HC Deb 23 July 1987 vol 120 cc535-45

Question again proposed.

6.20 pm
Mr. James Marshall (Leicester, South)

The Opposition welcome the draft order. We accept the Minister's arguments that the order brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the law in Great Britain and removes any legal doubt about adding fluoride to water supplies in the Province. Having said that, we have great sympathy with the point put forward by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that there is no right of amendment to the draft order available to hon. Members. However, we arrive at a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman. It is our view that the right forum for those kinds of decisions, debates and amendments should be in a devolved Assembly in the Province. If the Government, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, are prepared to work towards those ends, they would be warmly acclaimed and supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

Before we arrive at the objective that the hon. Gentleman and I both share of a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for orders of this kind to be considered in the Northern Ireland Committee that is provided for under Standing Order No. 99 of our Standing Orders rather than being debated here on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Marshall

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that when that Standing Committee was operating I was not a Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminds me that one of the reasons that the Standing Committee failed to work successfully was the absence from the House of certain hon. and right hon. Gentleman. If the Government are prepared to revive the Standing Committee and those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to attend, and attend regularly, some advance could be made along the lines that were used before. Our ideal solution would be a devolved Assembly in the Province to deal with legislation of this kind.

To come to the point of the order, fluoridation is a recognised method of public health care for preventing tooth decay. In some quarters it is still recognised as controversial, but all the medical evidence available seems to show that it does not have any deleterious effect upon people's health and, as a method of preventing tooth decay, should be accepted and welcomed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office compared the incidence of tooth decay in the Province and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that there is no need for me to remind him that he does not have to make just that comparison. If he compared the cities of Belfast and Dublin in the island of Ireland he would find that the level of tooth decay in Dublin is far lower than it is in Belfast. The Minister, and I am sure hon. Members, will know that, whereas there is no fluoridation in the water supply in Belfast, there has been in Dublin for a number of years, and that has led to a significant reduction in tooth decay, particularly among children.

In the Minister's press release of 1 December 1986 he said that there is more tooth decay among children in the Province than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is correct. Fluoridation would help to redress that balance. Fluoridation may begin to redress that imbalance, but it should not hide from the Minister, the Government or the House the fact that much of that tooth decay is a reflection of the high levels of unemployment and the consequential poverty in Northern Ireland. Fluoridation of water supplies should not take the limelight from the need to continue to bring economic benefits and other social benefits to the Province.

The Opposition accept the order and, if it is implemented after the full and proper consultation processes that are laid down in the draft order are met, it will have our full support.

6.25 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)

The word "charade" has already been used in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). I support the accusation that he made. Once again there is clear evidence of scandalous discrimination against Ulster and the Ulster people, because today the Government have put forward a number of Orders in Council that are not capable of amendment. This procedure offends the basic rights of people in Northern Ireland. The only choice given to Ulster Members is to vote either for or against the order.

I shall exercise my parliamentary right of voting against the order as the only means of protesting against an unacceptable and undemocratic system. My Unionist colleagues will join me in the No Lobby for the Division, but despite our opposition the Government will have a comfortable majority and will push the order through the House. No doubt some hon. Members are waiting with palpitations for a Division at 7 o'clock.

Many of those hon. Members who will support the Government have probably not been to Northern Ireland. I am sure that, if they were treated as second-class citizens in the way that Ulster Members of Parliament are treated and were not able to move amendments to various orders, they would be as angry as I am at the denial of fundamental rights to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

Will the hon. Member also place on record his concern over the fact that many of those hon. Members who will vote in favour of the order are not even present and will not hear the debate?

Mr. Kilfedder

That is correct. No doubt they will converge on the House. If they are not now on their knees praying for a 7 o'clock Division, they are elsewhere, hoping to get in the right spirit.

