HC Deb 26 February 1985 vol 74 cc273-90 10.45 pm
Mr. Marlow

This is an important measure which will potentially affect every man, woman and child in the country—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman on the right track. I know that this is ah important matter, because I have been in the Chair for a long time listening to the debate. Will he tell us what will happen in these committees, which is what the new clause is about?

Mr. Marlow

This is a desperately important measure, and therefore the committees are particularly important.

So far, the Government have got this measure through purely as a result of the payroll vote. The Bill includes these committees, and potentially that is of vital importance to everyone in the country. It was not included in the Government's programme. Therefore, it is right that an hon. Member of this House should remind the other place of the lack of support in this House for the measure.

Such lack of support can also be demonstrated in relation to the new clause. I intend to be brief, because if a point is worth making it is normally better to make it quickly—

Mr. Fairbairn

rose—

Mr. Marlow

I shall happily give way to my hon. and learned Friend, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I am aware that Mr. Speaker would wish me to be brief.

Mr. Fairbairn

The proper constitutional reason for a typical Government acolyte, such as my hon. Friend, to be brief is that the unfortunate party on the Government side of the House has been briefed since 3.30 pm on exempted business for one and a half hours on the important motion in respect of the draft British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This has absolutely nothing to do with new clause 13. We must stick to the new clause, otherwise there will be chaos.

Mr. Marlow

We are addressing our minds to public participation and consultation in the context of this important measure, and this is a vital part of our consideration. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) tabled the new clause, but sadly, I find it impossible to accept it as proposed. Although I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government will introduce an amendment on public participation, consultation and debate, it would be wrong for the House to accept the new clause, even though it was tabled with the best of intentions.

The new clause begins with the words "Any proceedings". When do the proceedings begin? Let us suppose that the chairman of a health authority goes out to dinner with his wife and a group of friends—perhaps eight people in all. If one of them, also a member of the health authority, leans across the table and says, "What about this fluoride business? The health authority next door has it and it says that it is a good thing. Shall we have it here?", will that be a proceeding of the health authority? When does a proceeding begin? I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to make, but I do not think that he has been sufficiently succinct.

As I said to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), if we want public debate and participation, should it be at the level of the local health authority? Would it not be better to let the health experts, those looking after our health and well-being, come together and discuss these things, and then, distilling the general knowledge and beliefs of all of them, come up with their impressions, ideas and decisions and say, "Yes, we believe that we should allow our local water authority to fluoridate the water"? The water authority would then be able to make that decision. We are not telling the water authority that it should; we are saying that it may.

I believe—and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras may want to take me up on this — that the debate should come at that later stage, with the water authority.

Mr. Dobson

If the hon. Gentleman had paid as much attention to the proceedings on this Bill as he sometimes claims to have done, he might have noted that in Committee I moved a virtually identical amendment applying to water authorities. If any Tory present had voted for it along with myself and my hon. Friends, it would have got through.

Mr. Marlow

I have to be very humble and apologise abjectly to the hon. Gentleman. I have been through a great deal of the detail of the Bill, but I am afraid that I did not pick up the points that he makes.

For various reasons, I shall have to oppose the new clause. I am very much in favour of public participation and consultation — I am in favour of it generally, but particularly with regard to this very important measure.

Would it be in order at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who I know is a great expert on this subject?

We are to have committees, we are to have participation. My right hon. and learned Friend has promised the House this. Who will be asked? How will they be asked? There is a lot to be discussed. There is a lot of flesh to be put on these bones. Will it be a requirement that when a meeting is to be held in which the public can participate it must be publicised—advertised in the local newspapers, for example? Who will be permitted to attend? What information will be made available? What notice should be given that a meeting is to take place? It would obviously be wrong to tell the public at 3 o'clock in the afternoon that a meeting is to be held to discuss the matter at half past four. The Government must therefore put together a sensible and satisfactory scheme so that we know how this will work.

What will these committees be considering? What information will be before them? We had a debate earlier about monitoring the effects of fluoride on human health, on teeth, on the home, on the water supply? Will it be a requirement that whenever the health authority — or whatever authority — meets, with public participation, the reports should be brought before the meeting? If so, what should those reports contain?

Who will be admitted to the meetings? Will it be all the public, or will it be councillors from the district authority, or the county council, or parish councillors? Will other people be permitted to be represented as of right? Will the officers of the local authority be permitted to be represented? Will people from some of the local organizations—the chamber of commerce, for example — be admitted? They surely have an interest. Will the local family practitioner committee be able to be represented? Will the local BMA, the doctors, the dentists be able to attend?

