POWER TO VARY PERMITTED FLUORIDATION AGENTS

HC Deb 05 March 1985 vol 74 cc1060-138

Mr. Golding

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 3 and insert 'subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament after a full report has been given to Parliament three months previously on the tests carried out on the new substance'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 10, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'to' to end of line 3 and insert 'approval by resolution of the House of Commons.' No. 78, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'either House' and insert 'both Houses'.

Mr. Golding

I was shocked to see that amendment No. 46 had been selected. One has only to know the background to its tabling to understand why. Last Tuesday I tried to speak in debates on fluoridation. I rushed back from Southend and arrived at 10.50 pm. The closure was moved and I could not speak. I left the House and ran out of petrol. I bought petrol and ran into a fog. At 2 am I got home.

When I got home, worse even than my wife waiting for me, I had toothache. I could not sleep. Instead I indulged in my favourite pastime—writing amendments to Bills. So it was a shock to find the amendment on the Amendment Paper. I thought, "That is complex, sophisticated and subtle." It was a shock to find it standing solely in my name. I wonder why no other hon. Member has thought fit to add his name to mine. Perhaps it is because it is too sophisticated, complex and difficult for others.

Mr. Forth

I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Such is the respect in which he is held by right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House that we were confident that such would be his skill, ability and persuasiveness in dealing with the amendment that it would be totally superfluous for other right hon. and hon. Members to add their names to the amendment. We could all repose in the knowledge that he would fully discharge his responsibilities to the House in bringing forward the amendment. He can be assured of the support of many hon. Members on both sides in so doing.

Mr. Golding

The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I would never make that hon. Gentleman my PPS. His judgment is totally at fault. When I examined the amendment last night, I found that I did not understand it. One of my difficulties this afternoon—one that I often face—is that I have to persuade not only Conservative Members but myself. It is a complicated subject. I am hoping that the Chief Whip for the Liberals, the only person here who I know understands the procedures to which I am referring, will from time to time help me out.

"Erskine May" is clear on the subject of parliamentary control of statutory instruments. It states: The conditions of the making of statutory instruments and the degree of parliamentary control over them will depend in each case upon the particular statute which authorizes them, though there is at present no consistent pattern or direct connection between the subject matter of any particular instrument and the procedure to which it may be subjected". Those are the words of Erskine May. In my words, it is the usual parliamentary model.

Mr. Fairbairn

I know that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer, but it would be helpful if he would tell us which passage in "Erskine May" he was quoting.

Mr. Dobson

Get your trousers pressed.

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was saying from a sedentary position. If I get anything pressed it will be his head.

Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the page and paragraph reference for the passage he quoted in the latest edition of "Erskine May", if the hon. Gentleman has the latest edition. Some of us have been in the House so long that we may have older editions. I shall be obliged if he can give us the reference, and do everthing he can to press and suppress the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Golding

I always write quotations from memory. I am not certain that I have the right page number—in one edition it is page 577. "Erskine May" explains that: Under one type of procedure the resultant instrument has no effect, or no continuing effect, until Parliament has expressly approved it. That is what I want. I want express approval.

On page 577 "Erskine May" says: Under another type it can be annulled if, within a time-limit, either House records its disapproval; the address to Her Majesty praying that an instrument be annulled is colloquially termed a `prayer'. "Erskine May" sets out the affirmative and negative procedures and says that they are "exempted business".

Why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I insist on the affirmative procedure as I do in the amendment? One difference between the two procedures is in the laying. On page 578 "Erskine May" says: What constitutes laying must be a matter for the decision of each House. In 1948, however, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act was passed 'for the removal of doubt'. It declared that statutory references to the laying of instruments or other documents before either House are (unless the contrary intention appears) to be construed as references to the taking, during the existence of a Parliament, of such action as, under the Standing or Sessional Orders or other directions of that House, or under the practice of that House, constitutes laying, notwithstanding that the action can be taken at a time when the House is not sitting. The important point is that a negative order can be laid when the House is not sitting.

When the Government have lost their business today through the miserable incompetence of the Government Whips, the failure of the Leader of the House and the outstanding brilliance of the Opposition Chief Whip, one consequence will follow. It will be a minor result, but hon. Members will be able to go home. A more important point is that negative orders will still be able to be laid.

Mr. Marlow

The Government have lost their business, despite attempts by Conservative Members to give them an opportunity to take the rest of today's business on another day and therefore keep today's business, largely because the hon. Gentleman was stuck outside the Lobby trooping and dragooning Labour Members into the Lobby to support the Government and so lose the business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Hon. Members should come to the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Golding

We are precisely on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We must come to the terms of the amendment and not discuss the Chief Whips or the previous business.

Mr. Golding

It was an aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We are addressing the terms of the amendment when we discuss the differences between the conditions under which one can lay negative and affirmative orders. When the House has gone to rest, affirmative orders cannot be laid, but negative orders can be.

Standing Order No. 141 says: Where, under any Act of Parliament, a statutory instrument is required to be laid before Parliament, or before this House, the delivery of a copy of such instrument to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament shall be deemed to be for all purposes the laying of it before the House: Provided that nothing in this order shall apply to any statutory instrument being an order which is subject to special parlimentary procedure or to any other instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament, or before this House, for any period before it comes into operation.

Dr. M. S. Miller

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I pay tribute to his erudition and ability to wade through parliamentary procedure.

Irrespective of whether we are dealing with the negative or affirmative procedure, when the time comes for my hon. Friend to tell us about the amendment, will he also tell us what the new substance is? I should like to know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the House, not just his hon. Friend.

2.15 pm

Dr. Miller

Will my hon. Friend also tell us whether it is the case that tests should be carried out on substances before they are put in water? Would it not be better for him to ask that the water into which the fluoride has been placed is tested? My hon. Friend's point about the affirmative and negative procedure is valid, but the rest of the amendment is a mess. Perhaps he will tell us exactly what he is getting at.

Mr. Golding

I shall come to the mess later. I hope that my hon. Friend will have time to listen to all the compounds that I shall list. I may have to write to him.

Mr. John Patten

Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy of it in the Library?

Mr. Golding

Under Standing Order No. 141—I see hon. Members taking the Standing Orders out of their pockets—

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

The Minister put a serious point to my hon. Friend. Will he, or will he not, lay a copy of his letter in the Library?

Mr. Golding

The odds are that if I write him a letter it will fall out of my pocket in the Central Lobby, in the Members' Lobby or in the Library. I therefore cannot say whether it will be laid in the Library, the Central Lobby or the Members' Lobby.

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not understand what being laid in the Central Lobby, or wherever, means. I do not know whether it is negative or affirmative, but I am anxious to discover the hon. Gentleman's views. If one is spread-eagled on the Floor of the House, not in the Lobby or the Corridor, not laid, but spread-eagled, is that negative or affirmative?

Mr. Golding

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman replies, he will be out of order. He had better get back to the amendment.

Mr. Golding

I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be out of order if I were to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman to consult his manservant Blott to find out the answer.

If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will take out of your pocket the Standing Orders which you always carry with you and look at Standing Order No. 141, you will see that it says: the delivery of a copy of such instrument"— a statutory instrument, but not a draft instrument— to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament shall be deemed to be … laying". As a matter of practice, instruments are not normally laid on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, Good Friday or Christmas day. It does not say that they cannot be laid.

What matters is the sneaky way in which certain Governments — Conservative Governments, never Labour Governments—lay instruments when nobody is watching. They can do that under the negative procedure. It is interesting that the one day that is left out is Christmas eve. I believe that it has been left out on purpose—so that Governments can lay statutory instruments without anybody finding out about them.

Mr. Fairbairn

The hon. Gentleman is being rather personal. He knows perfectly well, he has known for years, that my birthday happens to be on Christmas Eve. Equally, he knows perfectly well that I was an Easter present from my father to my mother and a Christmas present from my mother to my father.

Mr. Golding

There is a difference in the way that the papers are presented in the House of Lords. It is also different in respect of affirmative orders.

The negative order procedure is always hit and miss, depending on whether hon. Members know that there is something to pray against. "Erskine May" tells us: The laying of statutory instruments on the table of the House of Commons means in practice that the paper, having been delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office"— I wonder whether any hon. Member knows where the Votes and Proceedings Office is? Perhaps I could be told later— is placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The document is usually (though not always) laid in duplicate in accordance with a direction of the Speaker. I heard hon. Members speaking earlier about their lack of experience as Ministers. I had a short, traumatic experience as a Minister—traumatic for the electorate, and traumatic for the rest of the Government. I learnt that if one wanted to make certain that no one ever knew what one was doing in government, the best course was to answer a parliamentary question telling the hon. Member that something had been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. One could be almost certain that no hon. Member would ever take the trouble to look if the parliamentary answer was timed right. Answering the question on 23 December and placing the document in the House of Commons Library on 24 December would ensure a straight run. It is all a matter of hit and miss. That is one of the disadvantages of the negative procedure.

Hon. Members are told about negative instruments, but not in a form that allows them to know what is happening. Since 1954 Governments have always put 50 copies of instruments and drafts subject to the negative resolution in the Vote Office when they are laid. "Erskine May" says: The arrangements for notifying Members of what has been laid are as follows. In the House of Lords notice appears in the Minutes of Proceedings, and the papers themselves are available for inspection in the Printed Paper Office. When papers are laid in the House of Commons, notice appears in the daily Votes and Proceedings. Separate lists of statutory instruments etc., are published fortnightly in the House of Lords and weekly in the House of Commons, showing all the instruments and draft instruments against which negative motions can be moved within the statutory period, the date from which that period began to run and the number of days unexpired. I sat on the old Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. We used to get the list of statutory instruments, their titles and numbers. One could look at them and find it impossible to tell from the title what they were about. Even after looking at an order one often could not tell what it was about. If an instrument was on a negative procedure list, one would automatically assume that it was not of any great importance. That was a bad assumption to make. I was elected to the House in 1969 and servd on the Statutory Instruments Committee from 1969–70. My assumptions were wrong.

It is impossible for hon. Members to keep up with all the delegated legislation: it is harder to keep up under the negative procedure than under the positive procedure.

Mr. Fairbairn

Having merely served on a subsequent Statutory Instruments Committee and not having had the privilege of serving with the hon. Member, I regret that I cannot remember what he means by having a negative instrument and using it in a negative procedure. Could he enlighten me about that?

Mr. Golding

I have quoted the page reference in "Erskine May", which will tell the hon. and learned Member the precise difference between the negative and the positive procedures.

The problem with the negative procedure for those who know what it is—I presume that I have lost the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross at this point and I shall have lost a few more hon. Members soon—is that if one has not come to grips with it within 40 days, it passes into law. It is most unsatisfactory that it becomes law after the 40 day period unless one is right on top of the job. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member can make something of the phrase, "right on top of the job".

The procedure for affirmative orders is different and better. The standing order I have quoted does not apply to instruments relating to affirmative orders. They can be laid only on sitting days. They cannot be sneaked in.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman's point is fundamental and vital to the future of fluoride and its use in this country. Is he aware that the resolution can be made by either House of Parliament—not just this House with its democratic responsibilities, but by the other House? This order which could be laid in some nook or cranny of our Library need not be laid here at all but could be laid in one of the darkest recesses of their Lordships' Library. Their Lordships will not have these matters brought to their attention by their constituents because they do not have constituents. Is that not a matter of great concern? Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the House that it is totally unacceptable?

Mr. Golding

It is not totally unacceptable to me. I have great faith in the House of Lords at present. Outside the local authorities and the town halls it is the only place where there are any Labour victories. I support the House of Lords. I shall come in a moment to Lord Shackleton's letter in The Times yesterday, which explains how much work is being done in the House of Lords. I feel shocked that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) takes this puritanical attitude against the House of Lords.

Mr. Marlow

I am sorry if I gave the hon. Gentleman that impression. By having the order laid in only one House, which could be the House of Lords, this House, with our democratic responsibilities, would not be involved in future control of this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows it is fundamental to the health and liberty of the individual citizen.

Mr. Golding

I do not understand that. Under the negative procedure, either House can annul the order. I should have thought that as an opponent of fluoridation, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would want every order under the Bill to be annulled. Perhaps I should have spelled it out to him with my kiddies' kit. My objective in moving the amendment is to make it easier for both Houses to annul orders that Ministers are proposing to extend fluoridation.

2.30 pm

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When Dr. Kissinger used to whizz around the middle east, it was sometimes said that if it was Tuesday it must be Baghdad. Today if it is fluoride it is still Tuesday. Has the Leader of the House sought your permission to come to the House to explain what has happened to today's business and what he intends to do about the Interception of Communications Bill?

Mr. Beith

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does not our inability to proceed with the Interception of Communications Bill—and the Leader of the House is not here to explain the position—reveal how much better it would have been if you, or another occupant of the Chair, had had the power to ensure that the proceedings on that Bill were adjourned with due notice so that hon. Members would have the opportunity to read the Bridge report? Instead, to cover their embarrassment the Government have connived at the removal of their own business from the Order Paper.

Mr. Forth

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An independent, or at least independently minded, group of Conservative Members gave the House the opportunity to make its own decision about the conduct of today's business at approximately 1.25 pm. Will you guide us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and tell us whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House needs to tell us why we made our decision?

Mr. Fairbairn

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you were in a position to do a bit of phone-tapping, you would know.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Do all hon. Members wish to raise similar points of order? If so, let me explain that it is not for me to ask Ministers to come to the House. We have an unlimited extension of proceedings, which is nothing new and certainly is not out of order.

Mr. McNamara

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Leader of the House has now entered the Chamber, will you tell us whether, when he passed your Chair, he asked permission to make a statement to the House about the loss of today's business and whether an opportunity will be given to clear the Lobbies and say our prayers together as a community?

Can you also tell us whether the Leader of the House has instructed his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to rewrite the infamous Bill that we were to consider today, to ensure proper democratic control of the Government's nefarious goings on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Ministers have heard what has been said and it is for them to take whatever action they consider necessary.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

If it will help progress with the business now before the House, let me explain that, as Wednesday's business has been lost, the matter must now be considered through the usual channels. I hope to make a statement indicating that it will be further considered.

Mr. Dobson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were promised copies of the Bridge report, and told that they would be available before the debate on telephone tapping. Will the Leader of the House find out whether those copies have been made available?

Mr. Biffen

indicated assent.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find myself in a peculiar position. I have been led to believe that today is still Tuesday, but Wednesday happens to be my birthday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sure that the House wishes the hon. Gentleman many happy returns, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Dixon

As Wednesday 6 March is not in the parliamentary year, will the Leader of the House tell me what I should do with my birthday presents? In parliamentary terms my birthday has disappeared, because today's business has been talked out and we are still discussing yesterday's business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I repeat that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Marlow

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that tomorrow's business had been lost. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members look at the Division lists when the Official Report is published, I think that you and they will realise that it was a conscious decision of the Government and the Opposition to do away with tomorrow's business.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the House that we still have to continue the proceedings on a very important Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that the matter that he has raised is not one for the Chair.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his point of order, the Leader of the House assented from a sedentary position. My point of order is simple. Is that assent recorded in Hansard? If not, will the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement that is?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair does not notice anything that is said from a sedentary position. I did not notice what happened.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that just after midnight, the Committee proceedings of the Transport Bill were interrupted by hon. Members singing "Happy Birthday" to celebrate the birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. As, technically, Wednesday 6 March has never occurred, surely it was out of order for hon. Members to sing "Happy Birthday" in celebration of a birthday that had not yet taken place and will not take place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is completely out of order in raising matters relating to Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Opposition Members are so scandalised by the Government's behaviour in conniving at losing Wednesday's business, may I suggest that the best way of making their protest is to continue today's business until 2.30 pm tomorrow, so that we can lose the following day's business as well.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House did not make a proper statement. He merely assented from a sedentary position. This is serious. We have lost a day's business on a very important matter. It is worth pointing out that Conservative Members who were responsible for that have never done it on unemployment, education or the abolition of the metropolitan counties, but on water fluoridisation they waste a parliamentary day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Again, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Golding

I am a gambler. When gambling, I always bet each way. That is why I have brought with me a copy of "Tapping the Telephone". Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would like to ask hon. Members whether they want my speech on telephone tapping or a continuation of the speech about statutory instruments.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

A bit of both.

Mr. Golding

It is almost certain to sound like a bit of both, anyway.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of procedure. Will he say whether the point made by my hon. Friend is correct as regards the orders being able to be laid in either House. It is not clear whether the order could be laid in both Houses but be voted on by a resolution of either House. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that procedural point?

Mr. Golding

According to "Erskine May", which I carry around in my head but put on paper for convenience, an Order or an instrument may be required to be laid in draft before one or both Houses". It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Northampton, North would carry "Erskine May" with him, because he continually challenges on points of procedure which could be settled easily if he were simply to open the pages of that book. That would save the time of the House. If he would look at the rules, he would read the words: before one or both Houses, and not to be made and to have effect unless one or both Houses"— the relevant words are "one or both"; Conservative Members have been trying to get me in a muddle, but they will not succeed— present addresses to the Crown praying for the Order to be made or have agreed to resolutions approving the draft instrument. That is what is important. The Government must come to both the Commons and the Lords and say, "Here are the proposals, and until there is a positive vote we cannot have this legislation". That means, Mr. Speaker, that they must actually tell you that the order exists and what it is about. For that reason, if for no other, it is better to deal with orders by affirmative resolutions.

There are drawbacks to the proposal. Standing Order No. 79 makes it clear in relation to a statutory instrument of the affirmative type that in the new Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c. a Minister may himself put forward an affirmative order for approval, but it is not so with the negative type. It may be that it is better taken on the Floor.

It is unnecessary for me to spell out in detail all the reasons why the affirmative resolution procedure is preferable to the negative procedure. I believe that most hon. Members accept that, and that only Governments do not. Governments come to the House and tell us, "We do not have the parliamentary time." That is the standard argument against the use of affirmative resolutions. However, the Government are proving today that they have plenty of time and in a few hours' time they will declare a national Parliament half-day. We are all to be sent home and the evening is not to be spent in debate.

If the Government were to manage their business better, they could find time to debate these instruments.

Mr. Forth

As I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have substantial contributions to make to this important debate, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing the House a disservice by putting into the minds of the business managers the very thought that our business today might be truncated in any way. Does he agree that that is most risky, and will he reconsider what he has just said and try to persuade the business managers on the Conservative Benches that they should have much more open minds about this issue and be prepared to let this business run to its necessary, obvious and serious conclusion, rather than attempt to truncate it in any way?

Mr. Golding

It will be for others to advise me. Of course, Adjournment debates could take place and we could see to what time they might go.

However, I must deal with the point of the other place, because the Bill is left to the discretion of either House and my amendment seeks to make it obligatory on both Houses.

Mr. Beith

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his consideration of the matter in relation to the House of Commons, I hope that he will remind hon. Members that even if they were extremely efficacious in the pursuit of their job of following up the negative instruments, there is no guarantee whatever that they would be able to secure a vote on the Floor of the House or an effective vote in Committee against the negative instrument.

2.45 pm

Mr. Golding

I have to agree that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One difficulty of the affirmative procedure is that it is virtually impossible to do anything with it by either debate or vote on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Marlow

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. The circumstances are somewhat unusual, in that it is not tomorrow, but yesterday. The debate has some time to go. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, as some organisation may be needed whether it is necessary to deal with the 10 o'clock motion tonight? Will it be necessary for hon. Members to attend to ensure that we can continue the debate after 10 pm, or, because our business is open-ended, will we proceed beyond 10 o'clock in any case?

Mr. Golding

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what day it is. It is Tuesday, and we have long since passed 10 o'clock. I had to teach the hon. Member about those matters when we debated the British Telecommunications Bill. I thought that he would have learnt that in these circumstances, it is Tuesday and we have passed 10 o'clock, so there can be no 10 o'clock motion tonight. However, I hope that my remarks are hypothetical.

Mr. Fairbairn

I have become increasingly confused.

Mr. Dobson

For the past 20 years.

Mr. Fairbairn

It has been many years since I managed to shrug off confusion, but the hon. Member has not helped. I have been gazing at that hideous clock for the past 24 hours, and I thought that when it said it was 10 o'clock, it must mean it. How many 10 o'clocks will there be before I can get rid of Tuesday?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that it would be right for me to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, in that we are in Tuesday's sitting and will remain in that sitting for the rest of today.

Mr. Golding

You are more expert than me on the rules, Mr. Speaker. However, after last night, I am probably more expert than you on the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). The reason why the clock appears to be confused is that it has been looking at the hideous hon. and learned Gentleman for the past 20 hours.

I refer to the other place, of which I am envious because of the television drama that emanates from there. I said that the Government are defeated only in the other place. I wrote that yesterday.

Mr. Fairbairn

Today.

Mr. Golding

I wrote it yesterday—Monday. Is it not possible to make a statement in the House without being hounded by people who are completely ignorant of my domestic arrangements? I wrote that sentence yesterday.

Mr. Fairbairn

Rubbish!

Mr. Golding

Let us look at the position today. The Government are in disarray. We expected to see the Secretary of State for the Environment, but, instead, we see a broken reed of a Leader of the House—a pathetic figure.

Mr. Speaker

Order. To keep the hon. Gentleman on the road, we should be interested to know whether he wrote it yesterday on the negative or affirmative procedure. We should be dealing with that and his amendment.

