, Hon William
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Walden, George
Meadowcroft, Michael	Wallace, James
Mellor, David	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Watson, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Watts, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Wiggin, Jerry
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	Wolfson, Mark
Moore, John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Moynihan, Hon C.	Younger, Rt Hon George
Neale, Gerrard
Needham, Richard	Tellers for the Noes:
Nelson, Anthony	Mr. Tristan Gare1-Jones and
Neubert, Michael	Mr. Tony Durant.