I have no intention or desire to offend any of the dentists in my constituency, but one of the things that frightens me about this measure is that the dentists are in favour of it. We are told that it is good for the teeth of the nation. Since when have dentists been in favour of the good of the teeth of the nation? It is when there is something wrong with the teeth of the nation that they do business and make money. That should be considered.

Mr. Fairbairn

There is a very good reason for dentists being in favour of the Bill. They will have more visits from patients who suffer from fluorosis. Moreover, fluoridation will inevitably cause brittleness of the teeth, and dentists will have to receive much bigger fees for trying to stick together the teeth of those aged over 30.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. and learned Friend is trenchant and objective as usual. It is a matter of concern, and my hon. and learned Friend has made that point very well.

We must have participation and consultation.

Mr. Best

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow

I really want to get on, but if my hon. Friend presses me, I shall give way.

Mr. Best

I shall be brief. I regret to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I have spoken to a good number of dentists, and I have no doubt about their bona fides. I am sure that they genuinely believe that fluoride is good for the teeth and that they are motivated by a sense of philanthropy rather than by any arcane motivation that may have been suggested to my hon. Friend. I may be naive in believing that, but I firmly believe it, and, with respect to my hon. Friend, it is wrong to cast a slur on dentists when it is unnecessary to do so, because the argument against fluoride stands on its own two feet.

Mr. Marlow

I respect what my hon. Friend has said. He has made an honest point, and I hope that he does not think that I was being flippant. I genuinely accept my hon. Friend's point that those dentists who recommend fluoride do so with the best of intentions, but I believe that they are mistaken. That is one of the fundamental reasons why, as time goes by, it will become desperately important to have a proper system of public participation.

It is particularly important to have public participation, because if it is a mistake to put this wretched substance in our water supply — as I and many of my hon. Friends believe it is—the time will come when the damage will become apparent. It is only by having available the immediate recourse of public participation in debate and discussion as of right that the authorities can be made aware as soon as things start going wrong. I am afraid that the authorities are sometimes not aware of what is happening. Sometimes, like all institutions, authorities have their own momentum and vested interests. They work together and they feel that they are the experts. Hilaire Belloc once said: Oh! let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about For people who are in the know Assure us that it must be so. Authorities and institutions are a bit like that. They are the clever ones who say they know, and they do not want us to know that they do not know. They pretend they know, and it is a jolly good thing if the public now and again have the right to tell them.

This issue is fundamental to the health and well-being of the nation, and it is imperative—

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow

I really want to get on.

Mr. Forth

In his anxiety to have public participation, is my hon. Friend not worried that, even in their wisdom, the public may be seduced by the idea of being fed fluoride as an easy way of maintaining dental health, instead of making the effort to brush their teeth? Does my hon. Friend not think that the balance between the effort of individual brushing and the easy solution of the automatic feeding of fluoride could thereby be altered, and that his argument for public participation may be at fault?

Mr. Marlow

I do not wish to stray too far from the debate. I think and hope that my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful and keep me in order. He said that if fluoride were added to the water supply in many areas the public might feel that their teeth would be all right and they could throw their toothbrushes out of the window. If the public got that impression, the damage to their teeth, whatever good fluoride might do, would be greater than at present. That is a good point, but I am not sure how it affects participation. I shall think about it.

The House must be aware that as time unwinds and we get more experience of the benefits, and more probably the problems, of fluoride in our water supplies, public participation will be absolutely fundamental.

11 pm

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he speaks in support of the new clause.

Mr. Marlow

No, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make his point better if he knew how I stand. I have every sympathy and respect for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for tabling the new clause. I have examined it carefully, and although the intention is right and good and I am overwhelmingly in favour of public participation in and debate on the subject, the new clause is defective. I do not feel that I can support it and I, and perhaps some of my colleagues, will wish to divide on it. We are not against the intention of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman may not know that the Government intend to introduce an amendment along these lines, about which we are happy. We are pleased with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for tabling the new clause, but despite that, we may have to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Golding

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Golding.

Mr. Golding

I presume that I am being called to speak in the debate, as the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks. I think that the hon. Gentleman's knees and arguments have given way, rather than the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Marlow

I have only given way.

Mr. Golding

I thought that I was being called to speak.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Mr. Marlow) had concluded his speech.

Mr. Golding

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was mistaken. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's knees and arguments had given way, but he has made it clear that he was giving way to an intervention.

Mr. Marlow

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed giving way to an intervention. I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but some of my hon. Friends wish to cross-examine me on some of my points.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman is giving way, that is correct. I thought that he had finished.

Mr. Golding

In what ways does the hon. Gentleman oppose the new clause?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has joined us fairly recently. We are dealing with a new clause which relates to those who should come to meetings. We have been ranging rather wide.