Mr. Golding

Oh No, Mr. Speaker — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am going rather faster than usual.

Mr. Fairbairn

I know that the hon. Gentleman is going faster than usual and I am very confused. May I be advised whether he has arrived at yesterday or tomorrow, or is it still today?

Mr. Golding

Today.

The amendment says "subject"—I did not deal with the word "subject"—"to affirmative resolution". I have dealt with the phrase "affirmative resolution".

When you were not watching, Mr. Speaker, and when Conservative Members were making a noise, I went on to talk about both Houses of Parliament. I explained that a resolution of both Houses is better than a resolution of either House because the matter will then have to go to the House of Lords. We can win the argument in the House of Lords, but we never seem to win in the House of Commons, until today. We have won in the House of Commons today, but usually we win only in the House of Lords.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in normal circumstances the Opposition do not win arguments in this House. However, it will not have escaped his notice that Her Majesty's Government have not secured a majority of Conservative Members voting in their Lobby on a single Division on the Bill. Therefore, if more of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends were present to vote against the Government, the Government would have been defeated in this House.

Mr. Golding

We cannot stand disloyalty to the party. My hon. Friends stayed in bed on my advice because I telephoned them and said that I had seen the most frightful sight — a young Conservative Member reading out private letters from Cabinet Ministers to their constituents. Admittedly those letters had been reneged on, but the fact that they had been written shook me. You will not believe this, Mr. Speaker, but I heard an account—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Does it have anything to do with the amendment? The hon. Gentleman must stick to the amendment. I am the last person who wishes to be reminded of what has happened today.

Mr. Golding

The point is that the Conservative party in the House of Commons has been in such disarray over the past 24 hours that I want to make certain that the legislation can be sent to the other place.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

My hon. Friend, like me, is a former Whip. We like to know where we are going and the House usually likes to know where it is going. However, we are still in Tuesday. My hon. Friend is talking about legislation and the other place. What day is the House of Lords in now? Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House?

Mr. Golding

You know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a date-line across the middle of Central Lobby. If my hon. Friend does not show school parties the date-line across Central Lobby, what does he show them? Does not he say, "This is the line. On that side it is Tuesday in the House of Commons and on that side it is Wednesday in the House of Lords"? What do younger hon. Members do?

I ask whether the House of Lords will make time. When returning from a good meal my attention was drawn to a letter in The Times about how hard their Lordships worked. One of their Lordships showed that letter to me. Conservative Members will have read it over breakfast, but my copy of The Times comes from the Library. The letter was written by Lord Shackleton and was headed Longer labours in the Lords and stated In the Lobby Reporter's article of February 25 on 'MPs forced into more post-midnight sittings' it was suggested that, in contrast to the House of Commons, 'the House of Lords uses its expertise to avoid long hours'. That laugh will be on the Lords tonight because we shall be at home when they are working. The letter continues: Alas, the suggestion that the Lords are able, by skilful management of business, to avoid late sittings is no longer true. Then he details the hours: 1956–57, average length of sitting, 3 hours 55 minutes. Average daily attendance 112."—

Mr. Speaker

Order. What has this got to do with the hon. Gentleman's amendment? It is not relevant. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. I must ask him to return to his amendment or, if he is quoting from a letter, to make it relevant to his amendment.

Mr. Golding

I am trying to speak in shorthand. Normally I spell matters out. One thing is absolutely clear: the House of Lords, even though it may work longer, has the time to deal with delegated legislation. That becomes absolutely clear—

Mr. Beith

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that as well as the point made by Lord Shackleton anxiety has been expressed in the House of Lords, not least by my noble Friend Lord Hooson, and acknowledged from the Government Benches in that Chamber that the House of Lords needs to make a particular effort to deal with those negative instruments which have not been subject to proper debate or vote in the House of Commons? It has been openly admitted in the House of Lords that discussion must take place through the usual channels in that House to ensure that more work is done by the Lords on those statutory instruments which have not been adequately debated in the House of Commons.

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear a word that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying—not that I normally want to do so, but it might be useful if I could.

Mr. Golding

On a very serious point, the question asked by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was, cannot the Lords do more business in connection with the negative orders? The answer is yes. It obviously makes sense for the Lords to be dealing with affirmative orders as well.

Mr. Beith

Perhaps I can take the hon. Gentleman's argument further and assist the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that at present the practice in the Lords is not to vote on the statutory instruments? If the House of Commons continues to show such disregard for their debate and consideration, the practice in the Lords of not voting on them surely cannot continue.

Mr. Golding

I agree. I do not propose to talk about the reform of the House of Lords, but I believe in a working second Chamber and one that does what, inevitably, we neglect. Time can be found in the Commons, but I shall not talk about that.

I turn to what hon. Members have talked about as the deficiencies in my amendment. The first question concerns what I mean by a full report. Even the word "full" causes difficulty. I wrote the word "full" and then I decided to look up its meaning. I looked at the Oxford Dictionary.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

What does it say?

Mr. Golding

The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Oxford Dictionary says about the word "full". It starts on page 588 and goes on to page 592. I was glad to get to the word "fullage". There are all kinds of things that I do not understand in those pages — Aryan roots, quotations from the year 1000, Anglo-Saxon, locutions, Sherlock Holmes, pigs and bacon. I got quite interested in it, but I thought that the Speaker would never permit it to be read.

Mr. Forth

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Golding

Mr. Speaker, when you were taking consultations, a Conservative Member was daft enough to ask me to tell the House what the dictionary said about the word "full".

Mr. Forth

In an attempt to assist the hon. Gentleman to help the House and my hon. Friends, I suggest that he should accept as a synonym for "full" in this context the word "comprehensive", which may define more succinctly and readily — without recourse to the dictionary—the meaning that he seeks. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman would do that it would enable us to move on briskly.

Mr. Golding

The answer is no. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has said, the advantage of being on the Labour Benches is that one can always find an intellectual adviser. Once the word "comprehensive" was mentioned, I was immediately given the message—"it's ambiguous".

3 pm

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not understand such words as "comprehensive"; indeed, I find them nauseating. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me, as an Englishman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) as a Scotsman, whether "full" means the same as "fou".

Mr. Golding

I do not know; that was also ambiguous. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I could advise him "as an Englishman". Does he mean himself "as an Englishman", or me "as an Englishman"?

As I knew, Mr. Speaker, that you would become impatient if I read the definition from the authoritative, longer edition of the OED, I consulted the shorter edition, where it appears on only a couple of pages. But again it is difficult to decide what "full" means. One definition reads: (of heart etc.) overcharged with emotion". No doubt if the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross were writing the definition, it would be "full" in that sense — "overcharged with emotion"! But if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) were doing that the definition would be "Having within its limits all it will hold; having no space, empty".

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I suspect that my hon. Friend really means, in this context, the definition Having a rounded outline; large, swelling, plump, protuberant". but he is too good a friend to specify those terms, in view of the problems that we have both had with our outlines!

Mr. Golding

What my hon. Friend is trying to say, in the language of the Potteries, is this: he is fat, I am thin. But he is a bit embarrassed about it.

However, I must admit that, after having written the word "full" in the amendment and then studying the dictionary, I am not satisfied that it is right.

Mr. Speaker

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendment which we are discussing is his own? He drafted it and presumably knows exactly what he means. We do not need to go into the various definitions of the word "full". The hon. Gentleman has merely to tell the House exactly what he means.

Mr. Golding

I must confess that after writing the amendment, when I came to read it I could not understand it.

Mr. Speaker

In that case, the obvious course is for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment so that we can get on.

Mr. Golding

After appealing for help from other hon. Gentlemen, I find that the amendment has become—

Mr. McNamara

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend cannot withdraw the amendment unless he has the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I had better rephrase my remark, and say "seek leave to withdraw the amendment". All I am saying is that if the hon. Gentleman feels that his amendment is defective surely it is wasting the time of the House to proceed with it. There is a substantial amount of other business on the Order Paper for today; we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To be fair to my hon. Friend, he has been questioned by a Conservative Member about the meaning of the word "full". I believe that the House is entitled to a full description of what my hon. Friend means by the word "full". And I am sure that, in the fullness of time, he will give us that explanation.

Mr. Soames

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am desperately trying to make up my mind about the Bill. I cannot decide from what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) is saying whether he is in favour of or against the Bill. I wish that you could urge the hon. Gentleman to parade the arguments so that we may make up our minds.

Mr. Speaker

All I am saying to the House is that the debate has been very interesting. I heard the Minister say that the debate had been full and interesting. However, we are now dealing with a very narrow amendment. I am merely asking the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to deal with his amendment. I pulled him up because I heard him say that he thought it was defective. If that is so, there is an obvious course for him. But if, in retrospect, he feels that it is sound, perhaps he would put it to the House in the confident expectation that the House will make its judgment upon it.

Mr. Golding

While I was listening to the point of order my hon. Friends have told me that it is the best amendment that they have seen. I always have that experience.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) withdrew amendment No. 46, would we then continue by debating amendments Nos. 10 and 78?

Mr. Speaker

No. However, there is a Third Reading debate. All that is in the Bill may then be discussed, as is normal on a Third Reading debate. [Interruption.] Order If I sense the mood of the House, that is what the majority of hon. Members wish to do.

Mr. Golding

I should be interested to see a hand vote on that. My fault is that I am too modest. In my experience, those who move amendments might put them to the vote, but even though Ministers might accept them, they often say that the drafting is defective but that they will put that right in another place. That has been common in my experience. The only difference is that it is not the mover of an amendment who acknowledges a slight blemish, but the Minister who points it out.

I have read the Standing Orders and Erskine May very carefully. I consulted a previous Speaker on this. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is it laid down that an hon. Member speaking in the House of Commons must know what he or she is talking about. If there were such a rule, there would be silence. [Laughter.] Perhaps the rules have changed, Mr. Speaker.

I demand that a full report be given to Parliament "three months previously". Why three months? I do not know. That figure was pulled out of the air. It is probably the length of the closed season in fishing. It is something of that sort.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has skipped a point in his argument. He gave us a full explanation of what he meant by the word "full", but he has not said what he means by the word "report".

Mr. Golding

The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has given me considerable help throughout my career. He has made a further contribution today. It is true that I have not said what I mean by the word "report". But I must leave that for now, because I must refer to the tests carried out on the new substance". The new substance relates to the Bill. The Bill gives the Minister power to give water authorities the authority to add to the water two compounds—H₂SiF₆ and Na₂SiF₆.

It has always been my experience that many hon. Gentlemen deliver vicious attacks and ask the most penetrating questions, then declare that they have to go to dinner before hearing the answers. I have been told that the substances are not new. However, they would be new to the Bill. That is the fact that has been overlooked.

The amendment is designed to prevent the Secretary of State from adding a fluoride to the list of those that can be added to water unless tests had been undertaken and a report of the results submitted to Parliament three months beforehand.

Mr. Greg Knight

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. However, I am a little concerned about the amendment. As I read it there may be power to carry out tests, but there is no requirement to do so. If the amendment were carried could not its effects be negated if no tests were carried out?

Mr. Golding

The answer is simple. Paragraph (b) will have to be deleted in another place. I hope that the noble Lords are listening to me now.

The Bill allows the two named substances to be added to water, but clause 2(1) also says: The Secretary of State may by order amend section 1(4) of this Act by— (a) adding a reference to another compound of fluorine". My amendment says that that fluorine would have to be tested and proved OK before its name could be added to the Act.

Let us consider the compounds of fluorine — the fluoroacetates, for example. My book says that The name is loosely applied to derivatives of monofluoroacetic acid, CH₂FCOOH. The acid itself, its methyl ester, and all derivatives broken down in the body to the acid, are highly toxic substances, behaving as convulsant poisons with a delayed action. They are almost odourless, are difficult to detect chemically, and are very stable. The absurdity of the Bill is that it would allow the Secretary of State to add that substance—there is no argument about the fact that it is a poison—to water. That is why the Bill is defective. It is nonsense for Parliament to give the Government the power to add poisons to water without them being tested first.

Wherever we look in the Bill it is nonsense in terms of safety. We are not arguing about whether the fluorines mentioned are poisonous. Some hon. Members think that they are, others that they are not. However, we are dealing with compounds of fluorine that we all believe to be very dangerous.

3.15 pm

In reply to the hon. Member for Hendon, North I say that that is the sort of report that I would present to Parliament. It is full of chemical formulae, impressive diagrams and big words, but with the words "dangerous", "poisonous", "lethal" underlined to enable simple-minded Ministers to understand that we would not want to put those substances into the Bill and, more importantly, we would not want to put those substances into water. We want a report with a solid technical background which my hon. Friends can study and explain to me. We also want the simple, brutal, down-to-earth approach that might ultimately get through the thick skulls of those now sitting on the Treasury Bench.

Sir Dudley Smith

Is it not more important that the hon. Gentleman's amendments signify the need for close scrutiny by Parliament of such matters? Is it not a fact that, as a result of the intense discussions which have taken place over the last 16 hours or so, this is the first time that Parliament has applied itself in detail to the vexed question of fluoridation? Is it not therefore important that such amendments are carried?

Mr. Golding

The reason for that is simple. This is the first time since 26 February 1985 that I have been called to speak. Conservative Members have been talking on all subjects other than fluoridation in the absence of the hon. Gentleman.

I shall turn to fluoride compounds—

Mr. Gorst

Surely the hon. Gentleman could tell us the frequency with which he intends that they should be produced?

Mr. Golding

rose—

Hon. Members

"Answer".

Mr. Golding

It does not work like that.

I must not miss telling the House about the fluorophosphoric acids. They are formed by the controlled hydrolysis of POF ₃ and PF ₅.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

PF ₆.

Mr. Golding

PF ₅. A moment ago I thought it would be a good thing to have a technical wizard at my side, but now I am being battered and bruised by my hon. Friend's barracking. He believes that I cannot read, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) but, as I said, it is POF ₃ and PF ₅. The report says that that acid and also the esters of H ₂PO ₃F, the fluorophosphonates, may be prepared by the action of the silver salt on an ester.

The report says exactly what we are saying—that those substances are extremely poisonous and volatile and act by inhibiting the enzyme cholinesterase. [Interruption.] Afterwards my English adviser will assist me.

The report says: They have an immediate action on the brain and lungs and cause a typical constriction of the pupil of the eye"— rather as do the speeches that we heard through the night. The document says: Derivatives have been used as insecticides and suggested as chemical warfare agents (the 'nerve gasses'). like the speeches that we heard through the night. The document says that derivatives have been used as insecticides and also as chemical warfare agents—nerve gasses. Those are the substances that the Secretary of State may by order add to the Bill—and to the water.

Mr. Fisher

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Golding

I am glad that the doctor has returned from his big meal. I wonder whether he can answer my question. If these substances are put in water at 1 mg per litre, will they be safe? Perhaps I was ill advised to ask the doctor whether those poisons were safe. I shall ask him again. If the Minister adds those poisons at l mg per litre, will they be safe?

Dr. M. S. Miller

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought that he was joking and asking a rhetorical question. The answer depends on what my hon. Friend means by "safe". If he wonders whether anyone can guarantee that no side-effects will develop if fluoride, in one part per million, is added to water, it can be guaranteed. I cannot guarantee that if I gave an hon. Gentleman an injection of penicillin that that would not cause problems, too.

If I recommended two or even one aspirin tablets, I could not guarantee that it would not cause the slightest ill effect.

All the evidence shows that no ill-effects or any consequences will arise from using fluoride at one part per million. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about thalidomide?"] The trouble with thalidomide is that it was not tested enough. We are talking about substances that have been used for 40 years and no cases of illness have developed from the use of such substances. There are always pseudo specialists and experts who make a lot of money by taking an opposite view. They must have won the Nobel prize for playing Ludo.

I would not object to taking fluoride in one part per million or two, three, four or five parts per million. I would only start worrying if it reached 50 or 60 parts per million.

Mr. Golding

I hope that I can intervene in my hon. Friend's speech. We are not talking about what he thinks that we are talking about. No wonder we get trouble when we visit our doctors. I was talking about methyl ester which is a fluoride compound.

Mr. Best

rose—

Mr. Golding

Hang on. I was saying that it is described as being a highly toxic convulsive poison with a delayed action. The trouble is that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who is a good doctor and a first-rate general practitioner, looks at the Bill, sees two fluorides which are less toxic than others—H₂SiF₆ and Na₂SiF₆—and thinks that that is what the Bill is about. It is not. It is about Ministers being able to add even more poisonous fluorides. My hon. Friend poured derision on my amendment earlier before he went for his big dinner and pudding.

Dr. M. S. Miller

I did not have a big dinner and I had no pudding. I had a very light lunch.

Mr. Golding

He was away a long time having a light lunch.

Mr. Best

The hon. Gentleman who has just sought to intervene referred to experts. Is he aware that the definition of an expert is "ex"—past it—and "spurt"—to drip under pressure?

Mr. Golding

I do not mix in such vulgar company and make such remarks.

It is typical of the medical profession. The hon. Gentleman is sitting not with an Act but with some amendments in his hand. He does not understand what is happening.

Dr. M. S. Miller

The hon. Gentleman has made a Freudian slip. It will become an Act.

Mr. Golding

The Bill will not become an Act if it goes to the other place in this condition.

Clause 2(1) states: The Secretary of State may by order amend section 1(4) of this Act by—

1. (a) adding a reference to another compound of fluorine; or
2. (b) removing any reference to a compound of fluorine."

I am in danger of repeating myself to the hon. Gentleman.

Somebody has passed me a note saying that the longer I speak the smaller our vote will be. That is the most compelling note that could ever be given to me.

I end on this point. When I was a Whip for the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, I remember one hon. Member being in revolt against the Government Whips. I do not name him, but I look straight at him now. I was in the Committee Corridor anxious and desperate for one hon. Member to arrive — Phillip Whitehead. We were one hon. Member short. Phillip arrived, dashing out of the lift with 12 books piled high in his hands. He said, "John, I've got some marvellous arguments here". My argument at the end of my speech, following the note from the hon. Member for Northampton, North, is the same as I used on that earlier occasion—"Phillip, bother the arguments; let's win the vote." So, having been appealed to on the ground of winning the vote, I end my contribution and commend my amendment to the House.

Mr. John Patten

Pursuant to my policy of first winning the argument before attempting to win the vote, I should like to follow what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has said.

I think that underlying everything that the hon. Gentleman has said is the concern for safety, which has been felt during the whole of this Tuesday's discussion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has shown concern about getting the correct reporting procedures back to Parliament, securing enough time for Parliament to consider the Bill and changing the procedure from the negative to the affirmative method of consideration. That was after he had taken us through his intellectual journeyings as he worked out exactly what the amendment, which he had drafted, meant.

If I understand correctly what the hon. Gentleman believes the effect of his amendment to be, a full report would have to be presented to Parliament on tests carried out on any substance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chose to add to the list of substances in the Bill as drafted and amended by the Committee.

3.30 pm

It would be three months—the hon. Gentleman told us why he picked three months — before the statutory instrument was laid before Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. He has done that on the basis of his experience. When he was a Minister the hon. Gentleman thought that the negative resolution procedure was a way of drawing wool over the eyes of the House on important issues.

If I have understood the intent of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the effect of his amendment—I believe that he is nodding assent from a sedentary position—

Mr. Golding

This is always the problem. Hansard is desperate to get my inaccuracies right and I am nodding at the shorthand writer's note rather than at the Minister.

Mr. Patten

I find myself in difficulty, Mr. Speaker. I shall have to speak to what I think the hon. Gentleman thinks he was thinking rather than anything that he can confirm he was thinking when he drafted amendment No. 46, which is so interesting. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to withdraw the amendment. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who I welcome back to the Chamber, shares that wish.

I am happy to put on the record the fact that this is Tuesday, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health is under some difficulty, because this morning he attended Standing Committee D upstairs and is under the impression that it is Wednesday. He has had to come back from Wednesday to Tuesday to join our proceedings.

I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to withdraw his amendment. It is not necessary to change the statutory instrument procedure used in the Bill. I give this undertaking to the House with all the force that I can muster in the seventeenth hour of the debate: we would not seek to amend the list by the addition of any chemical that could possibly give rise to safety problems. All chemicals used to treat water supplies—not just fluoride but between 50 and 100 substances—are vetted by a committee of the Department of the Environment. The House may not be aware that such a committee exists. Its title is the committee on chemicals and materials of construction for use in public water supplies and swimming pools. It does excellent work in vetting all chemicals and mineral substances that are added to water.

If, for any reason, hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme think that the Government have not considered adequately the safety of a new chemical, they can ask that the advice made available to the Department of the Environment, and through that Department to the Department of Health and Social Security, on any new chemical be made available to any hon. Member who asks for it. I undertake to make that evidence available to any hon. Member. If, even after that, any hon. Member still thinks that he has not been given adequate time to consider the statutory instrument, he can seek to reject it.

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman may not recognise the predicament of hon. Members if they seek to reject the instrument in those circumstances. They may table a prayer as an attempt to do so, but they cannot force the Government to allow them time for a prayer to be taken on the Floor of the House, or even to allow debate in a Committee.

Will the Minister accept amendment No. 10 instead, which is grouped with this, to ensure that there is bound to be a one and a half hour debate when the circumstances arise?

Mr. Patten

I shall move on to amendment No. 10 later, so perhaps the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) could wait till then.