Mr. Golding

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The new clause states that the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 will apply with one exception. There are two parts to the new clause. One part says that the Act will apply, and the other part says that one section of the Act shall not apply. It is important to establish whether it is reasonable to apply the Act. That is what I am asking the hon. Gentleman. I wish to address my remarks first, to the part of the new clause which states that the Act should apply. Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Act should apply in any respect?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme Mr. Golding), who was not here earlier. He should know that the Government have accepted the spirit of the new clause, and, as I understand it, they will introduce a similar amendment in another place.

Mr. Golding

In that case, my intervention is even more important. Having heard that the Government are prepared to accept it in spirit, I wish in body to oppose it. I want the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to elucidate his arguments so that I can follow him.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have just compressed my argument succinctly into two sentences, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) compressed his argument into three or four sentences, is it in order for the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to come into a debate one and a half hours after it started and ask for a brief resumé of the arguments so far?

Mr. Speaker

It is not in order, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, would ask for such a breach of our procedures.

Mr. Marlow

Although you have ruled it out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not, because I am not addressing that part of the new clause. He can advance his own arguments, to which we shall listen with great interest and respect.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

My hon. Friend has concentrated on the participation of the public in this exercise, but the new clause is flawed in that it says nothing about the participation by the other side. It does not mention a quorum or how many people should be present. It does not say how long the authority will allow the debate to continue. The new clause could be taken at face value, someone could move that the public be allowed in, but three minutes later could move that the committee move on to next business. In that case, all participation would be nullified.

Mr. Marlow

I accept my hon. Friend's point. The new clause, against which I shall vote, says that it shall be subject to the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960. I do not know what that means, so I do not know how much it helps us. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said that the Government would introduce amendments in another place. Before the debate ends, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would wish to advise the House, not as to the specific contents, but as to what the building blocks of those amendments will be. During my speech I have made several requests for information about how the public meetings will be organised, who will be allowed to attend, the notice of the meeting, and how what comes out of the meeting will be published. All those bits and pieces are important when one sets up such public participation exercises. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us further instruction on this matter before we conclude this debate.

I have tried to make, as briefly as I can, a few important points on the new clause. Sadly, I feel constrained to oppose it, although I appreciate the motives of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in putting it forward.

Mr. Fairbairn

I cannot favour new clause 13. It may seem odd that I say that today, firstly, because it does not take Scotland into account. This afternoon, there was a Ten-minute Bill of peculiar stupidity moved by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), which was defeated on my opposition. I regret to say that, on a Bill which is alleged to be based on a free vote, the entire Government side have been whipped to be in attendance since 3.30 pm. Having nothing else to do—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is miles wide of the attendance at meetings. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is abusing procedures by seeking to introduce that argument.

Mr. Fairbairn

With great respect, I do not think that I am. It might seem to be contradictory for me at one time of the day to be grateful for a payroll vote to defeat a Bill which makes Scotland a funny little island, and then later to object to a new clause because it does not bother to consider Scotland.

New clause 13 involves the princple that the meetings of a health authority should be open to the public. That is not satisfactory. We are talking about making every person in the United Kingdom ingest water which has been contaminated with a substance which the most reputable scientists on earth believe to be poisonous.

No one should imagine that anything that I say is an attempt to delay the House because the principles are far too important.

Lord Jauncey's judgment is irrelevant to what I am about to say, because it was about sodium fluoride. We are now dealing, among other things, with fluorosilicic acid. May I read this to the House? Introduction Fison's Fluorosilicic Acid, Foremost in Fluoridation—Fison's Limited. Fertiliser Division: General: Fluorosilicic acid is a highly toxic and highly corrosive liquid

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

Nonsense.

Mr. Fairbairn

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) might think that that is nonsense, but Fison's do not.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) because he undoubtedly knows a great deal about the subject and he is deeply offended by the suggestion that he is a mere York shouting from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend has a deep, detailed technical knowledge. There is a danger among those of us who have a casual technical qualification of patronising the deep learning and technical knowledge of people like my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley who wish to express their views.

Mr. Soames

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker

I suspect that he is.

Mr. Fairbairn

I would he the last to forgo the valued judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is an expert on nonsense.

11.15 pm

Those who will provide fluorosilicic acid say: It is listed in schedule 1 the Petroleum to Corrosive Substances (Order 1970), S.I. 1970 No. 1945 precautions:— these are substances that we shall have to drink— Care must be exercised while handling this material. The vapour must be inhaled. Due to the highly corrosive and toxic nature of the product"— which is to be added to our water supply for the people who have toothache when they are five— particular attention must be paid to ensure that only suitably constructed storage and handling equipment is used and that the vapour is not inhaled.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to listen to my hon. and learned Friend, but I am finding it difficult because of all the chattering that is going on.