It would be odd for a Secretary of State for Social Services and a Minister for Health to seek to add to water supplies any substance that they thought could damage the population. It is extraordinary to suggest that my right hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend should seek to do that.

With our proven safety record stretching back some 30 years it would be an abuse of parliamentary time to require changes to the compounds of fluorine listed in clause 1(4) to be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House.

Amendment No. 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), has just been subject to some pre-emptive discussion by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The amendment would require an order under clause 2(1) to vary the compounds of fluoride to be used in fluoridation schemes to be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme did not state clearly whether he agreed with my description of his amendment. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that my understanding of his amendment is correct.

Mr. Best

I hope that my hon. Friend will explain why the Government cannot accept it. It seems eminently sensible that the House should be the place to make the final decision on the addition of any extra compound to the water supply.

Mr. Patten

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern that amendments to the authorised compounds should not be made lightly. I do not want to introduce otiose words, but I reiterate that it would be a very odd Secretary of State for Social Services and Minister for Health who would seek to add anything to the water supplies that they thought would do any damage.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern that those decisions should not be made lightly. However, the powers provided under clause 2(1) will be exercised only on the basis of expert advice from the Department of the Environment committee on chemicals and materials of construction for use in public water supplies and swimming pools. This advice could be made available to any hon. Member who wished to study it. It would always be possible to seek to annul the statutory instrument. There is no need for safeguards beyond those already provided in the Bill.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten

I shall give way in a moment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services could have sought to take powers to himself from time to time to add or take away from the water supply such substances connected with fluoridisation as he chose, without coming back to the House. Instead, we have taken the detailed and sensible step of setting out on the face of the Bill the substances that can be added, and giving adequate safeguards under clause 2(1).

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman still seems not to have understood the deep concern that is felt. Now we are compounding the fault of which the House first complained. As a result of the legislation we shall hand over to one non-elected body the ability to advise another non-elected body that it will carry out certain functions with no recourse to democratic procedures. We are now told that the power to vary what is added to the water will depend on the advice of yet a third non-elected body, of which the hon. Gentleman rightly guessed the House was unaware. Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that the negative resolution has little chance of being debated in the House? He should study the figures and find out what small proportion of such resolutions come before the House.

As for the good intentions of Ministers, we do not know whether they are good intentions. Equally good-intentioned Ministers stood soldiers in the desert and allowed them to be exposed to radiation.

Mr. Patten

During the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and during the many interesting hours of debate on the Floor of the House on Report we have discussed the Government's attitude towards water and health authorities. In the 17th hour of the debate it would not be right for me to go over that ground again.

Mr. Williams

rose—

Mr. Patten

Before the right hon. Gentleman tries to intervene again, I am trying to answer his first question.

We have built adequate safeguards into the Bill. We have listed those substances that can be added. Clause 2(1) contains sufficient safeguards.—[Interruption.] That is a matter of difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and me, and between the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and me. We simply disagree. There is endless opportunity in the House to disagree about ways and means. The issue is not one that can be subjected to exact scientific analysis about what form it should take.

Dr. M. S. Miller

The Minister knows that I am a very strong supporter of fluoride being added to water. I understand why the Government wish to proceed in this way. There are adequate safeguards for the efficacy of what is added and for ensuring that it is not dangerous.

It was pointed out to the Committee on Safety of Medicines that some drugs slip through. Unfortunately that happens, possibly because not enough experimentation has been done. However, we are talking about well-known chemical substances. There is nothing new about them. They have been used for adding to water and for other purposes for many years. It is unlikely that they will cause any difficulty but there is always the remote possibility of some problem.

I should be satisfied if the Minister would undertake that, whatever Minister was in office, he would not wait for a tragedy if there were any sign of difficulty with a substance, but instead institute an immediate examination.

Mr. Patten

Of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have debated ways and means of getting an adequate parliamentary check on what will happen in the future and whether it should continue—both hypothetical questions. I do not wish to go over our previous debates. I merely remind the House that we discussed the way in which, if they chose, health authorities could re-examine the question of fluoridation at will. By a number of devices the House can do the same thing.

Underlying our debates is the fact that the Secretary of State and his Ministers would not, under any Administration, seek to add to the public water supply or to any other part of the earth or the atmosphere any substance that was likely to cause harm. Moreover, if any substance was found to be likely to cause harm, Ministers would not wait for debates in the House. We do not do so when there are contra-indications about drugs. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend act swiftly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, if necessary using his powers of direction under the National Health Service Act 1977 introduced by the then Labour Government, can tell water authorities and health authorities to cease the practice and take away this or that chemical.

3.45 pm

The same argument applies to the other amendment in this group. However, before I come to that amendment, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who wishes to intervene.

Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)

Will my hon. Friend explain further why the Government should take powers to close the stable door after the horse has bolted? I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) who said how unsatisfactory it was to hand over these powers to unaccountable bodies. It is even more extraordinary, bearing in mind the patent uncertainty of this issue—to say the very least—and the wealth of evidence cited by hon. Members at great length and with great sincerity during these long debates, showing that there are large question marks about the safety of fluoride, for the Government not just to empower themselves to medicate compulsorily the water supply, but to hand over that power to other bodies.

Mr. Patten

We are not handing over that power to any other body. All the advice that is available to the Department of the Environment is scientific advice. Scientific advice is available to my right hon. Friend. It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. I am explaining the situation. Scientific advice is available to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend, and on the basis of that scientific advice about drugs, mineral additives to water, and every other aspect of the National Health Service, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services acts swiftly, often well before problems occur, when warning signs are flagged about any of those issues.

Over the past 30 years, successive Governments of both parties have conducted their policy on fluoridation on that basis. We are not talking about a new drug introduced a couple of years ago by a foreign drug company with a curious name that we do not understand. We are talking about a substance that has a successful and proven track record over a substantial number of years—a period substantially longer than that of many of the drugs on the market that have been tried and tested. That is what gives us the certainty that the method laid down in the Bill is correct.

We therefore cannot accept the amendments, or the similar and related amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). If the amendments are not withdrawn, we shall seek to resist them.

Mr. Forth

I rise with some hesitation at this hour, bearing in mind the length of time for which our deliberations have lasted. My excuse for seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, is that I was in Standing Committee all last night, so I was able to participate only sporadically in the proceedings on the Floor of the House. However, since 8 o'clock this morning I have followed our proceedings here with great interest.

I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, because he raised many fundamental points which I must say were not dealt with by the Minister entirely to my satisfaction. The amendment raises a number of different and important issues. It involves procedural, political and—in some senses — even constitutional issues. I shall deal with each of them in turn—I hope briefly.

Against the background of the emotions aroused by the Bill, of the length of time that the House has been prepared to spend on it, and of the highly contentious elements of the argument, it seems odd to me that the Minister should come to the House at this hour and say, "You really must accept the sort of approach that we are taking." My answer would be, "He would say that, wouldn't he?"

I regret having to say that because in any normal circumstances, I believe that we could accept the procedures suggested in the original drafting of the Bill. But when the Minister comes to the House and says, "It would be a very odd Secretary of State, or Minister of State, who would seek to add harmful substances to water", he begs two very important questions. First, while all Government Members — and I hope Opposition Members too—have total respect, admiration and regard for the present incumbents of the great offices that I have just mentioned, it is legitimate to query, now as always, whether any House of Commons should be expected to accept that sort of statement for any future incumbents of those offices.

The Minister is prevailing on our good will and our good faith by suggesting that we can make the transition from accepting his word and that of his right hon. and learned Friend, and with those, the words of any future incumbents of their offices.

Mr. Williams

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in support of his argument we do not need to deal with hypothetical cases? We have only to look at the long time taken to establish the hazards relating to asbestos and to have recognised the problems, other than pneumoconiosis, relating to dust in mines, a struggle that lasted for decades. Will the hon. Gentleman equally bear in mind that where there has been universal compulsory consumption of a substance, possible compensation payments might be so enormous that they would produce serious conflicting pressures on the Minister?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Along with the point that he so correctly made there goes another argument. I admit that there is always an element of arrogance in the House when it takes the argument to itself, but I shall suggest it nevertheless. We are entitled to be suspicious from time to time of scientific, bureaucratic and even of ministerial opinion, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has just given. There have been other cases.

Mr. John Patten

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). I understand that my hon. Friend is keen to replace the negative statutory instrument procedure with the affirmative.

Mr. Forth

Wait and see?

Mr. Patten

In that case, may I withdraw my question and wait and see?

Mr. Forth

Even the Minister must not presume too much on what I am about to say. I invite him to follow me down my chosen path, and then if he wishes to intervene, I shall of course allow him to do so.

There is a time-honoured, but legitimate, question that we must address, the key and vital relationship that must always exist in such matters between the House of Commons, with its accumulated wisdom, and, to describe it in shorthand, the Administration, with all that that includes — the Executive branch of Government, Ministers, civil servants, scientific experts, and the whole body of advice and guidance available within the Government machine.

It has been suggested that the House must always accept that no future incumbent of one of the high offices in the appropriate Department could give us wrong advice on this question. But that is something that I cannot accept, either as a constitutional principle or as a principle of the relationship between Government and the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend went on to ask who would seek to add harmful substances to water. That question, again, is begged. The debate throughout all these hours, and perhaps more yet to come, has been about our judgment of what is harmful in water. It is a matter of regret that at this stage in the debate the Minister should come to us and say, "Surely I, or my colleagues, would not be so stupid as to add something harmful to water?" when he has spent all this time trying to tell us that fluoride is not harmful. Also, there is a large body of opinion in the House which judges that fluoride is, or may be, harmful and those hon. Members would not be prepared to take the risks that the Minister seems to be telling us he would be prepared to take.

It is a matter of judgment of risk, but judgment of risk in the context of the health and well-being of our population.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins

I wonder whether the Minister, the House and the public notice that the good doctor, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), whom I greatly admire and who is in favour of the Bill, none the less said that, having seen the evidence against fluoride, he could not guarantee that it was safe. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

Mr. Forth

Indeed, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. that is one of the other sides of this many-sided coin, if there is such a thing. It concerns that element of judgment about which we in turn are now making our own judgment and it is whether we can reasonably be asked to accept that the procedures laid down in the original drafting of the Bill will be satisfactory in this case.

Dr. M. S. Miller

The hon. Gentleman has paraphrased what I said; it was a selective quotation from my remarks. I draw a comparison with the honest statement that no medicine that anyone gives to a patient can be guaranteed to produce no untoward effect. I did not say "unsafe".

I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman's attention to the new drugs which come on to the market every year. There are many such drugs. Some are good, others not so good. When an hon. Member is prescribed a particular medicine by a doctor he does not ask whether the substance was considered by the House to see whether it was safe. Life could not go on like that. The cumbersome bureaucracy that would be needed if that were to happen would mean that no one would receive injections for pneumonia or modern drugs for heart treatment and high blood pressure and so on.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that many of the drugs I am talking about cause side effects. Many are extremely dangerous. Fluoride is not, on the evidence we have—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech. He may do so later, but he is intervening now.

Dr. Miller

I take the point, Mr. Speaker. All I am saying is that that cumbersome bureaucratic system cannot be applied to a substance which is less toxic than many of the substances which we accept readily when we are ill.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful, but I shall not be tempted down that path which would lead back to a rediscussion of the principles behind the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not want that. Suffice it to say at this stage that the difference here is that we are talking about the compulsory force-feeding of people with this material. They have a choice ultimately whether they are given medication by a doctor. Had I participated in the Second Reading debate my argument would have been that if people want to protect their teeth they can brush them. That is a simplistic but nevertheless effective approach to the problem. I accept the hon. Member's explanation and I respect his professional expert knowledge of the matter. However in this case, perhaps uniquely, we are being asked to accept the concept of introducing into the water supply something that many people may not want to ingest. That is the key distinction. That is what makes the issue so vital and important.

Mr. Alan Howarth

My hon. Friend has just made a key point. I am quite sure that he would agree with me that not even the Government's most extravagant political opponents would accuse them of wishing to poison the people. However, the Bill is gratuitous. It is risky and large scale in effect. Would it not be the merest intellectual and medical prudence to pause and not to take these powers until the uncertainties over fluoride are resolved?

4 pm

Mr. Forth

Typically, my hon. Friend has almost made my speech for me, but with a brevity and relevance that I find difficult to match. If he will allow me, however, I shall put what he said into my own words.

I now approach a question that the Minister is eagerly anticipating. I shall put it to him in the best way that I can.

Mr. Marlow

May I just say something to the honourable doctor sitting opposite—the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)? When we are ill, we sometimes have to take a drug which may have a side effect. But when we are well we do not need to take the drug, so why must we put up with the side effects?

Mr. Forth

Again, one of my hon. Friends is in danger of stealing my thunder. On occasions such as this we risk out best lines being usurped by our hon. Friends, but because they are our hon. Friends we do not mind.

We are now temptingly approaching a matter that the Minister wanted me to deal with some time ago. I have tried to explain the background to this important issue. We now come to the key matter of procedure, which actually implies much more. We appear simply to be discussing negative and positive approaches, and many hon. Members will be forgiven if they fail to understand all the nuances, although we all tried to follow the brief but excellent speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Do we wish to submit ourselves yet again to what many of us have often seen as a defective or at least very weak procedure for the House to scrutinise what the Executive brings before it? Rightly or wrongly, that is how many right hon. and hon. Members see the negative procedure, which lays a heavy burden on individual Members and on the House to attempt to get the gist of a measure, to judge it and even perhaps to stop its progress.

If, on the other hand, we adopt one of the procedures suggested in the amendments, I believe that we shall have a much greater opportunity to properly scrutinise—if I may split my infinitive—this vital matter in which so many people have shown an interest. Although we were guided carefully through the amendment by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I feel that it is incumbent on us to look at it again and judge for ourselves whether the approach that it suggests is better than that suggested by the Minister.

Mr. Fairbairn

My hon. Friend complained that he had split an infinitive by saying "to properly scrutinise". I cannot understand why on earth he did not say "to scrutinise properly". Then he would not have had to explain.

Mr. Forth

I am always ready to be corrected by my hon. and learned Friend, whose knowledge and experience of such matters far exceeds mine. I am grateful to him for pointing out my grammatical offence, and I shall try not to commit it again, at least during this speech.

Amendment No. 46 contains all the essential elements of the argument that we are considering. It offers us all of the ingredients that we would wish to have before us to carry out the procedure of scrutiny: a full report, a three-month period in which to consider it and tests on the new substance. Surely that is the culmination of all our debates about the introduction of fluoride to water supplies. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to accept something that must appeal to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps I can tempt my hon. Friend the Minister to say, now or later, why he is so unhappy and suspicious about a procedure which apparently gives us what we want and apparently allows us to judge, as our experience develops and unfolds, the efficacy and, more importantly, the safety of the substance that gives so many of us cause for concern.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins

Put succinctly, the Minister will reply that what he dislikes about my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it is democratic.

Mr. Forth

Democracy has many facets and may meanings, probably as many as there are individuals who try to interpret it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice, but I choose to see it in a slightly different context, which is the facility for the House to judge from time to time the cumulative experience of the issue through the vehicle of the reports which the amendment suggests. That is why, again, I am unhappy about the Minister asking us to accept the kind of procedures which we have used in the past, and still use, and that are in the Bill, drafted as ever in the way in which such Bills have always been drafted. I hope that he will accept our understandable suspicion of the past weaknesses of such procedures that lead many of us to prefer the formulation that the amendment suggests.

Mr. John Patten

My hon. Friend was right. The "wait and see" policy was the right one for me to follow, because it reassured me that my powers of intuition about the way in which my hon. Friend was likely to go in his speech were not wide of the mark. May I say in the margins of my intervention how much I admire the way in which my hon. Friend is continuing his speech in the 18th hour of the debate? It shows that our collective decision to pursue the debate when it reached an important and interesting stage was correct.

Is my hon. Friend not aware, as he discusses the correct procedures that we should use, that one of the problems with using the affirmative resolution procedure is that it has to be laid before the House, and a period of time elapse, and has to be debated before decisions can be taken. Is he also not aware that under the negative resolution procedure if there is doubt about the efficacy or safety of a chemical, it can be removed immediately, without delay, from the list prescribed in the Bill, which we hope will be enacted, whereas delay is inbuilt in the affirmative procedure?

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I acknowledge also my debt of gratitude to the Government—or what is sometimes in these circumstances vulgarly known as the payroll—for voting to extend the debate beyond 1.25 pm today as, due to that decision, I was allowed to make my speech. I am most grateful and I hope that they regard their decision as worthwhile.

To take up the point that the Minister made for me, I accept what he says and the spirit in which he says it. Like so many other matters, it depends upon one's perspective and assumptions, and where one starts out from—if I may end the sentence with a preposition for the benefit of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn).

We are attempting today to make a balanced judgment. I remain unconvinced about what the Minister said. I prefer the formulation suggested by the amendment, because I believe even now that on this matter of such vital concern to so many, reassurances are wanted across the spectrum of society that is represented here today. I am prepared to keep an open mind, but I still feel that the approach which the amendment suggests would be preferred by many who, rightly or wrongly, still have an inherent suspicion of the Executive's approach, power and decision.

Mr. Fairbairn

I have a true belief that the Minister, for all his charm and bonhomie, shares the same fears as my hon. Friend has advanced, and for all his pretence, while grabbing the Dispatch Box and flicking his shoes, of being a man of confidence, he is a man of doubt. My hon. Friend is expressing his doubts.

Mr. Forth

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. With some reluctance, I must draw my remarks to a close. I know that many of my hon. Friends looked forward to my contribution and I regret having to disappoint them at such an early stage. Nevertheless, I am aware of the strictures of many people, not least yourself, Mr. Speaker, so I will mention my final thought on this issue.

I have not addressed myself to the content of amendment No. 78, which raises another new and important concept of the involvement of both Houses. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I venture to suggest that I should leave it to other of my hon. Friends to develop the point. My hon. Friend the Minister may care to think about the extent to which he would accept involvement by the other place in this matter, with their Lordships using their most mature and expert judgment, which we have often seen employed on so many matters, and bringing it to bear on this issue of vital social interest.

Therefore, we should be given the opportunity to vote on these amendments. I hope that they will not be withdrawn but left before the House. Further, I hope that, in the same way as I am prepared, even now, to keep my mind open to my hon. Friend the Minister, he will be prepared to keep his mind open to the virtues of the amendments which I have described.

Mr. Stanbrook

The Bill does not have the support of the majority of public opinion. By any standard that we can accept, any testing of public opinion reveals that the compulsory medication of public water supplies is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the people. Nor does it have the support of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker

Order. All that the hon. Member is saying would be eminently suitable on Third Reading but not, I think, on this amendment.

Mr. Stanbrook

That may well be so, Mr. Speaker, as regards my opening remarks. I will narrow them down to the purpose of the amendment.

The question posed by the amendment was posed in a most acute form by my hon. Friend the Minister. He is saying that it is not necessary for us to pass the amendment because he and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security not only have the interests of the country at heart, but are supported and advised by a number of experts, with committees of doctors, chemists and scientists to assist them, and water authorities and district health authorities which can advise and make decisions. However, in all of those respects, none of those people is elected, save the Minister himself.

His argument that he can take the decision in the interest of the country as a whole is the argument of the tyrant down the ages. In this place, 650 Members of Parliament are elected to make judgments of the kind that the amendment calls upon us and not the Minister to make. I acknowledge that it may well be that the apathy of a majority of hon. Members will mean that they are not present to vote down my hon. Friend the Minister, but he is supported by a number of other hon. Members who, because they are obliged to support the Government, will be sufficient to overwhelm the opposition to the measure in this place. However, they are acting on the principle that they know best—but they do not. This place exists not because Ministers know best but because we control Ministers.

Judgments of this kind are essentially political. They are not scientific, expert or technical, but political. Do the majority of the public want compulsory medication of water supplies?

We should know best about that as there are 650 Members of Parliament. The amendments seek to ensure that the essential argument should be resolved in this place. All the supporting arguments are directed to the end that we are supreme under this constitution.

4.15 pm

The matter goes to the root of the liberty of the individual. Why should he be imposed upon in this way? Why should a political decision, based on non-elected technical argument, be imposed on people against their will? We are not satisfied that it should be imposed and believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is wrong to say, "Trust me because I sit at my desk in Whitehall aided and advised by technical experts on this subject and you can be assured that we shall take this decision only in the interests of the people."

Mr. Fairbairn

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanbrook

If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me, it would be better if I finished my argument.

If government were conducted on that basis, we would not need Parliament. It might be that the country would be better governed, but for centuries we have decided that we should not be governed in that way. All experience has taught us that that sort of government does not lead to the improved condition of the people.

The amendment strikes at the fundamental principle that is covered by the Bill. Should the House have the decision over a political judgment or not? The amendment covers that point, and I ask the House to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 192.

Division No. 150]	[4.16 pm
AYES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fallon, Michael
Ashdown, Paddy	Farr, Sir John
Aspinwall, Jack	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Beith, A. J.	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bellingham, Henry	Fookes, Miss Janet
Best, Keith	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Blackburn, John	Galley, Roy
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Golding, John
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Greenway, Harry
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Grist, Ian
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Browne, John	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Bruinvels, Peter	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Budgen, Nick	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Carttiss, Michael	Hayward, Robert
Cartwright, John	Heffer, Eric S.
Cash, William	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Chope, Christopher	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Irving, Charles
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Kirkwood, Archy
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Lamond, James
Dixon, Donald	Lawrence, Ivan
Duffy, A. E. P.	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)	Lester, Jim
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

McKelvey, William	Stern, Michael
Maclean, David John	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
McNamara, Kevin	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Marlow, Antony	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Terlezki, Stefan
Monro, Sir Hector	Thornton, Malcolm
Norris, Steven	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Ottaway, Richard	Twinn, Dr Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Randall, Stuart	Wigley, Dafydd
Rost, Peter	Wilson, Gordon
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Skinner, Dennis	Winterton, Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Speller, Tony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stanbrook, Ivor	Mr. Bill Walker and
Steel, Rt Hon David	Mr. Eric Forth.
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gummer, John Selwyn
Ancram, Michael	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Arnold, Tom	Hanley, Jeremy
Ashton, Joe	Harris, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Hayhoe, Barney
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Henderson, Barry
Barron, Kevin	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer	Hind, Kenneth
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Bottomley, Peter	Home Robertson, John
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Bright, Graham	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Brinton, Tim	Jackson, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Jessel, Toby
Bryan, Sir Paul	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Butler, Hon Adam	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Kennedy, Charles
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Colvin, Michael	King, Rt Hon Tom
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Lambie, David
Coombs, Simon	Lamont, Norman
Cope, John	Lang, Ian
Couchman, James	Lee, John (Pendle)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Dalyell, Tam	Lilley, Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Loyden, Edward
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Lyell, Nicholas
Dobson, Frank	McCrindle, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Macfarlane, Neil
Dover, Den	MacGregor, John
Dunn, Robert	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Durant, Tony	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Major, John
Eggar, Tim	Maples, John
Ellis, Raymond	Marland, Paul
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Maude, Hon Francis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fletcher, Alexander	Maxton, John
Forrester, John	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Foulkes, George	Meadowcroft, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Mellor, David
Fox, Marcus	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Freud, Clement	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Gale, Roger	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)	Miscampbell, Norman
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Goodlad, Alastair	Moore, John
Gow, Ian	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Moynihan, Hon C.

Needham, Richard	Squire, Robin
Nelson, Anthony	Stanley, John
Neubert, Michael	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Newton, Tony	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Nicholls, Patrick	Stradling Thomas, J.
O'Neill, Martin	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Osborn, Sir John	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Patchett, Terry	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)	Tracey, Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey	Trippier, David
Pavitt, Laurie	Trotter, Neville
Penhaligon, David	Viggers, Peter
Pollock, Alexander	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Powley, John	Waldegrave, Hon William
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Walden, George
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Rhodes James, Robert	Wallace, James
Richardson, Ms Jo	Waller, Gary
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Rifkind, Malcolm	Watson, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Watts, John
Robertson, George	Weetch, Ken
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Wheeler, John
Roe, Mrs Marion	Whitfield, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Whitney, Raymond
Ryder, Richard	Wiggin, Jerry
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wolfson, Mark
Scott, Nicholas	Wood, Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Yeo, Tim
Sheerman, Barry	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Snape, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Tellers for the Noes:
Soley, Clive	Mr. Archie Hamilton and
Spencer, Derek	Mr. Peter Lloyd.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I trust that I do not have to break off on a point of order to suggest that the ten-minute rule might be applied to speeches at this stage of the proceedings. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have taken part in the debate during the last few hours can think of any new point to make, because I cannot. At this stage we wish merely to underline the productive nature of our debate and our basic approach to the Bill.

As a final word about the Bill, I wish to say that I am glad that for the last few hours and over several Sittings we have been discussing a Bill that directly relates to health. It is one of the features of the job of Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security that we rarely directly address the problem of health, and certainly not through legislation. We usually find ourselves arguing about money, management and local difficulties of one kind or another. But this Bill is directly aimed at promoting good health; it is an extremely important measure for preventive health. It has been interesting, to say the least, to see the way in which the House of Commons has reacted to a measure whose sole purpose is to reduce the incidence of dental caries.

Mr. Marlow

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke

I think that my hon. Friend may catch Mr. Speaker's eye shortly.

I shall not repeat the scientific basis of our case. A great deal of time has been spent in exchanging the opinions of different medical and scientific authorities in this country and abroad. I remain satisfied that the Government have demonstrated that the introduction of fluoride into the water supply at the recommended concentration has a marked effect in reducing dental caries, especially among children. It is more successful than any other method so far devised.

We are convinced that there is no serious doubt about the safety of adding fluoride to water at the level in question. It would be pointless to continue going over all the arguments about whether it is dangerous to tadpoles, bees, cattle and trout, and their eggs, or to women taking the contraceptive pill or people with cardiac muscle trouble or suckling babies, and so on—or about whether it rots pipes and destroys the sewerage system. I underline the fact that there is an immense amount of scientific and medical opinion in support of our case. But those who challenge that case will not consider any evidence other than their own, which they collect from campaigning bodies around the world. I assure the House that there would be no question of our embarking on a measure if we felt that there was a serious doubt about whether we were putting the health of the nation at risk. These matters must be examined in great depth.

It has been shown during the past 30 or 40 years that when fluoride has been put in the water — it has happened in many places — only one death has been attributed to that, which was the result of an accident in Annapolis. There was a failure of equipment, which could not occur here, and a man on a dialysis machine that was being used improperly was so discomfited by the reaction that he suffered a heart attack. He is the only tragic casualty of the fluoride policy throughout the world, and no one has produced a shred of serious scientific or medical evidence that stands up to examination to suggest that anyone else has suffered an adverse effect to his health.

In bringing forward the Bill, we had not intended to spend our time advocating the case for putting fluoride in water. Again, we certainly do not intend that the Government or Ministers or "The Payroll" — whoever the villains of the piece are meant to be—will take upon themselves the decision-making role about whether fluoride is to be used. Our intention is that the matter should be kept as a local decision. We seek to ensure that water and health authorities, at least in England, retain the power which they always thought that they had, to decide for themselves whether to add fluoride to the water. There will certainly be no campaigning from us in that respect. We believe that health authorities must come to their own conclusions after considering the evidence, and then decide whether to make application to their water authorities.

We have made concessions during this protracted debate. But I must confess that I might have been moved to make more concessions in the first quarter of an hour or so of the debate if I had not known that at least another five hours lay ahead, even if I did that. Again my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security made two generous concessions: first, that health authorities would be statutorily obliged to consult the House before taking the decision on whether to apply to their water authorities; secondly, that they must meet in public when taking that decision, unless the more excitable opponents of fluoride posed a threat to public order. We shall carry out both those commitments when the Bill is debated in the other place.

I shall not speak for too long on individual liberty because I respect the strong feelings, especially from my hon. Friends, on that question. Moreover, I realise that at times, it lay behind the fervour with which the anti-fluoride case was argued. I am sorry that I could never understand how an individual liberty issue could be raised in respect of the content of the public water supply. I still cannot envisage how a water supply could be laid on for each person. It must be a collective decision. Moreover, I believe that the collective judgment is that it should be decided on good health, scientific and safety grounds.

I was saddened by the fact that, after many hours, many of my hon. Friends and I were unable to persuade one another on the question of individual liberty. We saw it from different perspectives. However, not every hon. Member who is renowned for especial fervour for individual liberty was in the anti-fluoride camp. I remind my hon. Friends, who doubtless will enter the debate again, that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who are known in the House as ferocious defenders of individual liberty and do not hesitate to use parliamentary procedures when they think that individual liberties are threatened, were both in my position. Neither could see a remotely serious point affecting individual liberty raised by the Bill.

Therefore, I fear it must be agreed that there was no meeting of minds. We shall all battle together to defend civil liberties when we are all agreed that they are threatened. Meanwhile, I see the Bill as a harmless preventive health measure to tidy up what would otherwise be a legal difficulty that would give rise to unnecessary litigation.

Mr. Alan Howarth

rose—

Mr. Clarke

I shall conclude to give time to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and other hon. Members. I apologise for not giving way, for the first time in about 20 to 30 hours of debate.

We have won the Divisions. I do not accept that it is surprising for Ministers to turn up to vote for a Government Bill. That does not seem to be a constitutional outrage. I am especially cheered by the fact that as the hours went by, as daylight came, our numbers in the Lobby steadily increased. That might be due partly to the skill of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who, even on a free vote, can persuade more and more of my hon. Friends to come to the House. My hon. Friend and I believe that we won the arguments. I hope that that judgment is shared when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Mr. Dobson

I do not know whether I shall do more damage to the Minister by saying that I agree with him, or whether he wil do more damage to me by saying that we are in agreement. Once more, I find it peculiar to be saying that I personally support the Bill. I hope that it will not put off too many Conservative Members to know that fluoridation of water was approved without a vote at the Labour party conference in 1978—the last time that the matter was debated by the Labour party.

I support the Bill for the following reasons. The case has been overwhelmingly made that the introduction of minute quantities of fluoride benefit children's teeth. Equally, I am unconvinced by the argument that the introduction of such quantities of fluoride endangers health in general. In those circumstances, the only question that must be asked is whether those minute amounts of fluoride should be administered to children's teeth by way of toothbrushes and tablets or whether it should come via the public water supply.

I support fluoride being carried by the public water supply because I am convinced that that is the only way in which the majority of working class children and the worst off children in our society will have the advantage of getting fluoride protection. Many children have parents who cannot afford special toothpaste and tablets. Many of those children come from homes where it is extremely difficult, for a variety of reasons, to establish a regime in which they are encouraged to clean their teeth regularly. In those circumstances, if there are benefits to be gained from the introduction of fluoride, fluoridation of water seems the best way to benefit the teeth of the worst off children.

Mr. Roy Galley (Halifax)

Why is it that in every other instance — smoking, alcoholism, and so on — the emphasis is placed on health education, whereas with water supplies, for the first time in history, or at least, in living memory, compulsory medication will replace health education and persuasion?

Mr. Dobson

Fluoridation is not the only example, even in British history. Certain vaccinations were once compulsory. That was to benefit not only the children who were vaccinated but everyone else. It was felt that no parent was entitled to have a sick child who might infect other children. That element of compulsion was necessary at the time to break the backs of some awful diseases.

Mr. Marlow

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for a child with tooth decay to pass it on to a child in another street or town?

Mr. Dobson

That is not what I said. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) notoriously misunderstands everything with which he does not agree, I shall not bother to reply to that non-question.

I was replying to the reasonable question of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) about compulsion. There has to be an element of compulsion in any action affecting the public water supply, because, unless one has a private water supply and can thus opt out, one has to drink the water that everyone else drinks.

The Minister may be familiar with Nottingham, as his constituency is close to that city. The argument that has been advanced throughout the debate that fluoridation is a gross interference with individual liberty was employed by a 19th century exponent of Victorian values, a lord mayor of Nottingham, who said that to have a clean water supply at all was an interference with individual liberty. He maintained that people should be entitled to buy dirty water from those who had traditionally sold it. Such arguments are still being used.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the queen of the midlands. When Nottingham was its own water authority—in the happy days before this House cocked up local government — the Nottingham city council, and the water authority, as it was then, voted not to have fluoride in the water. The Severn-Trent water authority has continued to honour that democratic decision made 10 or 12 years ago. Last week, as a result of debates in the House, the city council again discussed the issue and agreed that it still did not want fluoride. I am here to represent that view in the Lobby of the House tonight.

Mr. Dobson

That is the council's privilege. I think that it is wrong, but that is how the system works. As one who tries in other spheres to defend locally elected authorities in London and other parts of the country from rate-capping and all sorts of other obnoxious legislation which most Conservative Members happily troop into the Lobby to support, I stand by the right of the people of Nottingham to decide what should happen in Nottingham.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to accept at least the principles of the amendment that would require a health authority considering fluoridation to hold at least that part of its meeting in public. That is a limited step forward. I see no objection in principle to putting fluoride in the water so long as people know about it. However, I object to the idea of anything being introduced into the water supply without people knowing about it. I look forward to the Government moving an amendment in the House of Lords to achieve that objective.

The Committee stage of the Bill was somewhat shorter than Report, to the best of my recollection. For the benefit of hon. Members who did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, I should explain that I and some of my hon. Friends tabled an amendment that would have obliged water authorities to discuss fluoridation in the open part of their meetings. The problem is that there are no open parts of water authority meetings. There used to be, before the present Government, with the support of many Conservative Members, changed them from open public bodies virtually to secret societies.

I see that the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), together with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who intervened in my speech earlier, all happily voted on 16 November 1982 to make secret everything that water authorities did. I find it odd that they are now demanding public decisions and—

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not vote on such a matter. It has nothing to do with Scotland, because we do not have matters secret in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman can produce the evidence, he should, but typically he cannot.

Mr. Dobson

It so happens that the only piece of evidence I have is the Division List on the Water Bill of 16 November 1982. Unless someone else was posing as "Fairbairn, Nicholas"—an extremely unlikely poser—I believe tht the hon. and learned Gentleman voted for that Bill and it did have the effects about which I am talking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I hope that we have cleared up that matter and can now return to Third Reading of the Water (Fluoridation) Bill on 6 March.

Mr. Dobson

The point I was making was that a large number of hon. Members are opposed to this measure.

Mrs. Currie

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should you have said 6 March? Is it not still 5 March?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I stand corrected. I apologise to the House. It is 5 March in here.

Mr. Dobson

Earlier, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the benefit of not being in the Chamber, it was said that one hon. Gentleman did not know which day it was. Unlike that hon. Gentleman, we usually think that you know which day it is and we understand your slip.

A vast amount of effort has been put in by many Conservative Members, and the odd Conservative right hon. Member, to object to water authorities not being democratically elected bodies, and they voted to ensure that they were not.

In the past, objections have been raised because district health authorities are not democratically elected bodies, but I have seen no movement on the Conservative Benches to turn them into democratically elected bodies. All I shall say on that point is that if Conservative Members are getting bothered about the undemocratic nature of water authorities and of health authorities, that view is shared by a substantial number of Opposition Members. We also share the doubts about them not being democratic, not only when they talk and decide about fluoride, but when they talk about hospital closures and other aspects of their activity. That is an indication of a general growing concern.

Finally, as a supporter of adding fluoride to water, I support the Bill. I trust that it will get a Third Reading and get through the House of Lords. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that to vote for the Bill is to vote against children getting toothache. Anyone not voting for it will have to explain to parents and children all over the country why they voted for toothache.

4.48 pm

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister cannot really be as happy as his speech sounded because he knows that this is a nasty little Bill which goes to the very heart of the philosophy under which I thought he and I were elected. I have always been an opponent of the compulsory element of fluoridation, and while at the Department on many occasions I had to send back drafts from civil servants who tried to put different words into my mouth, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir. G. Vaughan) who was the Minister. I do not believe that the position changed when my right hon. and learned Friend took over on fluoridation because I still had that responsibility — I made it clear that it was not our policy to expand compulsory fluoridation in any way. I also believe that there is still a scintilla of doubt about the safety of fluoride.

Perhaps the only thing that might have driven me to vote for the Bill were the antics of a certain man Cavill Blount who seemed to spend most of his time thinking that he was the oracle to which all of us should kow-tow. He is one of the most discourteous selective quoters with whom anyone in the House has had the misfortune to have to correspond. Nonetheless, the persuasive attempts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have rescued me from that particular point of view.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred to the time when he worked with my right hon. Friend and me in the Department. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, at the time, we were all agreed that the present state of affairs should remain. He will appreciate that it was only as a result of Scottish litigation that the Government were bound to take a decision about whether all fluoride should be taken out of water or whether we had to restore the previous status quo and return to local authorities the power to take a decision. I seek to persuade the hon. Gentleman that all we are doing now is reinstating the position that he and I, with our different views on the main issue, were happy to live with as colleagues in the Department.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

I appreciate that, but the Jauncey case gave us the opportunity as a Parliament to consider whether we should fill the gap that Jauncey had produced or to give Parliament, in the light of its experience, the opportunity to say that it would do away with all compulsory fluoridation.

Mr. Fairbairn

I do not wish to seem contradictory, but my hon. Friend is talking about the McColl case. Jauncey was the judge. However, it may be called the Jauncey case. When did the last English Parliament ever say that a judgment in the Court of Session, which had nothing to do with the law of England, should be the basis for legislation?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

I am not an expert on Scottish law. I bow in more ways than one to my hon. and learned Friend from north of the border. If I do not follow that line, I might yet again be invited to Fordell castle for a pleasant visit. If I go too far down that route, I might find the gates barred to me.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was perfectly right to say that he and I and his right hon. Friend had no quarrel on this matter. However, the opportunity arose for us to decide whether we could go the whole way. The Bill does not do that. It merely puts a spot of amalgam into a gap that a judge has exposed.

I speak with some feeling as early this morning I had to submit to the ministrations of a distinguished dentist. In between having my mouth opened, I was asked what I was doing on fluoride. I thought that I might be at risk if I gave my views, so I said, "It is a difficult point". Fortunately, I survived and came back here.

My right hon. and learned Friend said firmly that he knows of only one death that has occurred as a result of fluoridating water. He was referring to the Annapolis case. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the case for those of us who are against the Bill. I fully accept that it is important for the sake of children's teeth that they get fluoride. The way to do that is to give it in tablet form or through fluoridated skimmed milk which the Borrow Foundation is offering. We do not need to submit the rest of the population to compulsory medication about which there is a scintilla of doubt.

The balance, of course, is not in doubt, but I am quite certain that, in his expert capacity as a leading lawyer, my right hon. Friend could make a very good case from a doubt that could be conjured up about the efficacy and safety of fluoride. Therefore, the man need not have died, because nothing that could have been done to the water supply in Annapolis could have helped anyone over the age of 18. That is where I part company with my right hon. Friend.

I want my speech to be brief because there is no purpose in going over the subject. There has been a very clear statement that the Government would get the Bill passed, which I understand. All Governments when they put their names to a Bill have to get it passed. There was a free vote for the rest of us, which again is acceptable. It is significant that without the members of the Government, be they paid or unpaid, on quite a few Divisions there would not have been a Government majority for the Bill, although—I must be careful—there might have been on one or two Divisions where they would.

In my view, the Bill breaches the principle of individual liberty but at the same time—I say this to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—it has the power to help children, who are the only people who will benefit from the Bill. None of us here will benefit from it, but every one of us, from Mr. Speaker downwards, could be harmed if something went wrong with the fluoridated water supply.

It is all very well to say that there are different mechanisms for the supply at Annapolis where a huge amount of fluoride went out, but no one can say with his hand on his heart that it could not happen again. Human error can cause accidents. We have heard it about the nuclear power stations. Therefore, somebody might suffer who need not if the giving of fluoride is not confined to people in the age category where it is of use.

I hope that for the reasons which I have given—on compulsion in particular—the House will not give the Bill a Third Reading. But, equally, I believe that when the other place has the opportunity to make amendments, it may not find it easy to accept a Government Bill on a subject which to my knowledge was not in the manifesto.

When the Bill comes back here amended, I am sure that there will be many opportunities, with Lords amendments and amendments to Lords amendments, to restate the arguments about compulsion. That opens up an interesting prospect.

I hope that it will not be thought necessary to bring in the Patronage Secretary. The Government have a big enough majority without the Patronage Secretary sitting here. It may have been his presence which made one or two of us not prolong some of the debates.

I think that the Bill is a mistake. It is not in line with the main Conservative philosophy, and the unstinted support given to the Bill by the speaker on the Opposition Front Bench has convinced me more than ever of my view.

4.59 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller

It is amazing how in this House a subject on which it seems there should be a joint effort to produce wanted effects in respect of health can produce acrimonious although sometimes humorous episodes in debate, and certainly a very heated and controversial attitude.

I approach the matter from a simple point of view. I do not consider, as some hon. Gentlemen do, that dental caries is a trivial disease. It is a very serious disease of children's teeth and infections can develop because of it. Cardiac conditions can develop from dental caries when infection is present and heart valves may be affected. It is a serious matter for children and something should be done about it.

For about 30 or 40 years we have known that small amounts of fluorine in water produce an enormous change in children's teeth. Fluorine appears naturally in many parts of the world, but before it was introduced into water in other parts of the world tests had to be done. Tests have been done for years because, quite rightly, people are worried about possible future difficulties, if not immediate reactions, that will arise as a result of the injection of any medicament. Whenever studies are made of possible difficulties, some people jump on the bandwagon and go the other way. Some are genuine, but most are not. Most see that the way to make an easy buck is by jumping on the bandwagon. There is no human activity in which that does not happen. Until the end of time some people will object to fluoride on the basis that it is not safe.

In the course of interruptions and interjections, I said that no one can guarantee 100 per cent. that when a medicament is given no adverse effects will occur. I gave examples of the simple administration of relatively small doses of penicillin which have caused, and can cause, adverse reaction.

Mr. Fairbairn

rose—

Dr. Miller

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish this point?

In Scotland, after his parents had fought for nine years, a child of 11 received more than £100,000 compensation because he was given an injection in hospital of far too big a dose of penicillin. In the judge's opinion, it was the penicillin that caused the child's deafness. Penicillin in a relatively small does could have cured the child's meningitis, but a does of 20 or 25 times the required dose was given. It did not kill the child, but it caused his deafness.

Mr. Fairbairn

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that we have been making throughout the debate. Penicillin was injected into that child and other children because it was believed that the child required penicillin. It was not in the belief that some other child 100,000 miles away required penicillin and therefore we all had to have it. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference?