Mr. Speaker

Come on.

Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sitting next to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) and I am having difficulty in hearing him. I wonder whether he could start his speech again.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Uncharacteristically the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not being ingenious about this matter. If he related his remarks to the committees or even said that the chairman would say what the hon. and learned Member is saying he might be in order.

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not want to start again. The Government accept in vague principle the concept that perhaps in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, there should be the vague consultation proposed in the new clause. Every member of the public—who will not be consulted—will have to drink a substance containing a chemical which those who produce it think is included in suitable proportions. That is how this matter is related to this vague bureaucratic consultation which will not protect any member of the public from this repulsive substance.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)

My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the vote taken earlier today which sought to make a distinction between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Will my hon. and learned Friend express a view on the different treatment that may be required in the various committees in the context of the difference between Scottish and English law? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that these committees may have to be treated and constituted differently to take due regard of the essential differences, between Scottish and English law, on which my hon. and learned Friend is a great expert?

Mr. Fairbairn

I accept that. New clause 13 does not take the structure of Scottish local government into account at all. Once some vague consultation procedure operates—my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave blasé and, as ever, flippant assent to that procedure — the public will have no choice but to drink a substance which has certain qualities. The producers of that substance say: In Handling Full protective clothing, including goggles, gloves, boots and a PVC suit, should be worn… It is essential that tap water is available near handling points and that eyewash bottles are suitably sited.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Is this the type of information that the chairmen or other specialist advisers at the meeting will give to those who attend the meeting?

Mr. Fairbairn

I think that that is extremely unlikely, because new clause 13 is just another gloss on what is a threat to the public. The producers of this beastly substance continue: Fisons, foremost in fluoridation". This is their advertisement. Do the producers go on to say, Hurrah for fluoride in the water"? No, they do not. It says: Health hazards: 1 vapour—the vapour irritates all parts of the respiratory system and can cause severe lung damage. The T.L.V. (Threshold Limit Value) for fluorides … is 2.5 mg/m3 of air. (Health and Safety Executive note EH15/76). 2 Liquid—flurosilicic acid burns the eyes severely and also the skin. If swallowed, the acid would cause severe internal irritation and damage. Note: Symptoms may develop after several hours. If we take Fison's advice we may still be here to see whether the symptoms develop during the course of the debate.

In my opinion, the new consultative process proposed in new clause 13 is insufficient, because we are talking about totalitarianism, where there is no choice. I thought that this was a country and Government that minded about freedom of choice. We cannot choose not to drink water. It is no good, as someone said to me tonight, to say, "Give them Malvern water." That is like Marie Antoinette and her, "Let them eat cake." The ordinary person cannot drink Malvern water.

In the consultative process will members of the public be able to point out to the chairman, or whoever it is, in England and Wales—it is not considered in Scotland—that green vegetables, tomatoes and root crops cumulatively absorb fluoride?

It is no good anyone talking about one part in a million. The consultative process cannot be, "We have only got one part in a million. Do you want it or not?" If someone happens to eat a great many vegetables and they happen to be cooked in fluoridated water and to be grown in fluoridated water, he will receive a massive dose of fluoride. The test is false. There is cumulative poison.

I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend said that people could be killed by fluoride. That was a major concession from him. What is the purpose of what we are discussing?

Mr. Golding

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what this is all about? Is it in connection with the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings Act) 1960? I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me how the point relates to that Act.

Mr. Fairbairn

It is a vague attempt to educate someone who has not been present throughout the debate. The bogus consultative programme in new clause 13 at which the Government have snatched enables them to say, "This is all right." Let us understand what is all right. The Government have accepted this pseudo-consultative procedure in England and Wales because it fudges the issue, and they will accept anything that fudges the issue.

Distinguished scientists think that fluoride causes cancer, cell disturbance and genetic disease. They know that it causes harm to those on kidney dialysis. Why is it being added to the water supply? Is it to prevent us voting Socialist? That at least would be a reasonable concept. Is it to make schizophrenics passive? That would be a reasonable contribution. Is it to prevent rape or disease? Not at all, it is to prevent holes in the teeth of a few children. That is the basis upon which all members of the public are to be subjected to fluoride in its natural state which is, of course, rat poison. I do not know what, under new clause 13, the purpose of the consultation will be. Is a member of the public allowed to ask whether he is being fluoridated, and whether his water can be tested?