Dr. Miller

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I understand it very well. I shall come to the point about medication of water. I am trying to dispose of two undoubted facts: first, that dental caries is a serious condition; and, secondly, that fluoride in small quantities produces an enormous improvement in children's teeth, although it does not cure every case or prevent dental caries entirely.

Let me discuss the compulsion aspect. Governments have a duty to take certain action, including action in health matters. This Government and previous Governments here and in other countries have seen the terrible disease of caries in children over a period. I should tell the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that Scotland has a very bad record of dental caries, and I was a fully grown adult in Scotland before I realised that one should have one's teeth all one's life.

Mr. Fairbairn

Who does?

Dr. Miller

I remember asking a dentist how long teeth last in a human being, and he looked astonished. He replied that they should last all one's life. How is it that in Scotland one's mother had false teeth before she was 40, and many people have false teeth long before that age? The Government see the problem and wonder what they can do about it.

The Government would be remiss in their duty if they took no cognisance of the problem. Fluoride is at least part of the answer, even though we may discover something better in years to come.

I am sure that the Government discussed various methods of introducing fluoride into children, but they have come up with the right one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, we cannot rely on whole communities to medicate their children in the same way as middle class parents. Some parents do not look after their children. The poorer sections of the community may have large families and cannot look after their children. However efficacious other methods may be, they do not compare with the ingestion of fluoride from the earliest age, by which I mean before the child was born. It is rather late to have an influence once the teeth are formed. It can be done, but not nearly as well as if fluoride is introduced into the child's body even before the child is born. The only sure way of doing that is to add it to water.

Mr. Alan Howarth

I respect the hon. Gentleman's evident sincerity, but I detected some arrogance and condescension of latterday Socialism towards the working class in his assumption that they could not be trusted to act responsibly in respect of their own health.

In this instance, outstandingly, there can be no justification for Ministers, hon. Members, health or water authorities arrogating to themselves the right to take this decision when individuals can take the decision. Why does he despise what I might call the democracy of the toothbrush?

Dr. Miller

I think that I covered part of that point. I say with humility that I do not need lessons from him as to my attitude to working people — [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross requires some proof. Not many Conservative Members grew up in working-class families. I am not saying that none of them did. I spent 20 years as a general practitioner in Glasgow and I saw it happen.

I thought that I had explained that, however good fluoride tablets and toothpaste were for children's teeth, they were not as good as ingesting fluoride. By the time a child is brushing his teeth, it is rather late.

Moreover, who judges the amount of fluoride in toothpastes? Some of them probably contain enormous amounts of fluoride, some of which the child may swallow and which are far larger than the amount required. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) would be very worried if there were evidence that the large quantities of fluoride in toothpaste produced problems. This is a balanced argument and I can see the hon. Gentleman's point, but the matter is not as simple as adding tablets to water. The best way of administering fluoride is to add it to the water supply.

There are other ways of giving fluoride — for instance, in milk. If it is given early enough, putting fluoride in milk is a good way to administer it.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman said that the most important time to get fluoride into a human being was when a child was inside its mother. Is he not concerned that the adulterated water supply will be used with powdered milk? If a child were fed bottled powdered milk instead of breast milk from its mother, it would imbibe 100 times more fluoride. Is not the hon. Gentleman as a doctor worried about a child receiving such a high level of impurity at a tender age?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have spent many hours on the Bill and these matters have all been discussed at some stage during the Bill's progress. We are on Third Reading. I have taken a relaxed view, but hon. Members are now straying wider and wider of Third Reading. I hope that we can return to the substance of the Bill, which is what we should debate on Third Reading.

Dr. Miller

I gather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would consider me to be out of order if I attempted to answer that intervention. I should like to do so, but I am precluded from doing so by your democratic decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I take the point about democratic decisions on local health authorities. Although I agree with more than 90 per cent. of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I am sure that we abuse the word "democracy" a little.

I do not want hon. Gentlemen to jump down my throat. The comparison that I am about to make is very limited.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was feeling quite pleased when the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) referred to my democratic decision; but when he went on to suggest that we abused the word "democracy", I began to wonder what he meant.

Dr. Miller

I withdraw the unintended slur on your integrity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now lost the train of my argument.

I said that we tended to bandy the word "democracy" about a lot. A doctor does not usually say to a patient with an infection "Please may I have your written permission to give you a penicillin injection?" I hope that I was not arrogant or that I forced my ministrations on unwilling patients. I used to say, "Roll up your sleeves and I shall give you an injection."

Mr. Christopher Hawkins

Did they say no?

Dr. Miller

No one ever said no.

Mr. Hawkins

Under this Bill they can never say no.

Dr. Miller

I knew that hon. Gentlemen would jump down my throat. I was giving only a small example. I am sure that all Conservative Members accept that it is not possible to get round a committee and ask for everyone's opinion. One does not do that. This is the right way to proceed, and, incidentally, it is a good idea that the local health authorities are to make the decision.

In putting fluoride into water, we are putting into practice what everyone believes in theory — that prevention is better than cure. Surely we should aim at prevention. As I said earlier in the Bill, if scientists were working on a substance which could be added to water which caused as few problems as fluoride causes, and which it was quite evident reduced the rate of coronary thrombosis by 10, 15 or 20 per cent., I should not hesitate to introduce it into the water of this country.

5.16 pm

Mr. Fairbairn

It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), if for no other reason than that the stupidity of his arguments stimulates one to get one's own arguments right.

It has been no pleasure for those of us sitting behind the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have disagreed with them on this Bill, any more than it has been a pleasure to disagree with the management of the Bill. Some Conservative Back Benchers—like some on the Opposition Back Benches—take the view that the measure is totalitarian and therefore unacceptable. Whether or not we believe it to be a totalitarian measure, I am sure we believe that evidence to suggest that it is justified is not available, while the evidence to suggest that it is unjustified is only too convincing. It is therefore with a sense of sadness that I come to the end of our deliberations on the Bill, 24 hours after we entered the Chamber to discuss it — at any rate, to await its discussion.

May I deal, first, with the remarks of the Minister for Health. If I may say so without recrimination, I think that he dealt with the matter once again with flippancy and a lack of understanding of the genuine fears and principles of those who have appeared in this Chamber, in Committee, on Report and in other places. He dealt with our views with flippancy and insult. I do not say that in any sense of rage; I say it, I hope, with a sense of responsibility. I do not believe that it has yet been understood—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) understands it, because he is a man of sensitivity—that those of us who oppose the Bill do so out of deep principle, deep understanding and—for some of us—deep experience.

Sir Dudley Smith

Our hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, was far less flippant, and far more relevant, than our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in his unfortunate intervention.

Mr. Fairbairn

I agree. I do not wish to be personal, and I do not wish to be vindictive, but I think that a matter of such principle as the one we are debating is of the greatest importance. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), a Scottish colleague of mine, understands that I, and all those of my view, do not hold that view because we are prejudiced, or fluoridised, or whatever it may be. We hold it out of conviction. The Bill is a matter of conviction; it was introduced by the Government as a matter of conviction, although they ratted on the conviction by pretending that a free vote was a free vote when it way not.

Nothing gives me less pleasure than to say anything disrespectful to my colleagues, but I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—it sounds like a lesser tube station—on Third Reading was disgraceful. It was sanctimonious and insulting to the House, and I do not think that he addressed himself at all to the principles that we have been discussing. All that the hon. Member said, in that ghastly Socialist way, was "Oh, well it is good for little girls' teeth and the working classes", as if the working classes cannot look after themselves. My God! I have seen hundreds of thousands of working class people all my life, and they can all look after themselves. For a Socialist spokesman to suggest that the working classes cannot look after themselves, so that some goddamn Government have to come along and do it for them, is an insult to the people that he pretends to represent.

The working classes can look after themselves a damn sight better than bearded weirdies on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has holes in his teeth. If I could see through the hon. Gentleman's beard I could see whether he has holes in his teeth. They accept the concept that the working classes, whoever they are supposed to be, whom the hon. Gentleman presumably imagines he represents, need a bureaucracy and a Government and that they need laws. Because they are not able to brush their teeth and do not know what to do about their teeth, their teeth fall out.

There is the real, real story of Socialism. Opposition Members do not believe that there is any responsibility, any personality, any significance in the people of this country. They hate them and despise them and believe that they cannot even look after their own teeth. That is a great insult. The great people of this country are the working classes. They understand; they know what their teeth are about; they know what their views are about; they know what everything else is about. It takes some strange, bearded Socialist to tell those people that they are no good, and so the hon. Gentleman supports the Bill.

The hon. Member for Hamilton—I mean Bothwell.

Mr. James Hamilton (Motherwell, North)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on both counts.

Mr. Fairbairn

The hon. Gentleman is called Hamilton. He cannot lie straight in bed and I cannot remember his constituency, but whoever he is he is sitting there gibbering and agreeing that the Labour party takes the view that the working classes—as Labour Members care to despise them—should be regarded as incapable of looking after themselves. That is the message I have received over the years in the House. Labour Members, far from realistically and honourably believing in human beings, do not even trust them. They do not like them. They do not think that they can even brush their teeth and they want the water to do it for them. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may giggle. They may laugh. That is the true message of Socialism and of the Bill. The hon. Member for the tube station, whose name I cannot remember—

Mr. Dobson

Would the hon. and learned Member recognise, if he insists on calling it a tube station, that its official name is Kings Cross St. Pancras? I represent both stations, together with Euston.

Mr. Fairbairn: It seems a terminal case but I would not want to include Kings Cross because that is where we arrive from Scotland and that is where we get away from frightful people like the hon. Member. It was he who made that condescending and appalling

they cannot look after themselves. What shall we do about it? Why not doctor the water supply? What other things are they suffering from? Athlete's foot? Put something in for that too. Nettle rash? Put something in for that too. Overbreeding? Put something in for that too."

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is all very entertaining, but it has little to do with Third Reading. We should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on Fifth Reading. There has been much heat in our debates. There has been much argument. There has been much agreement between parties and across parties. There has been much humour. But we should not lose sight of anything. We do not want the sort of condescending, ridiculous Socialism from the hon. Member for East Kilbride who says that in his lifetime he has seen many people with bad teeth and we should therefore doctor the water. We do not want the sort of insult to the people of the country that the hon. Member for the tube station made when he said that people cannot look after themselves, so the Government or someone else should look after them. What we want is principle. The principle is that never in this country I trust will we doctor the water for any reason at all. That will certainly never be done for a trivial reason such as that there are odd people who the Member for the tube station says are not capable of looking after their teeth, and never for even worse reasons such as to keep people in the manner that those of his mind think they should be kept.

For reasons of principle, I object to the Bill. For reasons of principle, I object to the concept. Nothing has convinced me more than the condescending, Socialist, idiotic arguments that I have heard from the tube station opposite. [Interruption.] It is not a railway station. It is a tube station.

Even if I did not hold the view — which I think should be held by all principled people—that no one should ever attempt to influence the health of one man by making all his fellows imbibe a substance that might help him, I would not be able to understand how the Government could bring in this Bill. The Minister for Health has with geniality — and without a haircut — flipped away the huge body of evidence from responsible sources that fluoride is poisonous and damaging.

I am now reversing the arguments that I gave on Second Reading. I consider fluoridation wrong on principle, but I think it horrendous and appalling that the Government should dismiss all the scientific and medical evidence that suggests that there is a great risk in adding fluoride to water, especially in proportions that cannot be guaranteed.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride raised the case of the child with meningitis in Scotland. He may now regret having raised it. Five firms of solicitors advised the child's family that they could never prove that the damage to the child's mind, hearing, sight and speech was due to penicillin, or whatever drug was alleged to have been given in overdose.

Dr. Miller

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that meningitis itself could have caused the damage. That is one of the reasons for the advice given by his own profession. That advice may still be overturned, of course, and I accept that in such a case the child should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. While I am reluctant to intervene on such a serious matter, it does not arise on the Bill. We really ought to get back to the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn

No one could be more reluctant to contradict you than I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is extremely relevant to the Bill. Even the hon. Member says that the damage might have been caused by the meningitis and not the penicillin. What, then, will happen to the child who suffers deafness, paralysis, kidney failure or cancer? The child's family will go to those five lawyers and say, "I tell you what has happened: the fluoride in the water caused it." And the five lawyers will say, "Nonsense. It may have been the meningitis. It may have been this, or it may have been that." How can what scientists of the greatest distinction claim is likely to be the result of fluoridation ever be proved? How can one part in a million be controlled? What if it is found in lettuces or carrots, or in the water tank?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The safety or otherwise of fluoride, and the proportions in which the Bill proposes it should be administered to water, have been the subject of long debates, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We have passed that, and I must ask him to direct his remarks to the content of the Bill.

Mr. Fairbairn

I am anxious so to do. I am merely saying, as someone who has represented many people in reparation actions in which I had responsibility for asking, "How can you prove blame", that in this Bill we are laying down provision for what may be the cause of many ailments and sufferings, and that blame cannot be proved. I worry greatly as a lawyer, a Conservative and a human being, because it is wrong to put in water a substance that may cause actions of reparation without proof, and cause disease and death without responsibility—and for what? Is it so that the hon. Member for the tube station can turn his thumb down on what he has the effrontery to call the working classes, who cannot brush their teeth?

5.36 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I shall be brief; to follow the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will be difficult indeed.

I, too, will vote against Third Reading, although not for the same reasons as the hon. and learned Gentleman. One reason is that the Bill cannot be described as a Socialist Bill because it gives powers to non-elected authorities to take decisions that will greatly affect the public without their having to refer to the public. Decisions will be taken by non-elected health authorities and non-elected water authorities, and, however much nominal consultation there might be, it would not give people the right to say, "No. We do not want it."

Mr. Ian Grist (Cardiff, Central)

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, even if bodies which sanctioned the use of fluoride were elected, they would still be imposing their elected majorities on people whether or not they wanted it, and that, even if they represented a majority view, there would still be people who wished to reject it but would be unable to do so?

Mr. Wigley

Yes, I do. We debated this point early during Report, and I acknowledged that having a democratic sanction through an elected body, whether it be an elected health authority or water authority, was a second-best alternative to what I suggested — a referendum—which itself was second best to giving the people affected a direct choice. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. None the less, I much prefer that local people — the Government said earlier in this Third Reading debate that they are anxious to have local decisions—have a direct voice in the decision rather than that there be a nominated decision by authorites. I say that for no other reason than that if many members of nominated authorities have been appointed by the Government, they will be greatly aware of the Department's attitude — more so as a result of these debates — and feel that they have a responsibility to follow the clear lead of the Department. For that reason, I am reluctant to see the Bill enacted.

It have listened to debates for many hours, but I am still not convinced that there is no danger from adding fluoride to water. I accept that it is possible that teeth will be better as a result of the addition of fluoride. But there remains a danger to health, as medical experts from various parts of the world have testified. Misgivings remain, but they have not been emphasised in our debates. Even if the balance of opinion tips in favour of better teeth as a result of adding fluoride to water, there is still a niggling doubt. Given that doubt, we should think carefully before compulsorily doctoring water to provide mass medication in this way and forcing it upon people.

In my area of Gwynedd, which is represented by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), who has taken a large part in these debates, we have had 30 years' experience of fluoridation. Even after 30 years, there is still a 2 to 1 majority of people against adding fluoride to water, and that must tell us something about the misgivings that exist.

I do not share the misgivings of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, who spoke a moment ago about the responsibility of the state.

Mr. Best

The hon. Gentleman and I share the same views on this matter with regard to our respective constituencies in Gwynedd. He will know that Anglesey community health council, which, after all, is the watchdog set up by the legislature to monitor the health authority in Gwynedd, voted decisively against the fluoridation of water supplies and has done so since 1976.

Mr. Wigley

Yes, indeed. That gives the lie to the belief that local opinion will hold sway. Clearly, unless better mechanisms than those proposed in the Bill are provided, local opinion will not be given the credence that it should receive.

Dr. M. S. Miller

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the area in which he lives where there is a 2 to 1 majority among people not to have fluoride in water. My opinion is that that view is due entirely to the spurious propaganda which is disseminated to people. In other words, people are scared and worried, and perhaps they, too, like the lunatic who sends things to hon. Members, will send such things.

This is my opinion. If it were made quite clear to everyone that a small amount of fluoride in water will not, according to evidence, do any serious harm but help teeth, I am sure that the majority view would be overturned. The hon. Gentleman may use words how he likes, but that is how I feel about the matter. Those hon. Members who are against fluoride want to use every method to keep stirring up this issue all the time in spite of the fact that they know, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, that it helps.

Mr. Wigley

I am grateful for that intervention. When there is argument and debate about whether it is dangerous to add fluoride to water, such debate will itself stir up uncertainty and lead to the doubts that were expressed by the opinion of the 2 to 1 majority who were polled in Ynys Môn. However, the converse of the argument is that if one were to say that, therefore, such matters should not be discussed, the position would be much less acceptable.

I am a layman and I respect the opinions of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who is a medical man. I can only tell him that I have listened to his opinions and to those of other medical people, and whereas there is probably a balance of medical opinion in favour of the proposal, a significant minority are against it.

Dr. M. S. Miller

A small minority.

Mr. Wigley

The hon. Gentleman says that they are a small minority, but a body of opinion still exists among specialists who have doubts not about the advantage to teeth, but about the possible ill effects in other directions. In Ynys Môn, fluoride has been added to water for some 30 years. The children who were born 30 years ago and have received its advantages may continue to take fluoride for another 30, 40 or 50 years. Presumably only after they have lived their full lives shall we see the full effects of a lifetime of drinking water that was affected by fluoride, but we have not had an opportunity to see it yet.

Touching on that matter—it arises in my area—is a question that has been debated throughout the passage of the Bill. I refer to clause 1(5) relating to the control of the concentration of fluoride. There is very soft water in my area and a compensating factor is added to it on a cyclical basis. At the beginning of the cycle, the water is so hard that it is impossible but by the end of the cycle it is very soft indeed. I doubt whether the addition of fluoride will be as tightly controlled as the Bill states. I accept that that is the intention but it may not be the practice.

I was addressing myself to what the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross said about the intervention of the nanny state. I take a different view. The state has a responsibility to do what it can to help everyone. I would argue that there are different ways of safeguarding the interests of those whose teeth may be at risk. The state has a responsibility to consider the physical and mental well-being of those who do not want that sort of treatment.

Many people are extremely worried and will lose many nights of sleep because of this matter. They come from all class backgrounds — not just from the upper class, conscientious middle class or working class. People from all classes have made representations to us about this matter, and hon. Members from all parties have experienced that.

I wish that the Government would realise that a grave misgiving exists. They should have considered more constructive alternatives to the Bill.

I refer to two remarks made by the Minister for Health. First, he said that there were many amendments that in the first quarter of an hour of the debate he would have been inclined to accept, but as debate continued he thought that he should not accept them. If the substance of those amendments required serious consideration, the length of the debate should not have been a factor to move the Minister away from accepting them. Indeed, it is a surprising and appalling admission to make from the Dispatch Box that it was not the substance of the arguments, but the length of speeches that changed his attitude to the amendments.

Secondly, he said that he could not understand why the issue of freedom arose. Surely, whatever emphasis is put on the matter, an issue of freedom arises. For the Minister not to acknowledge that is to fly in the face of everything that has been said during the past hours.

5.47 pm

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

Having spent most of the night and nearly all day here, I cannot possibly agree with the opening speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health when he said that the Government had won nearly all the arguments. They won precious few. I thought that his speech, like many of the others, was facile but superficial and we deserve better.

This is an enabling Bill but it encourages the fluoridation process. It leans strongly on health and water authorities, despite the suggestion from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that the Government were adopting a neutral stance. There is no doubt that the Bill is being carried forward in the face of much public opposition. We would not have had such protracted proceedings if that were not true. People do not like staying up all night. There are misgivings about the Bill and representations have been made on the matter.

Undoubtedly, the Bill would not have had so many amendments or have been carried — if that happens—without the payroll vote. I am not saying anything against right hon. and hon. Members. Those of us who have experience of Government know that there is a collective responsibility and we must accept that or resign. It is as simple as that. The question of PPSs is a more dubious proposition because the posts are not official. PPSs are unpaid aids to Ministers and they should be entitled to a free vote, like other Back Benchers.

I do not wish to start bandying names about, as happened during the small hours, but it is worth calling attention to the matter. Like some other hon. Members, I have received communications from the national anti-fluoridation campaign. I largely share the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Sir G. Finsberg) about the chairman of that organisation. I do not accept that the research that has been carried out is total. However, on going carefully through the list of names submitted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not start on that list but will address himself to what is in the Bill. I presume that the list has nothing to do with what is in the Bill.

Sir Dudley Smith

I shall obey your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to explain that the Bill will go forward in its present form because of the votes of supporters of the Administration. In the list of hon. Members who originally told their constituents that they were against fluoridation, 29 members of the Government, most of them senior, and 10 PPSs are named. There may be many more. That is a matter for concern.

Mr. Best

This Bill is about freedom, which appears not to have been extended to some hon. Members of this House. My hon. Friend may be aware that I have approached many people who, although they have expressed opposition to fluoridation in the past, seem to have changed their minds. Some PPSs—I know of one in particular—have been made to go through the Lobby when some Ministers have not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot embark on that sort of debate now. We are debating the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir Dudley Smith

Perhaps I can conclude that part of my short speech by saying that I had every intention of voting against the Third Reading. However, to be fair and honest, I must say that my name appears on that list not because I am in favour of fluoridation but because I failed to vote on Second Reading, for good reasons. I was abroad on parliamentary duty with the WEU. The hon. Gentleman laughs but I was away on official parliamentary duty and I think that that is a fair explanation.

The doubts that have been expressed about the Bill as now proposed over the question of safety checks and the paraphernalia of the way in which water authorities carry out the fluoridation process raise a number of queries among hon. Members. I wish to make two points in reply to some of the suggestions that all is calm and beautiful, and will be carried through without difficulty. Experience shows that in all sorts of human activities two problems occur from time to time, sometimes with terrible results, alas. The first is human error, and all societies and organisations are capable of that. The second is mechanical failure, and we know only too well from examples in other parts of the world that that can happen. I am not suggesting that that will happen in respect of the fluoridation process, but those two doubts arise.

When we talked about adding fluoride to the water supply a number of hon. Members called out, "What about chlorine? You are prepared to allow chlorine to be added". Of course I am, because chlorine is added to make water safe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If we embark on that subject we shall be back to the Second Reading debate and the subsequent proceedings of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will restrict their comments to what is in the Bill. There is nothing about chlorine in the Bill.

Sir Dudley Smith

All I shall say about fluoride is that it is added to the water supply not to make it safe but for a totally different reason. That point should be underlined.

This is a bad Bill, which has been presented to the House unconvincingly. I share the view expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that the bureaucratic, ministerial "We know best" attitude brought the measure forward in the first place. It is part of the nannying society of which Conservative Members should have no part. We should keep such things at arm's length. The Bill is before the House because some parents do not take the right precautions and are too idle to make sure that their children clean their teeth and do not eat sweets. Compared with other countries, we have a bad record on that matter. But the Bill provides that all of us must be subjected to the fluoridation of water supplies.

I am willing, like many people, to accept that the risk is minimal. The risk has not yet been proved by the opponents, but undoubtedly there is a risk even though it is minimal. Parliament should not take a chance with such a risk or be tinkering with it. If the public are put at risk to a millionth degree this must be a bad Bill. In the circumstances, therefore, I believe that those who vole against the Bill tonight will be doing their duty on behalf of their constituents, and those who vote for the Bill will be supporting the very worst precepts that have been put forward by any Administration. I hope that the House will reject them.

5.56 pm

Mr. Michael McGuire (Makerfield)

This is the end of the first stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament. This is the Third Reading debate and I have taken note of your admonitions and rebukes to hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they must keep strictly to what is in the Bill, not what they should like to have seen in the Bill. I hope that I do not incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a debating Chamber and we are bound — provided that it is within the rule that we address ourselves to the Bill—to respond to some of the things that have been said.

First, I wish to comment on something which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I know that he said it in a most charitable way. However, in his absence, I am bound to put it to him—it will be on the record—that he does a disservice to members of the Labour party and to those of my colleagues who have played a modest part, as I have, in trying to have the Bill examined, when he pretends that the choice simply boils down to the fact that if one accepts the Bill and principle of mass medication enshrined in it one is doing so for a good reason: that it will stop or prevent young children from suffering from toothache. Even if that were so, and hon. Members on both sides of the House could be persuaded that that is what the Bill is all about, we would still have our doubts.

We have repeatedly challenged the belief that fluoride can be put in the water in the quantities prescribed and it will have the required effect. That can be done until one is blue in the face. It can be given to healthy babies in their mother's womb but if when they are born they are not brought up properly to attend to their teeth and to clean them and if their dental hygiene is not perfect and they have too sweet a diet—that is common in this country—they will have bad teeth and toothache, in spite of their parents taking them to the dentist and orthodontist. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent bad teeth if those teeth are neglected in the way in which I have described

Mr. Grist

May I point out that in the 14th century the aristocracy had rotten teeth, whereas the workers had perfect teeth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This Bill has nothing to do with the aristocracy in the 14th century. Let us get back to it.

Mr. McGuire

You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it has everything to do with bureaucracy in the 20th century in the sense that the people who will carry out this fluoridation which we do not want are not elected. That is one of the disadvantages of the Bill. I do not wish to be led astray by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). In Committee and on Report we have heard many wonderful little gems and vignettes of historical information on which I hope to draw on some future occasion.

The arguments for fluoridation are presented by doctors, dentists and administrators who appear to be unaware of the legal, ethical and political implications of fluoridation of the water supply. They appear to think that if fluoridation reduces the incidence of dental caries, provided that it does not cause damage to physical health, there is no more to be said on the matter. Assuming that these propositions are true and conceding them at the outset — which is generous considering the real doubt about whether fluoride is dangerous to health—I would still argue that the case against fluoridation is overwhelming. From the legal point of view it is compulsory medication: it is done without the permission of the person at the receiving end. Under English law, medical treatment without consent is permitted by court order only for the mentally ill or for minors with the consent of their guardians. Just as a person forfeits his legal rights by reason of criminal activity, or is unfit by reason of his youth or insanity to exercise them, so too the individual would be placed in a similar position as a result of fluoridation of the water supply. I believe that this is an affront to human dignity, which is explicitly recognised as a major objective in the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. The foundation of the legal rights and interest of the individual guarantees the individual the right to be responsible for his own conduct and interest, chief among which is his health. As John Stuart Mill wrote: Over his own body and mind the individual"ဤ

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. John Stuart Mill had nothing to do with the drafting of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Bill.

Mr. McGuire

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that that very principle is being flouted. The Bill enshrines the provision that a person can take away from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from me or from anybody else, whether we like it or not, our right to choose by adding to water a substance that we may not want to receive and from which we shall not benefit. If that contradiction of the rights of the individual held sway, we would never be able to debate the Third Reading of any Bill. I believe that this goes to the heart of the matter.

Fluoridation is mass medication. I do not wish to impugn the integrity of hon. Members, and particularly of my hon. Friends, in whose judgment mass medication of the population by the artificial addition of fluoride to water is a good thing, given that there may be some doubts. Those hon. Gentlemen have not yet been persuaded otherwise, and they believe that this will do a certain amount of good. Nevertheless, it is mass medication. Fluoride is added to water not to make it wholesome and pure, but to treat an assumed medical condition. That is the bedrock of my opposition.

A Conservative Member who intervened in the speech of one of my hon. Friends in an earlier debate — I believe that it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central —pleaded that because the majority of health authorities were in favour of fluoridation we should not go down the road of legitimising mass medication. I know that this is a favourite point of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Mass medication breaches a principle about which we should be on our guard.

Mr. Fairbairn

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not wish to interrupt his excellent speech, but I wish to put something in his mind. If one examines the British Pharmacopoeia or SDX list of dangerous medicines, one can select substances—such as I listed in an amendment which was not called — which, if they are sufficiently diluted, may have all sorts of lovely litle effects on a person, yet each one is a poison. What about adding one part per million of all those substances as well?

Mr. McGuire

I want to press on. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in addition to being entertaining, stuck to the point that I am endeavouring to develop. The Bill proposes to carry out a process to which we object, that is, to mass medicate the population. There has been no examination of whether fluoride is efficacious and will do what its proponents claim. Its proponents claim that, if it is given to children early enough—preferably, say, when they are carried in the womb of healthy mothers—it will be beneficial. However, no consideration has been given to those who are over the age of 18. If people have a right to free choice, the views of others cannot be imposed upon them. I object to people who wish to push their views on me by coming to a' decision without consideration for my wishes. As hon. Members know, there is no alternative non-fluoridated water supply. We have one water supply only. Therefore, if the water supply is fluoridated, the result is mass medication.

I come back to the point that we must guard against losing sight of that principle because a decision has been reached by a majority of elected members of a local health authority or the local water board. We say that that does not matter and that the members of such bodies have no right to do this. The individual at the receiving end will have no choice.

Mr. Best

rose—

Mr. McGuire

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I shall lose track of my argument if I do so now. The hon. Gentleman, I acknowledge, has done a good job on behalf of those hon. Members who share his opinions, and he has done it skilfully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, whom we are told grew a beard overnight when the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was addressing the House, has returned refreshed. I confess to feeling some annoyance rather than hurt at my hon. Friend's suggestion that, in opposing the Bill, we wish to give a lot of poor children toothache. He seemed to suggest that under the Bill these poor children would not suffer toothache. That is a bad argument to advance. It implies that toothache is the greatest disability that poor children will have throughout their lives. I believe that more serious matters are involved, and that my hon. Friend's suggestion would set us on a slippery path of trying to attend to children's total upbringing by the state acting as a nanny. I hope that the Labour party will never want to go down that road, as that would infringe the principle of human choice and freedom.

Mr. Best

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I sincerely thank him for the kind words that he expressed about my part in the Bill. We all hold him in high regard for his work on the all-party anti-fluoridation committee. But does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, although the gentle words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would seem to imply that the Government do not take a view on this matter, the strident efficacy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health proves beyond a doubt that the Government believe that fluoride is good for people's teeth? May we not thus conclude that if the Government are so convinced about their case, they are being grossly negligent in not ensuring that every child receives fluoride in his water supply? If the Government do not take any steps to ensure that, does not that say something about the validity of their case?

Mr. McGuire

That is a fair point. I thought that the Minister for Health entertained us in a rather mellifluous way, and I enjoyed some of his comments. I would not describe his remarks as strident. But I agree with the burden of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). This Bill has been introduced by the Government to make clear a matter that was previously thought clear. The problem has arisen following the judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland. The Government say that they will not put fluoride in the water, although they are elected Members of Parliament, but that they will allow it to be done through the back door, by unelected bodies. The hon. Gentleman has asked why the Government do not have the courage of their convictions, but, as he knows, the Government would not have got the Bill past first base if they had that courage. The Bill would have been lost on Second Reading, on the principle of mass medication.

We must not depart from the bedrock of that principle. We are not saying that the Bill could not be improved by giving people the choice of whether to give children fluoride through their milk. The Borrow Foundation has already been mentioned. Incidentally, that would be a much cheaper method. If parents gave their children fluoride through the milk that they drank, there could be no question of mass medication, and it would be a matter of choice. It would cost about £8 million, whereas the cost of fluoridating water would probably be about £156 million with all the attendant problems in that safety could not be guaranteed, and mass medication would be endorsed by a back-door method.

If the Government believe in their own case, they should try to ensure that the other place amends the long title to allow the Borrow Foundation's technique to be introduced. I understand why hon. Members are worried about children, but in that way parents and their children could freely embrace fluoridated milk, with all the benefits that its proponents claim for it.

I end my brief contribution by saying that those of us who have opposed the Bill have done so because it is a bad piece of legislation that infringes upon the principle of personal sovereignty. I shall not repeat what John Stuart Mill said, as I have already made my point. If fluoride is put in the water, we shall be forcing people to consume something that they do not necessarily want. People cannot do without water. It may be said that those who do not want fluoride should live on Malvern water. I suppose that the modern Marie Antoinette would say "Let them drink bottled water." The Government will probably not want to be remembered for that saying. They are already lumbered with another saying, because Ministers seem to be on holiday when such decisions are taken. Thus we could have the saying, "I was on holiday, drinking my non-fluoridated Malvern water."

I have not been persuaded by the Minister for Health's arguments. However, I have been entertained by him, because he is a very good performer. Some of his contributions may have been lighthearted, but sometimes I also am lighthearted. But we were properly rebuked by the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), who got to the nub of the argument in his short intervention.

I know that I do not carry all of my hon. Friends with me in my views, but we are discussing a very serious matter. The Minister for Health may have seemed to treat the Bill rather lightheartedly. I do not think that he meant to do so. We have had a little bit of fun at a time when there is not much fun in life, especially in the present economic circumstances. But on the whole hon. Members have treated the issue very seriously. I am told that the other place has a little more time in which to discuss legislation. However, we have tried to find some time and we have succeeded in finding prime time today. I think that there were also four Committee sittings on the Bill.

I am told that the other place is more relaxed and intellectually more stimulating and that their Lordships are not worried about whether they are pleasing constituents. After all, they are re-elected all the time. I hope that they will have time to give their minds to the Bill. I believe that they will reject it on the same principle as I reject it—I do not believe in mass medication, or that the case for it has been made out. We should not touch it with a bargepole and I shall vote against Third Reading.

6.17 pm

Mrs. Currie

The Bill is wise and sensible, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing it forward so promptly, following the judgment in Scotland, in order to ensure that water supplies can still be fluoridated in those areas of England that want it.

We have listened to many hours of debate on a Bill of three clauses. It has become apparent that those both for and against the Bill's principles share the same motives. They wish to promote health care. Both opponents and proponents of the Bill have also displayed much the same style. We have seen self-righteousness and earnestness on both sides.

It seems to me that the fluoridation of water supplies is safe. We have heard a tremendous amount of nonsense about the dangers of fluoridation. Fluoridation is efficacious in preventing tooth decay not just in children but throughout life. Thus, the Bill is necessary to enable such a highly laudable activity to take place. Fluoridation is also a cheaper activity than all the other possibilities that we have heard about, and is much safer. I worry far less about fluoridation of our water supplies that is controlled by the skilled engineers of the Severn-Trent water authority or of any other water authority — under, I hope, the supervision of staff of health authorities—than I worry about the hit and miss activities that have been proposed, such as the topical painting of teeth, and the fluoridation of toothpaste, tablets and so on. Those who are worried that fluoridation is poisonous or dangerous should be campaigning for the withdrawal of Colgate and all other toothpastes containing such wicked material, because of the danger that they might pose for their constituents.

Mr. Galley

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Currie

I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have listened to hours and hours of debate, and now wish to support the Bill exactly as it stands.

The powers-that-be have decided to leave the question whether the Bill is moral to us as individuals to decide on a free vote. But the Bill should be set against our obligations on health care. At different stages during the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted that obligation. We have an obligation on health care. Dental caries is not a trivial disease but causes serious trouble for both children and adults. I should think that every hon. Member suffers from it and knows about it.

Mr. Fairbairn

Rubbish.

Mrs. Currie

The Bill seeks to prevent that disease. The treatment of it involves general anaesthesia, which is a high risk activity, which we should discourage people from engaging in.

We also have an obligation to save public money, which must be set against our moral obligations and our moral dubiety in the Bill. Fluoridation seems to be the cheapest and most efficient way of accepting our health care obligations. Moreover, it will also save enormous sums of money on dentistry.

Mr. Fairbairn

Rubbish.

Mrs. Currie

It is not rubbish. During the early stages of the Bill I was contacted by—

Mr. Fairbairn

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Currie

I will not give way.

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend addresses me by saying—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady is giving way.

Mr. Fairbairn

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Mrs. Currie

No, Sir.

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady departed from her speech to address the word "rubbish" to me. If she talks to me, either she must—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can do nothing about that.

Mrs. Currie

I did not say rubbish. I have not traded insults with my hon. and learned Friend during this stage of the debate, although I may have done so in the dark days of the night.

I accept the principle of the moral dubiety of intervention, and I have no problems with it. We are intervening with mass medication and expecting our health authorities to do so, and indeed they are charged in that way. However, we are also giving health authorities the opportunity to save a great deal of public money on dentistry. I was contacted earlier today by the gentleman who took my place as the chairman of the central Birmingham health authority and who is therefore now responsible for the great dental hospital in Birmingham. He told me that immense savings have been made on dental care and that there are now problems finding patients. I do not wish to impute doubtful motives to anyone, but perhaps the reason why we have not had a great outcry from dentists in favour of the Bill is that it will put them out of business.

The Bill is entirely proper, and proper as Government business. My only gripe is that the managers of the House did not see it in that way and did not deal with it appropriately. We should be dealing not with Third Reading now, but with amendments from the other place. We should be getting rid of this tiny little unimportant Bill so that we can deal with more important Bills. There is no such thing as a riskless society. The House knows the risks of not fluoridating water supplies, and the costs of not doing so, and therefore I am delighted to support the Bill.

6.22 pm

Mr. Williams

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said how pleased she was that the Bill would enable the areas of England that want fluoridation to have it. How does she determine which areas want it? That is what the debate is about. Indeed, why should it be about areas when we are talking about people? There can be such a thing as a dictatorship of the majority, especially regarding the rights of the individual.

The hon. Lady treats the rights of the individual cheaply. She said that we should support the Bill because administering fluoride is a form of financial efficiency. Capital costs of fluoridation will be between £120 million and £150 million, and costs are more than £20 million a year. Therefore, costs are not insubstantial. The hon. Lady has not spelt out the economies she anticipates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) said, it would be far cheaper to pursue the process via milk for schoolchildren at a cost of £8 million than to use the method that the hon. Lady advocates. If she is truly worried about economy, she should change her posture immediately because not only is she abandoning an important principle regarding the freedom of the individual, but she is exchanging it for a false deal which will not make the economies that she expects.

What do the Government think that they are up to? We have gathered from Ministers that the Government believe in fluoridation. Why on earth, then, have they chosen to create, not a uniform system, but a potential shambles? The Government say that they do not wish to impose fluoridation and want to give the right to decide to unelected bodies. That is either cowardice or irresponsibility. If they believe that it is good for our people to have fluoridation, it should not be left to the arbitrary whim of health authorities to decide against it, any more than those of us who oppose the Bill believe that it should be left to the arbitrary whim of authorities to determine to have it. That is nonsense. If it is right for one part of the country, it is right for another part. If it is wrong for one part of the country, it is probably wrong for another part. The matter should not and does not need to be determined on the basis of parts of the country. We are not dealing with a drug that cannot be obtained from any other source. It is readily and cheaply available.

The Minister made it clear that he intends through the other place to ensure that non-elected quangos consult the elected authorities within their areas. What happens if quangos consult and then ignore the elected authorities? An hon. Member listed all the authorities in his area which had spoken for their electors, but at the end of the day the water authority utterly ignored that advice from the elected representatives and went ahead.

What happens when consultation has been a sham and a farce? I invite the Minister to intervene now and to tell me what he would do if, for example, Manchester local authorities were wholly opposed to the addition of fluoride and the non-elected health authority, regardless of the opinions of the elected representatives and of the public expressed through opinion polls, decided to fluoridate. Would he feel that he had no duty to intervene to ensure that local opinion was taken into account?

Mass medication has created some strange alliances in the House. Conservative Members and I, who rarely see eye to eye, have argued virtually the same case. That should worry the Minister. There are strange alliances both on and across the Benches. We all believe that a fundamental principle is involved. The precedent of mass medication should not be accepted lightly. If it is appropriate to create that precedent in pursuit of healthy teeth, for what is it not appropriate to quote that precedent? On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and many Conservative Members frequently mentioned the items that they would like to see covered by the precedent. But if the Government had their way, we would not be drinking water but cutting it into cubes and chewing it. Where do we draw the line? Today the Government draw the line at fluoride, but why? What is so distinctive and different about the treatment of teeth from any other medical condition that is not water originating?

At the outset all hon. Members accepted that water must be made pure and healthy to drink. That is common ground. When we take the next step, as the Bill does, the House is saying that whatever a do-gooding health authority or Minister determines as being requisite can be proposed as an addition to the water supply. I can think of far more important health conditions that might be dealt with. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield read a horrifying list on Second Reading, which prompted me to speak in that debate, which I had intended only to listen to. It is clear that this is merely stage one in the use of an easy method of distributing medicine to people who need it and to those who do not.

What about the person who does not want fluoride? We should remember why we are here. The Bill is the result of health authorities being afraid of being taken to court because so many people feel strongly about fluoridation and do not want it at any cost. Why should they have it? What makes the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, who is muttering to himself, so much better than theirs? Doctors have not always been right and they have not always been able to identify the side effects.

Dr. M. S. Miller

I was merely looking at the figures of a poll in which people were asked: Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay? The responses were as follows: in Oldham, 77.8 per cent. said yes, as did 76.5 per cent. in Salford, 84 per cent. in Wigan, 81.4 per cent. in Tameside and Glossop, 80.4 per cent. in south Manchester and 78 per cent. in Lancaster.

Mr. Williams

I am grateful for those helpful figures. Being generous to my hon. Friend, the average seems to be 80 per cent. in favour of fluoridation. If we extrapolate that figure to national figures, there must be about 11 million people who do not want fluoride but will be compelled by do-gooders such as him to take it. That is an unjustifiable imposition and represents an abandonment of an important principle.

I recall, when I was in the Department of Industry, being in negotiations with one of Britain's top drug companies about establishing a vitamin C factory in Scotland. The chief executive said that he never took drugs and did not believe in them as he thought them dangerous. He said that one could never be sure what side effects or long-term effects they might have. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride has said that fluoride has been in the water for 30 years, but how long has it taken asbestosis to emerge? It took many of my right hon. and hon. Friends decades to convince the Department of Health and Social Security and medical authorities that health complaints other than pneumoconiosis could arise from dust in mines.

The postulation that fluoridation will benefit teeth in some areas over a period of 10 or 20 years is a wholly inadequate justification. The fundamental point is that the Government are saying that there will be no choice. What is to happen with the person who bitterly dislikes the thought of fluoridation or the person who is afraid of it? What about their rights? Why should we allow non-elected committees, appointed by a Minister who holds one view at one time and another at another, to impose their do-gooding arbitrary will on everyone? For those reasons, I shall oppose the Bill.