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles (Bridgend)

I have no wish to test my hon. and learned Friend's water. Is not the flaw in new clause 13 the fact that it does not provide for consultation? A chief officer could present a report to the meeting, which need not necessarily be itemised on the agenda as such, which could be accepted without discussion, and unless the public had notice of intent to debate or consider fluoridation, they would not know anything about it until the decision had been taken.

Mr. Fairbairn

I agree with my hon. Friend. Early, the Minister said, "Good heavens, you are not seriously suggesting to the House that we would propose a measure that would require the DHSS or the local authorities to take on more manpower." If this concession is to have any meaning, of course more manpower will have to be taken on. Who is to deliver all this poison to the reservoir? Who will do all the filtration? Who will test the water? Who will receive the complaints—non-manpower?

I see that the Bill says that it has no implications for public expenditure. The Bill says that it will force local authorities and water boards to add something to the water supply that costs money and must be put in by human beings, and measured by human beings, and thus it has implications for public expenditure. However, the Bill says that there will be no additions to public expenditure. If they get phantoms to do this at no price, they should get phantoms to man the bureaucracy and we should solve all our financial problems at a stroke.

Mr. Golding

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman making these remarks because he does not intend to speak on later amendments, and wishes to retire to bed? If not, will he make it clear how they relate to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, to which the new clause applies? How do these remarks on public expenditure relate to the admission of the public and the press to meetings that have been notified, and sometimes not notified, to both press and public?

Mr. Fairbairn

I have no intention of retiring to bed until about the day after tomorrow, or the day after that. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to imagine that there is any suggestion of my doing so. I shall tell him exactly how my remarks relate to the matter in question. It is because the public meetings Act does not provide any safeguard to the public in England and Wales, or in Scotland. Therefore, the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has suggested that if he gives his snide—his behaviour throughout the passage of the Bill has been snide and ungallant on a matter of major principle — The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should not laugh. This is a matter of major principle, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been snide and flippant.

Mr. Best

Unwittingly, in a moment of enthusiasm, my hon. and learned Friend has been a little unfair to the Government. He said that this measure would force fluoride down people's throats. I am afraid that he is quite wrong. It is not the Government who will seek to force fluoride down people's throats. All that the Government are seeking to do is to allow non-elected health authorities to force fluoride down people's throats when it is manifestly against their will, which is a different matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

The House is moving away from the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Fairbairn

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not moving away from the subject of the new clause. My hon. Friend does not seem to understand that my complaint about the new clause is that in Scotland there is a different water authority, health board and local authority structure.

11.30 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I am sorry that so far I have only been snide and flippant. Obviously I have been treating the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend with greater courtesy than is likely to be the case in 24 hours' time if he is still speaking. However, momentarily he has, though no doubt with the assistance of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), touched on the subject matter of the amendment and therefore provides me with an opportunity to reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Acceptance of the principle that underlies the new clause will apply equally to the health boards in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries requested.

Sir Hector Monro

Will my hon. and learned Friend explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that that is not what we are talking about. Our point has got nothing to do with the health boards in Scotland. We are dealing with the water authority, which is a regional council.

Mr. Fairbairn

Although the Minister slipped into the Chief Whip's seat, no doubt nudged by one of his hon. Friends who told him that I had called him snide and flippant, but did not quite edge along to the Dispatch Box for fear that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might worry him about it, may I point out to him that we are talking about a quite different matter. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the new clause will apply equally to Scotland. It cannot apply equally to Scotland because the situation in Scotland is totally different.

Mr. Clarke

In case the House should think that I look upon my hon. and learned Friend as a reliable messenger, I hasten to add that I had no other to carry the message than my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that during the last three hours the whole debate has been about only the health authorities and health boards in Scotland. So far as I can see, it appertains to no other subject matter whatsoever. As we are referring to the desirability of public debate in both cases, the Government are saying that so far as the original exchange was concerned the proceedings should be held in public in both countries and that we shall make this a statutory obligation.

Mr. Fairbairn

The proceedings in Scotland are held in public. The trouble with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is that he does not understand this. I suggest that he moves a little closer to the Under-Secretary of State to find out what the position in Scotland is. While he does so I shall continue with my remarks. If he then wishes to intervene again — flippantly, snidely or otherwise—I shall be more than happy to allow him to do so. Surely the major fallacy of new clause 13 is the proposition that a substance, which may be of some use in preventing dental caries but which is thought by most scientists to be a danger to health, even to the point of mortality, should be added by means of Government authority to the only source of drinking water that there is. I take it that this must be a matter of principle or the payroll vote would not be here on a free vote, nor would the whole of the Government side have been here since half past three this afternoon on a bogus order about shipbuilding which is not opposed by the Opposition. The Minister takes the view that water supplies should be adulterated in order to achieve possible help for children with holes in their teeth. I understand that cigarette packets carry a Government health warning. The Government are satisfied, not on a balance of doubt or probability, that smoking causes cancer. It would be easy to add something to the water which would make anybody who smokes vomit or feel nauseous and either give up cigarettes or water. Perhaps the Minister would tell them to move on to the Malvern water.

Sir Hector Monro

Highland Spring water.

Mr. Fairbairn

Yes, that comes from my constituency. If anybody had told me 10 years ago that they could persuade a Scotsman to buy water at 50p a bottle I would have said that they were mad. But the English are mad and they are buying it in vast quantities.

Mr. Best

The Government are satisfied that smoking is harmful to health and therefore merits health warnings being placed on cigarette packets. If the Government are satisfied that fluoride is beneficial to health and that there should be mass medication—I use that phrase as a form of shorthand although I know that my hon. and learned Friend does not accept it — through the medium of fluoride, is not the natural corollory of that in reverse to say that the Government should ban smoking because they are satisfied that it is harmful and causes cancer?

Mr. Fairbairn

This is an important matter. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister takes the view that the consultation process provided under new clause 13 for England and Wales, which does not affect Scotland — perhaps one day my right hon. and learned Friend, who gives an impression of believing himself to be omniscient, may discover the position in Scotland — is a sensible process, I am bound to say that I cannot agree. It is not a question of just drinking water to which fluoride is added one part to a million, but of eating food cooked in that water, eating food that has absorbed that water, and all the other methods of accumulating the fluoride in that water. No consultation that is proposed in new clause 13 can in any way enable the ingestion of fluoride, which is cumulative, to be measured or controlled. That is why such a consultation process is bogus. It would deceive the public into imagining falsely that their water supply was safe because bureaucrats in England and Wales had been consulted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Surely the people about whom my hon. and learned Friend should be talking are the unelected appointed members of the health authorities in England and Wales. Will he advise me, from his considerable knowledge of the law, perhaps primarily of Scotland but to a limited extent of England and Wales, whether it will be necessary for the appointed unelected members of the health authorities, which may permit the public in when the matter of fluoridation is being discussed, should declare an interest? Those appointed people, may, in some cases, be involved with industrial companies who sell fluoride as a by-product of their manufacturing process and will therefore have a vested interest. Will such unelected appointed members have a responsibility in the presence of the public to declare that they have a vested interest?

Mr. Fairbairn

They would have no duty to declare any interest. But if the verbosity of the Bill were to be believed, that it had no effect on public expenditure, the fluoride would be given away by those kindly gentlemen who would deliver it, put it in the water and test it for nothing.

Mr. Lawrence

My hon. and learned Friend has returned to the single most important point that he has been making. I listened carefully to what he said and I am pleased that he has done so. It is coupled with his unfair attack on our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is squirming because during a telephone call the Chancellor said, "All right Ken, you can have this Bill provided that there is not one penny of cost to the public sector borrowing requirement." Every hint of a concession by my right hon. and learned Friend is likely to incur cost, which will be utterly unacceptable to the Cabinet and to the Chancellor. My hon. and learned Friend must understand that that is why our right hon. and learned Friend is in a very difficult position.

There is no way that any concession on the lines requested by my hon. and learned Friend can be introduced without incurring cost. That would be outside the ambit of the Bill and the Government would be making a mockery of it if they conceded one inch. Because they cannot concede one inch, the only alternative is to drop the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not go outside the Bill or even outside the new clause.

Mr. Fairbairn

I shall not go outside the new clause. I withdraw as uncharitable my suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was either flippant or snide. I do so because the Government have been jumped by their officials to get through this ridiculous totalitarian Bill against the conscience of the House. They have Whipped the payroll — many, if not most, of whose members believe that the fluoridation of the public water supply is wrong and immoral, including the Scottish Whip who until recently was vice-chairman of the Scottish Still Water Association. Further, in order to make some sort of pretence that the payroll vote was not dragooned by the supreme Soviets into voting, it was brought here on the bogus motion on British Shipbuilders borrowing power.

I regard any Government who do not treat it as a matter of absolute principle that we do not doctor the water supply as failing in their duty to democracy.

Mr. Williams

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a point that is new to me — that his colleagues have been dragooned here in relation to the business to follow this debate. I shall make it clear to all those tired Conservative Members who wish to go home that the Opposition have no intention of voting on that motion.

Mr. Fairbairn

I have always known that the right hon. Member was slow on the uptake, but if he did not know that fact when he received the Whip he must be very slow. It was a ruse to persuade hon. Members to be here to vote, unknowing what they would vote on a matter of principle — that every member of the public will be forced to take what distinguished scientists regard as a cumulative poison that is dangerous to health simply because officials think that somebody may benefit.