6.34 pm

Mr. Marlow

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Perhaps I might tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—I think that many of my colleagues agree with me—that we should be grateful if, next time, she would leave her jackboots outside before addressing the House.

I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, were here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health opened the debate and whether, like me, you were terrified by his brisk overconfidence. It reminded me of the white-coated, doctor/salesmen who first put Debendox on the market. He said that this subject relates directly to health. Thalidomide was also directly related to health. Mistakes have been made. It is one thing to give ill people drugs—and to give them a choice—when those drugs might have unfortunate side effects. It is quite another to force people with no disease or complaint to have adulterated water supplies which might have far-reaching effects of which we do not yet know.

The Leader of the Opposition is concerned that our country should be a proper place in which to bring up his children. I am sure that we all agree. I am concerned for my children. The whole country is concerned for the future of children. We all ensure that our children clean their teeth—perhaps with a fluoride toothpaste. We might give them tablets with fluoride in them or take them to the dentist and get fluoride painted on their teeth. That is our choice. If we do not want to give it that way, we might install plant to dilute fluoride into our personal water supplies. I am appalled by the suggestion, and the calumny of the Opposition, that working-class families, whatever they might be, do not care for their children or are incapable of making sensible decisions about their children's welfare. It is as if Opposition Members are saying that parents cannot be trusted with their children. I was upset and surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South echo exactly those sentiments.

The Bill will defile our country's ecosystems. We have been here for generations and there is a balance in nature. We have eaten and drunk various things which have made us what we are. It is now suggested that some monstrous substance be stuffed into our water supplies. We all remember our chemistry classes at school and know what the halogens are. They are iodine, bromine, chlorine and fluorine, the most hideously strong agent of all. Chlorine, which is less strong than fluorine, was used in the first world war to gas thousands of our soldiers, and now we are putting fluorine, or rather fluorides, which are a rat poison, into our water supply. Moreover, we are doing it with a mind-boggling self-confidence. There is a real chance that something will go wrong and it is up to the House to do what it can to stop it.

Mr. John Patten

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in certain parts of the country, water undertakers have to add all sorts of substances such as sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid to improve the quality of water? Even in the dying stages of this debate, does my hon. Friend not recognise that we must not cause unnecessary public alarm?

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend knows full well the difference between the filtration process and adding something extra and unrequired which has an effect on the human body.

The experts have got together and decided. It was the experts who designed the hideous tower blocks that we have in our inner-city areas. It is the experts who quite often, like the Gadarene swine, get it wrong and plunge over the cliff top. We can only hope that, this time, they have not made a terrible mistake. I shall quote once again four lines from Hilaire Belloc: 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. They know what is best for us. This is the nanny state. It is pure, unadulterated, interventionist Socialism, and it is being put forward by my Conservative Government.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

I have come here to vote against the Bill, but if my hon. Friend goes on in that way a number of opponents of the Bill will be deterred from doing so.

Mr. Marlow

I cannot account for my hon. Friend's decision. He will hear other speeches too, and they may have an equal or an opposite effect on him.

Why has the Bill been produced? It has been produced because of something that happened in a law court in Scotland and because the Civil Service told the Government that they must take action. My Conservative Government would not have brought forward such a measure on their own account. It is not in their manifesto. It is not, politically, a thing that my Government would wish to do. The Civil Service told the Government to get on with it, and that is why the Bill was produced.

When my right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Third Reading, he said that he had won all the arguments. The arguments that he won were those approved by the Labour party conference in 1978. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is pleased about that. He also said that the Government had won all the votes. Of those entitled to exercise their discretion during this marathon debate, my right hon. and learned Friend has won very few, if any, of the votes.

The Conservative party is above all about personal choice. We once had a slogan, "Set the people free". That is what we should do. We cannot be certain that the measure will not have a terrible effect on the people of this country. I am against it and I oppose it.

6.43 pm

Mr. Galley

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health stated earlier that he could not understand the liberty argument on this issue. As a blunt Yorkshireman, I find the connection as plain as a pikestaff. When tha's in Yorkshire, if somebody takes summat away from thee, tha's likely to be upset. If somebody takes tha choice away from thee tha's likely to be upset because tha liberty is affected. That is the crux of the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Not in Derbyshire.

Mr. Galley

Perhaps not in Derbyshire or in Nottinghamshire. I shall refer to Derbyshire in due course.

Apart from the liberty argument, there is also the argument about democracy. The point about democracy has been made many times, but the Treasury Bench has not addressed itself to it and has not answered the point. The situation in a nutshell is that a very small minority of the House, on the basis of the votes so far, is likely to ram through a measure that will be implemented by a non-elected undemocratic authority on the advice and request of another non-elected democratic authority, without any public say at all.

Furthermore, a number of those who will vote for the measure in the House have said that their hearts are not in what they are doing and that they have had to square their consciences in some way. I am told that they have squared their consciences by suggesting that this is simply an enabling measure. It is an enabling measure designed to allow an undemocratic institution to ask another democratic institution to do something that is dubious in health terms. I appeal to those of my colleagues to look at their consciences before they finally cast their votes.

Logically, once one accepts the principle of compulsory mass medication, why should one not then pursue the principle further to enforce compulsory mass vaccination? Why do we not totally ban smoking and other forms of tobacco consumption? Why do we not totally ban the consumption of alcohol? Why do we not force those who are opposed to it on principle to have blood transfusions when they are ill?

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has left the Chamber, argues a case on health costs. She suggests that the cost to the state of dental caries is such that we must compel everyone to take in their water a substance that may be poisonous. Surely alcohol, smoking and the lack of vaccinations must represent a higher cost to the NHS and the taxpayer than dental caries. People die from measles, but we do not compel them to be vaccinated. Deformed children are born to pregnant women who contract rubella. People have been known to die from whooping cough. We do not compel vaccinations in those cases. It may be said that there are doubts about the safety of whooping cough vaccine for certain people. There are doubts about fluoride, too. It is a vital principle that if there is an element of doubt — if, when the evidence has been weighed, there is any evidence that suggests that fluoride may be a poison—it should not be added to public water supplies in such a way that the people cannot say nay.

It would be different if the person who wanted a fluoridated water supply could have one piped to him while his neighbour who did not was connected to a non-fluoridated system. We could promote fluoridated toothpaste, and the Health Education Council could launch a major campaign to persuade people to use it. That would be fine. That is the principle upon which we have worked in health matters for a long time. It is the principle of education. Considerable progress has been made as a result of education efforts, especially in relation to smoking-related diseases.

We are moving away from the principles of liberty, democracy and good practice which have determined our health care and health prevention for a long time.

This is a very un-Conservative measure. It is essentially a Socialist measure of the worst kind.

Mr. Dobson

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has always been a covert Socialist? It was when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Health in a Tory Cabinet that fluoridation was introduced.

Mr. Galley

Much as I respect the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), he may err. I suggest that he has erred on one or two occasions in the past—especially on the two occasions when he suggested that people should vote Labour.

The philosophical basis of the Conservative party provides no sound ground for compulsory mass medication. How far back can we go? Perhaps one should not suggest that Thomas Hobbes was a Conservative philosopher. The only thing that I would take from Hobbes is the suggestion that life is "nasty, brutish and, short". I suggest that the Bill is also "nasty, brutish and, short".

Perhaps the first real Tory philosopher was Viscount Bolingbroke who wrote "The Patriot King", which I am sure the Minister has read. There is the picture of the patriotic monarch acting on the principles of the benefit of the population and seeking to prevent bureaucratic abuse. The monarch prevents the bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and officials from abusing the population. That is the basis of our paternalism. The paternalism of the Tory party is against abuse of power by the bureaucrats, but the Bill puts power into the hands of the bureaucrats. Our tradition, whether one takes the libertarian strand or the paternalist strand of Tory philosophy, is against the principles of the Bill. The Bill is against liberty, it is against democracy and, to some extent, it is against health. La libertè, la dèmocratie and la santè is the cry of the Tory Members.

6.50 pm

Mr. Best

We are almost at the end of the lengthy first part of the passage of the Bill. Although I am not the last person to speak in the Third Reading debate, I should like to thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken a stand. I believe that I express my heartfelt thanks on behalf of their constituents and many other people for having taken that stand.

Fluoridation of water supplies is illegal. We know that because that was the result of the Strathclyde case. That is why this unfortunate and miserable Bill has been introduced by the Government.

Mr. Bill Walker

Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of any other occasion when a decision in a Scottish court has required a Bill to be introduced to effect legislation in England and Wales?

Mr. Best

I cannot assist my hon. Friend. No, I cannot recall such a time, although I have great respect for the law of Scotland and I believe that in many respects the legal system there leads that in England and Wales. We are about to see that with the passage of legislation soon—legislation that has been delayed as a result of this measure, which the Government originally scheduled to be passed through the House in one day, but has taken four days. That is an expression of the strength of feeling in the House about the Bill.

The Bill is unwanted by a large number of the members of the Government. They have far too many problems on their hands. The Bill is unwanted by our constituents. Can anybody doubt that we are speaking as we are not just because we feel deeply on a matter of principle but because we know only too well that our constituents do not want the Bill to go through the House of Commons? That is why we are taking this stand and it is right, and our duty, that we should do so.

Some 111 amendments have been tabled to what is effectively a two-clause Bill. I pay tribute to the ingenuity of hon. Members who have tabled amendments. What has struck me about the amendments is that, more than in any other Bill that I have seen pass through the House, they were all designed to be helpful. They were all designed to try to ameliorate a Bill that is bad ab initio. All the amendments were tabled in good faith and raised matters of great concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who I am glad to see in his place on the Treasury Front Bench, has conducted himself throughout the Bill with the courtesy that we have come to expect of him. It has been a pleasure to have him reply to these debates, but he has not helped as much as we would have hoped. His deceptive pleasing style has hidden what might at first sight not be apparent. He seeks to let us feel that the Government do not really care about whether health authorities ask water undertakers to fluoridate water supplies. That is not the case. One has only to listen to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health to realise that the Government are pushing what they believe—I accept that they believe it in good faith—are the benefits of fluoride.

If that is so, what are the Government doing? Do they really believe that the fluoride is beneficial beyond peradventure? If they do, is it not an act of negligence for the Government not to ensure that all children in the country receive those benefits? Is the answer not that there is, lurking somewhere deep in the bowels of Government, some niggling suspicion, some great concern, which has not yet found a voice, which is just a squeak at the moment but which may develop into a gigantic roar at some stage, of which we are the precursors? Surely, that is the only reason why we now have a permissive Bill, rather than a Bill that takes the matter on board full square and says, "Fluoride is right and therefore everyone should have it." No, the Government do not fully believe that fluoride is right. If they did, they would have introduced a different Bill.

Those of us who are against the Bill do not say that nobody should have fluoride. We believe in individual choice. People in Sweden have been taking fluoride tablets for years, and it has been as effective as they think it is, or as effective as it may be. There is no reason why people in this country should not take fluoride in tablets if they so wish, exercising their individual choice. However, this is not a Conservative measure. It is not a measure that one expects from this Government. It has been brought forward by civil servants because they have seen the Strathclyde decision and feel that it is necessary to introduce the Bill. As a result, the Government have found themselves on the horns of this dilemma — not really believing in the Bill but having to introduce it because, on advice, they see no other alternative.

Who are those Labour Members who opposed the Bill? They are all the nice ones. They are the ones with whom we like to go on parliamentary visits. They are all the ones with whom we care to have a drink. They are all the decent ones. That is to be expected. This shows that all those Labour Members who are against fluoridation are the ones who are not bound by rigid dogma. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is bound by rigid dogma, or he would not be on the Front Bench. He would be on the Back Benches, and able to express his own opinion. Those who are not so bound are able to express their views.

Mr. Dobson

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back—I know that it seems a long time ago—to the Second Reading debate. I made it clear then that the views that I was expressing from the Dispatch Box were my own views. Those are the views that I have expressed throughout, and I would not have expressed them had I not held them.

Mr. Best

That does nothing to satisfy me as to the hon. Gentleman's sense of judgment.

I made a short speech last night. I have been trying to speak in this debate for the past 19 or 20 hours, but I shall keep to a short speech now as this is Third Reading. I have sought to move sensible amendments, like all other hon. Members, to try to improve the Bill. The benefits of fluoride are by no means certain. If they were certain, how could it be that non-fluoridated areas have equal or lower rates of incidence of dental caries compared to fluoridated areas? If fluoride is of such benefit to the teeth, why do not the citizens of all those European countries that used to fluoridate their water supplies but have now ceased to do so have their teeth dropping out all over the streets? They do not. There is no noticeable difference. That does not say much for the benefits of fluoride, supposed or otherwise. People are looking after their teeth much better than they did 10 or 15 years ago. There has been a general improvement in dental health which we all welcome, but it has little to do with the provision of fluoride in water supplies.

The dangers of fluoride were fully discussed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I could go over his speech again, but that would not be appropriate. I do not wish to add anything to what he said in his lengthy speech earlier.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

If I intervene now I shall not need to try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later and the debate will, therefore, be brought to an end sooner. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) agree that the weight of argument has been overwhelmingly on the side of those who oppose fluoride? He has mentioned my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). At the end of the day the anti-fluoride campaign would have won if it had been a fair debate.

Mr. Best

That is absolutely right. I do not fully share the fears expressed by some hon. Members about the possible damage to health from fluoride. Some of the studies that have been mentioned are by no means certain, but I have been in the courts for far too long not to accede to the concept of the benefit of the doubt. Where there is a reasonable doubt that must be resolved favourably against the proposition of doing anything like putting a substance in the water supply. That is a fundamental principle. So long as a scintilla of doubt remains—not a fanciful doubt—we should not allow the Bill to succeed tonight.

My hon. Friends do themselves no service when they ridicule the argument by referring to genetic damage in mice, rats, frog-spawn or tadpoles. We do not base our arguments on such matters. I need do no more than quote the words used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in a reply to me. He 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. Heavens above. He was talking about two parts per million. The Bill does not provide for a maximum of one part per million, but says merely that we should try to get it right so far as is reasonably practicable. The level could be as much as 1.5 milligrammes per litre. Do we have the right to impose that on the people? I suspect not.

My hon.Friend the Under-Secretary of State quoted favourably from what Lord Jauncey said in the Strathclyde judgment when he said: 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 which is very unlikely to create any aesthetic problems for the owners of the teeth." — [Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 56.] That is no good at all. We do not want any teeth to be mottled. We do not want people to say, "That's all right. You will not notice it if you do not come too close." That is not good enough for my constituents.

The problem about the question of fluoride is that even those biochemists who are in favour of the artificial fluoridation of water supplies accept that the margin between what they regard as the optimum level—one part per million—and that level which leads to dental fluorosis and other problems which have been fully articulated by my hon. Friends is far too slim and far too dangerous. It is unacceptable to the House.

The other problem is the concept of "we know best". A patronising attitude is inherent in such a Bill. Why can we not trust people to make their own decisions about individual health? What is so terrifying to those who believe that fluoride is so beneficial? Why are they so frightened to articulate their case in public and to let the public decide? Why must the action be taken via the back door and through the non-elected health authorities? We should have a full debate and let the people decide. That was the gravamen of my amendments. My constituents are capable of making a judgment. They know best. After all, they elected me to the House.

It might be said that it would be an odd Minister who would add something harmful to the water supply. Those who say that should cast a glance at the Opposition Front Bench. Can they be certain that there will be no odd Minister in the future? I suspect that they cannot. They might look at their own Front Bench sometimes and have the same misgivings. It is an odd Minister, indeed, who would introduce such a measure. It is an odd Bill. It has odd effects and it has some odd supporters.

I have tried in good faith to amend the Bill. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, the Patronage Secretary, the Deputy Chief Whip—and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Unfortunately, those discussions were to no avail. Some concessions have been made and I pay tribute to the Government for having made them. However, those concessions are not enough. They are not enough for me because they are not enough for my constituents who want the right to decide for themselves.

The fight does not end here. It merely begins as we go together into the Division Lobby to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill tonight. The message for the other place and for the people of the country is that we care for that delicate and precious right that is so easily crushed and for which we must be ever vigilant. I talk of individual freedom.

7.7 pm

Mr. Crouch

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has done a noble service to the House over many hours and some days. Not everyone will agree with him and the votes show that the majority do not agree with him. However, we have a duty in the House to respond to our constituents. None of my constituents has asked me for mass state medication, but quite a few over the years have pleaded with me to remember that I am a democrat. One constituent wrote to tell me that he had fought in the last war to preserve freedom in our country. That might be an overstatement. Perhaps the Front Bench in its wisdom and the Department of Health believe that this measure has some scientific and medical merit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has been gentle and restrained in his arguments. He made his attitude clear in his speech today. Some of my colleagues who have supported him in his opposition to the Bill have accused him of not being strong enough. I am not very strong against the Bill. I was in two minds about it. Some years ago I was much against fluoridation. I was persuaded that perhaps there was a case for it.

I have been involved in the medical world. I served 14 years on a health authority. I was not elected. Nobody was elected. Some local authority members were elected by their local authorities and transplanted to the health authorities later by the Secretary of State and others. I was put there by the Secretary of State. I had great regard for those health authorities and for the way in which they faced up to problems of delegated authority and administering the National Health Service in England and Wales.

However, not one member of a health authority whom I have ever met knows what it is to represent people. It is a Member of Parliament or a councillor—an elected person—who knows what it is to represent people and to face up to people at an election, to answer their correspondence, and sometimes to answer their cris de coeur. I have been getting such complaints and cries of restraint about the Government embarking on mass medication. Perhaps there is some merit in the Bill. There is a little merit in it. It is a little Bill that we shall now decide upon. Let us see how small it is. The short title is just a few words, to Make provision with respect to the fluoridation of water supplies. It has taken us four days to discuss the Bill. Why? Because there are some hon. Members who are so concerned to preserve the freedom, even a modicum of freedom, which is so treasured in this country and which we have a duty to preserve. We have a duty to ask the Government, in their medical wisdom and health knowledge, "Do you think that you are right to do this? Is it right?"

I understood that there was a free vote on the Bill. I was sent a "Whip", as all hon. Members are sent a "Whip" These proceedings were underlined once—I am giving no secrets away—and it says that there will be a free vote on the measure. A free vote is a free vote. Each and every man in the House has the same "Whip" with a free vote on it.

There is a free vote on another Bill before the House. I spent two and a half hours on that Bill in Committee this morning. It is called the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). There was a free vote on it a week or so ago, on a Friday. The Secretary of State for Social Services and the Minister for Health exercised their free vote on that occasion, and voted against that measure. Other Members of the Government voted the other way. We all exercised our free vote on that day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to this Bill and not be diverted to another.

Mr. Crouch

I certainly will. All that I am seeking to say is that on that occasion, when there was a free vote, Ministers exercised their right to vote freely as they felt they should. The Government said that they were neutral about the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. He knows that Third Reading debates must be restricted to the contents of the Bill before us.

Mr. Crouch

Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely illustrating the situation that we face today with this Bill. I should have thought that it was a neutral Bill in the view of the Government because they said that there was a free vote. However, we know from the past few days that a neutral stance has not been taken by the Government. They have been marching through the Lobby to force through the measure against the wishes of the minority, which happens to be those of us who do not like mass medication.

Therefore, all that I am saying is that I do not like the difference, when we have a free vote on one Bill, which goes one way, and in this case when it goes another. There is a different interpretation in this case. If I had been the Minister for Health faced with the Bill, I would have exercised my right freely and voted against it. The House might ask me why. I said that I was in two minds and also that for many years I had some concern about health matters. But I am not persuaded of the argument. The medical arguments in favour are worthy of study. They can be accepted. Many people, perhaps the majority in the House, on a free vote, accept them. They can even be convincing in those arguments, but I am still not persuaded. Many of us are not persuaded. Why? Because we do not want state medication. It is as simple as that. No matter how good those arguments are, I simply do not want Big Brother—what a horrible phrase, but we must use it—or Whitehall knowing best about the health of people — men, women and children. It is wrong. We must say so. As a Member of Parliament, an elected representative, I must say that I believe that it is wrong.

When I faced the matter with two minds about it, thinking that perhaps I could accept those arguments, I had to say to myself as a democrat and an elected Member that on balance I really could not accept the measure because I could not say that I believed that the state should introduce this small measure ruling our lives in this way, to take decisions on health away from people. I do not like compulsory mass medication and I do not like state medication.

7.16 pm

Mr. Neil Hamilton

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members present feel, in the words of the witticism, that we have begun to exhaust time and encroach upon eternity because the debate has been going on for such a long time. If there is the result in the next Division that no doubt the Government confidently expect, I believe that we shall also make great encroachments upon individual liberty.

I am most disturbed to see the conversion of Her Majesty's Government to utilitarianism and that they feel that the greatest good of the greatest number, an exploded political theory, should justify their promotion of such legislation. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary imagines himself as a latter-day Bentham who will eventually end up stuffed in a glass case in one of our more ancient universities. However, I hope that he lasts longer than Jeremy Bentham lasted in University College, London.

I believe that we are making a fundamental mistake as Conservatives in promoting a measure based upon that principle. There is a fundamental difference between, for example, chlorinating the water supply to make the water pure and putting fluoride in it to influence the physiological processes of the human body. There is a fundamental difference between the purification of water and the form of mass medication that is thrust upon us in the Bill.