Mr. Golding

I have not yet discovered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking in support of or opposition to the new clause, or whether he, as I often do, is rehearsing the arguments so that he can make up his mind at the end of his speech. I do not know what attitude he is taking. He has not yet explained whether the public should be allowed to listen to the health athorities discuss these measures. He has not said whether the press should be admitted. He has not addressed himself to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. I shall be glad when he addresses himself to the question.

Mr. Fairbairn

As the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, when we last debated the Bill, just a little earlier than this to try to get a lift home, I took the trouble to look through the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, as it affects England, and discovered that it contains no provision to enable him to cadge a lift. Why, therefore, should I address myself to his problems? The new clause is typically arrogant because those who sponsor it take the view that England and Wales are the only places on earth; it does not apply to Scotland and it is clear that the Minister does not understand the Scottish position.

I will only say in closing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was about to say that I will only say, in closing this part of my argument, that late at night, early in the morning and late in the afternoon though it may be, sometimes the House resorts to humour as a relief from the tedium of debate. But the Government should not misinterpret the jocularity of the House on a matter which I regard as the most dangerous interruption of human freedom that can be imagined, namely, that a poison should be put into the substance that everybody must drink. The new clause, and any other form of idiotic consultation, has no relevance to the choice of a person to drink water which has not been medicated for the purpose of halting somebody else's condition.

The Minister mentioned AIDS. I do not know whether he has yet contracted it—[Interruption.] If he does, it will not have been from me. Although this is a disease which appears to be possible of epidemic proportions, if suddenly some antidote were found which half the scientists said was harmful and half said was unharmful, the Minister would say, "Those who think that it harms you are idiots because I have got it."

No amount of consultation as granted under this so-called concession, misunderstanding the law and structure of local authorities in Scotland, will remedy the situation. If the Minister wants to appreciate the difficulties of the separation of this country, he had better learn something about Scotland, otherwise provisions such as this will promote it.

Whether he regards Miss McColl as edentate or idiotic, I assure him that she and her advisers, should this measure ever become law, will take the matter all the way in every court. I believe that they will triumph, and so they should.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order—

Mr. John Cope (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

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

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order I am about to put the Question. The Question is, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I can take a point of order only if it relates to the Division. Otherwise I will take it after the Division.

Mr. Marlow

It is related to the Division. I believe that I started making a point of order before my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order relating to the Division, he must be covered.

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intimated before my hon. Friend moved the closure that I wished to raise a point of order. I believe that I am therefore entitled to make that point of order before my hon. Friend makes his point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to do that. I have put the Question and the Tellers are now about to be named.

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must put the point again. I made my point before my hon. Friend stood up. Am I not entitled to make a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have understood me. I have put the Question, That the Question be now put. The House is now proceeding to come to a decision on that. I cannot have the hon. Gentleman arguing and raising points of order at this stage.

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): May I ask you then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether my hon. Friend on the Front Bench actually moved, That the Question be now put, or did you say "The Question is, That the Question be now put" before he asked that the Question be put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have made it clear that the closure was moved. It is the duty of the Chair to decide whether to accept the closure motion. I accepted the motion, which was within my discretion, and I have put the Question. The House must now proceed to come to a conclusion on that Question.

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that it is wrong to argue with the referee, but I had started to make my point of order before my hon. Friend moved the closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Marlow

(seated and covered): May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling on the point that I made? I wished to raise a point of order and my hon. Friend did not move the closure. You then put the Question from the Chair. Is it in order for you to put the Question when my hon. Friend has not yet opened his mouth?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The closure was moved. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard it, but I clearly heard the closure being moved. It is in the discretion of the Chair whether to accept that motion. I did accept it and the House is now proceeding to come to a conclusion on it.

Mr. Marlow

I accept your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House having divided: Ayes 136, Noes 60.

Division No. 130] [11.50 pm
AYES
Ancram, Michael Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Arnold, Tom Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Moynihan, Hon C.
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Needham, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Nelson, Anthony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Neubert, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John Newton, Tony
Boscawen, Hon Robert Nicholls, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter Normanton, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Bright, Graham Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Burt, Alistair Pattie, Geoffrey
Butcher, John Pawsey, James
Campbell-Savours, Dale Penhaligon, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Pollock, Alexander
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) Powley, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Rathbone, Tim
Colvin, Michael Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Coombs, Simon Rifkind, Malcolm
Cope, John Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Couchman, James Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Roe, Mrs Marion
Dorrell, Stephen Rowe, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Dunn, Robert Ryder, Richard
Durant, Tony Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Sayeed, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim Scott, Nicholas
Favell, Anthony Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Silvester, Fred
Fox, Marcus Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Freeman, Roger Soames, Hon Nicholas
Gale, Roger Spencer, Derek
Goodlad, Alastair Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gow, Ian Squire, Robin
Gregory, Conal Stanley, John
Gummer, John Selwyn Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Harris, David Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Hayes, J. Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Henderson, Barry Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Hind, Kenneth Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Howard, Michael Thurnham, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral) Tracey, Richard
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Trippier, David
Jessel, Toby Viggers, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Waddington, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Waldegrave, Hon William
Lang, Ian Walden, George
Lee, John (Pendle) Ward, John
Lilley, Peter Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Watson, John
Lord, Michael Watts, John
Luce, Richard Wheeler, John
Lyell, Nicholas Whitney, Raymond
McCurley, Mrs Anna Wiggin, Jerry
Macfarlane, Neil Wood, Timothy
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Major, John Younger, Rt Hon George
Marland, Paul
Mather, Carol Tellers for the Ayes:
Maude, Hon Francis Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Mellor, David
NOES
Ashdown, Paddy Bermingham, Gerald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Best, Keith
Beggs, Roy Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Beith, A. J. Boyes, Roland
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Bruce, Malcolm McCusker, Harold
Budgen, Nick McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Carttiss, Michael McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) McWilliam, John
Conway, Derek Marlow, Antony
Dalyell, Tam Maynard, Miss Joan
Fairbairn, Nicholas Merchant, Piers
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Monro, Sir Hector
Forth, Eric Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Galley, Roy Pike, Peter
Grist, Ian Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Ground, Patrick Skinner, Dennis
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Haynes, Frank Terlezki, Stefan
Hayward, Robert Twinn, Dr Ian
Holt, Richard Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Wigley, Dafydd
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Williams, Rt Hon A.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Winterton, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Winterton, Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Tellers for the Noes:
Knowles, Michael Mr. John Golding and
Lawrence, Ivan Mr. Michael McGuire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

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

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 135.

Division No. 131] [12.03 am
AYES
Ashdown, Paddy Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Beith, A. J. McGuire, Michael
Bermingham, Gerald McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Maclean, David John
Boyes, Roland Maynard, Miss Joan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Merchant, Piers
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Bruce, Malcolm Penhaligon, David
Budgen, Nick Pike, Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Skinner, Dennis
Conway, Derek Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Dalyell, Tam Terlezki, Stefan
Fatchett, Derek Twinn, Dr Ian
Forth, Eric Wallace, James
Ground, Patrick Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Wigley, Dafydd
Haynes, Frank Williams, Rt Hon A.
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Knowles, Michael Tellers for the Ayes:
Lawler, Geoffrey Mr. John McWilliam and
Lawrence, Ivan Mr. John Golding.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
NOES
Ancram, Michael Burt, Alistair
Arnold, Tom Butcher, John
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Colvin, Michael
Best, Keith Coombs, Simon
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cope, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Couchman, James
Bottomley, Peter Currie, Mrs Edwina
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Dorrell, Stephen
Bright, Graham Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Dunn, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Durant, Tony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Eggar, Tim Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Pattie, Geoffrey
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Pawsey, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Pollock, Alexander
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Freeman, Roger Powley, John
Gale, Roger Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Garel-Jones, Tristan Rathbone, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Gow, Ian Rifkind, Malcolm
Gregory, Conal Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Grist, Ian Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Gummer, John Selwyn Roe, Mrs Marion
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Rowe, Andrew
Hayes, J. Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Hayward, Robert Ryder, Richard
Henderson, Barry Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hind, Kenneth Sayeed, Jonathan
Home Robertson, John Scott, Nicholas
Howard, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Jessel, Toby Soames, Hon Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Spencer, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Squire, Robin
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Stanley, John
Lang, Ian Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Lee, John (Pendle) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lilley, Peter Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Luce, Richard Thurnham, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas Tracey, Richard
McCurley, Mrs Anna Trippier, David
Macfarlane, Neil Viggers, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Waddington, David
Major, John Waldegrave, Hon William
Marland, Paul Walden, George
Marlow, Antony Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mather, Carol Watson, John
Maude, Hon Francis Watts, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Wheeler, John
Mellor, David Whitney, Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Wiggin, Jerry
Monro, Sir Hector Winterton, Nicholas
Moynihan, Hon C. Wood, Timothy
Needham, Richard Young, Sir George (Acton)
Nelson, Anthony Younger, Rt Hon George
Newton, Tony
Nicholls, Patrick Tellers for the Noes:
Normanton, Tom Mr. Peter Lloyd and
Page, Sir John (Harrow W) Mr. Michael Neubert.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

12.15 am
Forward to