One thing that has become painfully clear throughout the many hours that we have debated the measure in the House is that all the arguments, apart from those of Front Bench Members, have come from opponents of the Bill, with one or two exceptions, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I had not originally thought of that reason for opposing the Bill, but having heard that she was to make a speech convinced me that my course of action was ever more right.

As we look through the Division lists, we see that the Government have been sustained by the votes of the Opposition and of Cabinet Ministers dragooned after a heavy day's labour in their Departments into the Lobby in the early hours of the morning, looking tired and haggard and in need of a great deal of sympathy from those of us who have opposed the Bill. However, I am afraid that there comes a time when one's adherence to political principle should outweigh the natural sympathy that we have for the sensibilities of such individuals. Therefore, there is no reason why we should apologise for debating the Bill in the full and extensive way that we have.

It will be remarked upon in another place in due course that the Government have been able to get the Bill through the House on a tiny minority of individuals who have not been dragooned into the Lobby on what is ostensibly a free vote. For example, in Division No. 114 at 2.9 am on 19 February the Government managed to achieve 105 votes. They needed 100 in order to carry the closure. In that debate the Government were sustained by seven Labour votes, two Liberal votes and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who went into the wrong Lobby by mistake. That is something for which he will have to answer in the hereafter. However, Division after Division has been conducted on that basis.

Mr. Michael Brown

It pains me deeply that I made that grievous mistake. However, I hope that the penance I have done during the last 30 hours will be some redress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We cannot go over what happened in previous debates. We must restrict this debate to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Hamilton

When the Bill reaches the House of Lords, I am sure that their Lordships will bear in mind that there is no majority in this House for the Bill. There has not been a majority of Members voting for the Bill. There has not even been, except in the last Division, a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament voting for the Bill. When their Lordships get to work on it, I am sure that they will find that the Bill is incapable of improvement, and I hope the result will be that they will throw it out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) took us back to 1749, the date of the first publication of "The Idea of a Patriot King" by Lord Bolingbroke. I should like to go back 100 years before that date to Viscount Falkland, who said that when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change. I believe that that is a more fundamental Tory principle than the utilitarian principle upon which the Bill is based. Therefore, the mute and inglorious followers of the Government who have proceeded through the Lobby night after night during the passage of the Bill through this House have, I believe, acted in a fundamentally un-Tory way. I do not believe that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best or that the unelected gentleman in the water authority knows best about individuals who have a conscientious objection to being medicated in the way that this Bill will no doubt bring about in many areas.

All too often in recent years this House has supported the busybody state. We have made the wearing of seat belts compulsory and the wearing of crash helmets compulsory. Now the House is to make the medication of the water supply compulsory. I do not believe that we as Conservatives were elected to support the busybody state. Where is the principle that underlies it? Where will it all end? There is a very strong anti-smoking lobby. I am not a smoker, and I find the habit offensive, but I would not dream of telling somebody that he should not smoke because it would damage his health; nor would I dream of saying that he should not drink because alcohol may damage his health. Are we to say that because people catch colds in the winter everybody should be compelled to wrap up warmly and that anybody out in the street wearing clothes that are insufficiently thermally insulated—

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton

I do not think that I should prolong my remarks any longer than is necessary. Therefore, I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who of course has considerable natural thermal insulation of various kinds.

Are we to say that people should go through the winter wrapped up according to some officially laid down coefficient of thermal insulation, or else they will render themselves liable to various illnesses which will not be conducive to their survival? Are we to say that during the summer all ladies are to carry parasols, otherwise their features will be sunburnt, which is not aesthetically acceptable and does not keep their skin in perfect condition? Of course not. However, this may be the reductio ad absurdum of the proposition.

I believe that we should apply hard tests to legislation of this kind. For that fundamental reason I do not believe that the Government should dictate what is best for individuals in the privacy of their own homes. The Government should not be able to dictate what form of medication ought to be applied. Therefore, I oppose the Bill. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it in the Lobby. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place it will be mangled out of all recognition so that it is no longer suitable to be placed upon the statute book and that that will be the end of it.

7.25 pm

Sir John Page

The attendence in the Chamber this evening is a compliment to the "stickability" of Members of Parliament. Nearly all hon. Members who went through the long watches of the night are here 21 hours later. I do not believe that those who were abed yesterday evening Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here. Nevertheless, I believe that for all hon. Members who are here this has been a memorable experience. The great memory was the amazing tour de force by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Occasionally his lengthy speech made one feel that one was sleeping under an enormous Swiss duvet: that one was going to be completely smothered by his oratory. Nevertheless, it was a great performance. We also enjoyed—this is rather a "station occasion" today—the speech of the hon. and learned Member for "King's Cross for Perth" who introduced a number of excellent shafts of humour into the debate at all hours of the day and night.

On behalf of all the water undertakers, one of the most vital— [Interruption.] I should prefer my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) not to laugh, because this is a very serious matter for the water industry. This is one of the most carefully run, vital and public spirited industries in the country. We thought that the purpose of the Bill was to clarify or redefine a position that already existed. I hope that I shall not lose my reputation for total neutrality on the matter of fluoridation when I say that if the Bill becomes an Act not one extra gallon of fluoridated water will come through any tap in our country because of it. The industry feels that the Government were wise and sympathetic to accept four out of the five main amendments and suggestions that were made. I am grateful to the Government for their willing acceptance of all those suggestions, apart from one. I have to admit that the suggestion that the Government did not accept was the most important.

Mr. John Patten

That was an oversight on our part.

Sir John Page

We hoped it would have been made mandatory upon the water industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to what is contained in the Bill, not to what he would like the Bill to contain.

Sir John Page

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in line 8 we still have "may" instead of "shall". Unfortunately, that word is still there. I am grateful for the fact that lines 10 to 13 on page 1 of the Bill were accepted by my hon. Friend. This important proviso will be very helpful in governing the attitude of the public towards water undertakings and fluoridation. We know that the Government are looking again — dare I say this — at emergency water supplies. We are grateful for the fact that our ideas on tolerances were acceptable and that the technical aids will enable the industry to serve the public properly. We are grateful for the Government's acceptance of our ideas on retrospection to confirm the legality of existing arrangements.

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, whose courtesy and good humour has transcended a day or so which has sometimes been bad-tempered, but which has been passionate, well-informed and sometimes humourous. The unaccustomed bouquets that I am giving him may be kept fresh by being taken home and put in vases of the wholesome water delivered through the tap of his hereditament.

7.30 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

I do not wish to detain the House long, but some of my hon. Friends have suggested that as I represent a Staffordshire seat I should enter a competition with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I do not believe that that would be welcomed by anyone here. As one of his neighbours, I should like to pay a tribute to him for his extraordinary stamina in the long hours of the night.

I was, indeed, abed at that time, but I have changed my plans for this evening so that I can vote on the Bill. I feel., therefore, that it is appropriate to say one or two words about why, as someone who is not persuaded by the extreme arguments, I will, nevertheless, vote against the Bill. I rest my case on three or four important propositions.

First, I believe that this is a completely peripheral measure when one considers how many important issues Parliament could have been debating over the past 24 hours. I cannot help but regret infinitely that the Government have repeatedly refused to give us a day to debate the terrible devastation and famine in Africa, and yet have put this measure before us and made us debate it at such great length.

It is not my hon. Friends who have made the debate of great length. They have been employing and deploying the best of parliamentary tactics in the best parliamentary tradition. I make no criticism of them. The measure is peripheral, unnecessary and arrogant. I say that with some degree of diffidence because I yield to no one in my respect and admiration of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I believe him to be a man of broad understanding, genuine compassion and a breadth of vision that is not shared by every member of the Treasury Bench. It therefore grieves me to see him having to pilot through a measure of this type which is so completely un-Tory. The only thing that a Tory should put in his water is whisky.

It is a dangerous little Bill. I hope that we will receive at least one assurance, entirely compatible with the philosophy and tradition of our party, when my hon. Friend replies. That assurance is that there will never be any attempt to move towards the compulsory fluoridation of the water supply.

Mr. John Patten

I can assure my hon. Friend on that point now. It was not my intention to seek to detain the House at all with a further intervention. The Bill's only intention is as was described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health on Third Reading. The Government have no intention of making fluoridation compulsory nationally.

Mr. Cormack

I am grateful for that assurance as far as it goes, but the Bill creates a precedent upon which, in a democracy, another party could build.

I am persuaded by those of my hon. Friends who have referred to the measure as Socialist. It is. I cannot help but equate it with the attitude of those who after the war did many good things but always believed that they knew what was best for people, whether it was in choosing their accommodation units, as Sir Winston derided them, or in deciding how they should behave in their financial and economic affairs. They knew what was best. The Bill smacks of being in that tradition. I repudiate it for that reason.

I am persuaded by those of my medical and dental friends who tell me that fluoride is good for teeth. I am not persuaded by the extreme arguments of those like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who equate fluoride with thalidomide, Debendox and such things. That is nonsense.

People who wish to take fluoride, where it is not present in the water, can do so. The numerous ways they can take it — tablet and toothpaste — have been rehearsed ad infinitum during the debate. Those of us who oppose the measure are saying not that we repudiate the medical arguments, but rather that if we want to take fluoride we can do so without the need for legislation.

I fully sympathise with those of my constituents who say that this measure flies utterly in the face of the free choice which the Conservative party ought always to seek to uphold. It is a thoroughly un-Tory measure.

My final reason for opposing the Bill was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) when he spoke of a free vote. There is in the House of Commons a long and honourable tradition of a free vote, but it should be free. A free vote means that every hon. Member has the right to decide, without coercion or persuasion, upon the merits of a measure. This has not been a free vote for many members of the Conservative party in Parliament assembled. I can understand the logic of those who are on the Treasury Bench. I can understand them saying that because the measure is promoted by the Government they wish to stand together, but to extend the tentacles of oppression to the eunuchs on the PPS's Bench is entirely wrong.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Withdraw.

Mr. Cormack

No, I shall not withdraw. It would be wrong of me to talk of individuals, but I know, because I have been told by a number of them, that PPSs have been told that they are jolly well expected to be part of the payroll vote on this matter. The Division lists show that to be the case. That makes nonsense of the statement that this measure is subject to a truly free vote. If the measure were subject to a truly free vote, it would have been rejected outright. I am confident of that, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of that and of the fact that this is a peripheral, unnecessary, interfering and busybody measure. It is a measure which has far more in common with the traditions of Socialism than with the bold freedom to which we seek to aspire. Not for the first time in this Parliament, our hope lies in the Lords.

7.38 pm

Mr. Bill Walker

I speak as one of the Scots who have been contributing to the Bill because, as you realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as we have been told from the Front Bench, its object is to restore the law to what it was thought to be before the Scottish judgment. It seems to be a brand new exercise in the way that matters are dealt with in the House.

You will have some knowledge, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from sitting through many Scottish debates on Scottish legislation, that this must be the first time that we are debating a measure that will affect England and Wales because of a decision in the Scottish courts. As a Scot I look forward to the many other measures that will be introduced because of the wise decisions of Scottish courts. Some of those decisions will be assisted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), from my neighbouring constituency, who has contributed so much to the debate.

The Government have made it clear by the way in which they have handled the so-called free vote that they are determined to get the Bill through Parliament. I believe that the Bill breaches the principles of individual liberty and that is a mistake. If the Bill passes through the other place unscathed, it will be remembered by the electorate as a Tory Government Bill. I ask my Scottish friends to listen carefully to my speech because there is a good reason why the Scottish courts took the decision which led to the Bill being introduced in its present form. The Scottish people objected to the fluoridation of their water, and the case ended up in court. Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament could end up regretting the fact that the Tory Government put this measure on the statute book.

The Scots, like everyone else, realise that fluoride, as it will be administered under the Bill, is medication forced upon them. They have no option, and it is nonsense for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to suggest that, because this is an enabling measure, somehow the public will see it as other than a measure imposed by the Conservative Government. There will be no ducking that. The Secretary of State, if no one else, will be blamed for the decisions taken by the non-elected health boards.

I was disappointed to hear the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, because I felt that he did a disservice to those of us who, throughout the long debate, have argued that it is wrong to indulge in compulsory mass medication. We did not spend the night filibustering attempting to do other than drive home to the Government our great fear of the possible result of the legislation. The Bill will be damaging because we are indulging in mass medication. It will be damaging to the Conservative party. It will be as though a nanny state is forcing medication down the throats of children.

The messages from the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."] Is an hon. Member trying to intervene? I have had my back to some of my hon. Friends and did not see any of them stand up. I apologise for the interruption. I thought that I heard a request to make an intervention. I am happy to give way if an hon. Member wishes to intervene. I am being told to wind up. I have been here all night and have made one speech lasting about 10 minutes on a matter about which I care deeply, as do other hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and other Opposition Members do a disservice to the working class people in suggesting that they are unable to look after their children. They say that it is therefore essential for this measure as it stands to go on the statute book. The Labour party may live to regret that, and I hope that it does. Obviously, alliance Members have no interest in this subject.

I hope that my hon. Friends who feel as deeply as I do about the principle involved in the legislation will vote against the Bill.

7.45 pm

Mr. Peter Bruinvels

It is a sad day for the House to reach the Third Reading of the Bill. I have not spoken during any of the previous debates. I nevertheless feel that the majority of the people do not want fluoridation by compulsion anywhere. When I participated in the debate on 14 January after being called back from Israel—I acted as a Teller in the Second Reading Division — I was convinced that the debate would continue for many days. It is clear today, with the debate lasting for nearly 24 hours, that there is unrest among Conservative Members. That should not have happened.

It is a tragedy that my hon. Friends, including PPSs and Ministers, are voting not with their conscience but because they feel that they must support the Government's measure. I am not generalising but referring to certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Bill would not receive Third Reading if my right hon. and hon. Friends had a truly free vote.

As one who has been involved in the water industry for a long time—I was involved in energy cost analyses—it seems to me that the water authorities are not exactly enthusiastic about adding fluoride to the water. I am worried about the fact that instructions will come from local health authorities insisting on adding fluoride to the water. That is wrong.

I am not questioning whether fluoride is good for people's teeth. My grandfather was a dentist, my father trained as a dentist, and the husband of the chairman of my local Conservative party is a dentist, so there are already many dentists in my life! It seems clear to me from talking to my father and my chairman's husband that fluoride might be good for teeth. Why should it be compulsory? I suppose that if my grandfather were alive he might have supported fluoridation. All of those three people were or are Conservatives, and I wonder whether they would have supported a measure which I believe is undemocratic.

For a Tory, compulsory medication in any form is the wrong way to proceed. The debate during the past 24 hours or so was entertaining, but deadly serious. I foresee a time when one will have to pay in restaurants for water that does not have fluoride added to it. It is strange that we are moving in that direction.

A recent copy of the magazine "Here's Health" investigated the addition of fluoride to water and said that in many cases it would make teeth brittle. I remain unconvinced, having read that article and an article in New Society, that fluoride will cause no danger. As the true democrat that I am, I ask those who believe in freedom of choice: will people stop drinking water when the legislation is passed? They may do so. They will not know whether there is fluoride in the water. Will people move to a different part of the country because a local health authority decides that fluoride must be in the water? Indeed, will it encourage alcoholism because people may go on to alcohol because the water has been doctored?

During the recent campaign I must say in fairness that I have not received many letters against fluoride being added to the water, but I have received some. My good friend, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), has probably received more than all of us. He deserves the congratulations of the House for the way in which he has led, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), a great campaign to try to make the Government think again on the principle rather than on whether fluoride is good for people. The questionable benefits should still make people hesitate even at this last minute. We are establishing a precedent. People's lives may be changed. It is a gross encroachment on our civil liberties. I ask for a national referendum. If there had been a national referendum earlier, it is highly unlikely that the Bill would have been brought forward today or any day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill. He must discuss what is in the Bill, not what he would like to be in it.

Mr. Bruinvels

I am afraid I have become rather concerned because we are in the last few minutes of the debate. Because of the way we are being rushed, I felt that I had to say something, but I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If the Bill becomes law I can tell the House what the Leicestershire community health council intends to do, according to the Leicester Mercury of 23 February. It will mount the biggest ever campaign to ensure that everyone in my county of Leicestershire will have a chance to have a say in the fluoride debate. The Severn-Trent water authority, whose annual report I have, will consider the ballot papers that will go out with the next rate demand to test public opinion throughout the county of Leicestershire. That is to be welcomed. We will find out whether those people want fluoride in the water. It is a pity that we do not have the result of that test before the vote tonight. I shall be urging the Severn-Trent water authority to take account of the views.

We are talking about water supplies, and about what the water authority is to do once the Bill becomes law. Under its chairman, John Bellak, the authority will get the views of all its customers. Hopefully the water authority will throw out the fluoridation proposal because of the views of the people of Leicestershire.

We have heard from the Opposition what the working classes want. We are not in a nanny state. We believe in freedom of choice. We believe in people going to the dentist regularly. They can go on doing that. The state should get off our backs. I want to encourage freedom of choice. I do not think the Bill will do that. I want to preserve the freedom of the individual to enable everyone to have his say as to whether he wants fluoride in the water. For that reason, and for no other reason, I shall definitely oppose the Bill.

7.53 pm

Mr. Michael Brown

You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have the ability to speak for an hour and three minutes or for three minutes. I shall try to keep to three minutes.

Before I make my remarks on Third Reading, I think it would be appropriate for me to place on record an apology to a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench for failing to inform them that I intended to refer to letters which they had written some years ago on the issue of fluoridation. I was engaged, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a speech where I was not sure about what I was going to say until I said it. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that there was no malice aforethought. That does not excuse in any way my gross discourtesy to them. I hope they will accept the apology which I have made.

The fact that there has not been a free vote on the Bill is part of the reason why I found myself drawing the attention of the House to the evidence which I had. That would not have been necessary had there been a truly free vote. Therefore, there is a moral. First, a free vote should be a truly free vote, and, secondly, all of us will be careful about what letters we write to our constituents and what early-day motions we shall sign in future.

The Bill is miserable, unnecessary, and deserves utmost opposition by the use of every parliamentary tactic and device at our disposal. I congratulate all those who have participated with me during the past few hours in trying to defeat a measure that is against the spirit of the Conservative Government, against the spirit of the Conservative party, against Conservative philosophy and against the interests of the health of the people. There is doubt about the efficacy of fluoride. So long as there is a doubt, no hon. Member should go into the Division Lobby in support of the Bill. I hope that their Lordships in the other place will do what they are being given a signal to do by my hon. Friends and myself. I hope that they will emasculate the Bill so that we may throw it out when it comes back here.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

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

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

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 82.

Division No. 151]	[7.56 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Home Robertson, John
Ancram, Michael	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Jackson, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Janner, Hon Greville
Barron, Kevin	Jessel, Toby
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	John, Brynmor
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Kennedy, Charles
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Bottomley, Peter	Knox, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Lang, Ian
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Bright, Graham	Lee, John (Pendle)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Lilley, Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Lyell, Nicholas
Burt, Alistair	McCrindle, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Campbell-Savours, Dale	MacGregor, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Maclennan, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Marland, Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Maude, Hon Francis
Cockeram, Eric	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Cohen, Harry	Maxton, John
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Mellor, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Coombs, Simon	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Cope, John	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Couchman, James	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Moynihan, Hon C.
Dewar, Donald	Neale, Gerrard
Dorrell, Stephen	Needham, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Nelson, Anthony
Dunn, Robert	Neubert, Michael
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Newton, Tony
Durant, Tony	Nicholls, Patrick
Dykes, Hugh	O'Neill, Martin
Eastham, Ken	Osborn, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Eggar, Tim	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Fletcher, Alexander	Pavitt, Laurie
Foster, Derek	Penhaligon, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Fox, Marcus	Raffan, Keith
Freud, Clement	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Gale, Roger	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Rhodes James, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Gow, Ian	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Robertson, George
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm 'ds)	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Harris, David	Ryder, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hayhoe, Barney	Scott, Nicholas
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Sheerman, Barry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Waddington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Walden, George
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Squire, Robin	Watson, John
Stanley, John	Watts, John
Steen, Anthony	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)	Whitfield, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)	Whitney, Raymond
Stradling Thomas, J.	Wilson, Gordon
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Wolfson, Mark
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wood, Timothy
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Thurnham, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Mr. John Major and
Trippier, David	Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.
Viggers, Peter
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Duffy, A. E. P.
Alton, David	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Ashdown, Paddy	Fallon, Michael
Beith, A. J.	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bendall, Vivian	Fookes, Miss Janet
Blackburn, John	Forth, Eric
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Galley, Roy
Boyes, Roland	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Golding, John
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Greenway, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm	Grist, Ian
Bruinvels, Peter	Ground, Patrick
Budgen, Nick	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Butterfill, John	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Carttiss, Michael	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Cash, William	Hayward, Robert
Chope, Christopher	Hickmet, Richard
Churchill, W. S.	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Conway, Derek	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Cormack, Patrick	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Crouch, David	Irving, Charles
Dixon, Donald	Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Skinner, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Knowles, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Lester, Jim	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Temple-Morris, Peter
McGuire, Michael	Thornton, Malcolm
Maclean, David John	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Marlow, Antony	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Monro, Sir Hector	Wigley, Dafydd
Murphy, Christopher	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Ottaway, Richard
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Tellers for the Noes:
Proctor, K. Harvey	Mr. Keith Best and
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Mr. Ivan Lawrence.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.