During business questions this afternoon the Leader of the House told hon. and right hon. Members that talks were taking place with interested parties to discuss the intolerable way in which Orders in Council are put before the House. When reference was made to "interested parties", to quote his words, one would assume that he would include Unionist Members of Parliament, but I was not invited to discuss the matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I am shocked to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley that even he was excluded from such talks, and also that he received a letter advising him that he would not be invited to any such talks.

That is further corroboration of the undemocratic and contemptuous way in which the Government are treating the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. I find that repugnant. It reveals an arrogance that is certainly unacceptable to my hon. and right hon. Friends, to the Ulster people and to me. This order is not a surprising manifestation of the Government's attitude. Only last week the Minister reprimanded me in a television interview for my impertinence in criticising him and his Department for the proposals that would further undermine hospital services in the North Down area. I fear that the Northern Ireland officers and Ministers are so isolated in their cantonment from the Ulster people that they have come to believe that they are the modern version of colonial rulers and they live in a different world. They are not part of Northern Ireland. They do not experience what Ulster people experience. I have to warn them that they are in for a pretty hard time of it.

I shall not go into the merits of the order. These matters have been discussed at length elsewhere. I do not intend to add to this charade by taking part in the debate on fluoridation. However, I shall vote against the order and I intend to vote against every order presented to the House this evening.

6.30 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

I welcome the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) back to the House and to his new post as Opposition spokesman. I take the liberty of reminding him that, even if we had a devolved Government and Assembly at Stormont, that body would not be given all of what used to be called transferred matters. The Anglo-Irish Agreement uses the term that it "might" have devolved to it certain matters, which is a different affair. In any event, even if the transferred matters were restored to a revamped Stormont, a vast amount of legislation affecting Northern Ireland would still be dealt with here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, being as fair and generous as he always has been, would not suggest that we should perpetuate the situation whereby Northern Ireland would continue for all time to be legislated for by Orders in Council — a procedure which would not be acceptable to, or even be contemplated for, any other part of the United Kingdom.

My contribution will be brief because I have outgrown any liking that I ever had for charades, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, this is a charade. Here we have no fewer than five Orders in Council crammed into the penultimate day before the recess. This is an insulting timetable, but it is only partly the fault of the business managers. To a far greater extent it reflects the incompetence of the Northern Ireland Office, which had these draft orders on the stocks, in the pipeline or on the shelf for some considerable time. It knew that approval was required for these orders before the recess. However, here they are, waiting to be brought in on the penultimate day.

In theory, we could devote seven and a half hours, not to considering, but merely to talking about, five unamendable Orders in Council. It is the intention of Ministers to give the impression, as we wade through these five orders, that we are debating and improving legislation for Northern Ireland. We are not debating in the meaning of the term as it is understood by the House. We are not improving, because improvement is utterly impossible, and the Minister was truthful and honest enough to admit that in an earlier exchange.

No influence can be brought to bear on the legislation or, more important, on those who will implement the legislation. When these five orders were set down for today, the theory being whispered around corridors was, "Bad luck. It will be on the penultimate day before the recess, but it will be in prime time." Here we are, at half past six, starting on the marathon of the five orders.

I have never believed that it was the Government's intention to allow us prime time. I have been round this course far too many times. It was obvious to me a week ago that three or four statements would be made before our debates. Some of my rather more trusting hon. Friends queried my judgment, but I warned them that the Government would find ways and means to sabotage this so-called allocation of time. I said that three or four statements would be squeezed in unannounced, and we were landed with statements taking over two hours of our time.

All has not been lost, because, quite unintentionally, that injection of the three statements has illustrated a point. During the questions, some of them very lengthy, following the statements, and the answers, some of them also very lengthy, we heard assurances from the Dispatch Box by Ministers that account would be taken of the many valid points made in those exchanges. The Northern Ireland Minister—I say with sympathy the unfortunate Northern Ireland Minister—does not have the freedom to give the assurance that account will be taken of anything said in this debate or the four other debates, because there is nothing that he can do. He dare not give that assurance, because the die is cast, and there is nothing that the Government can say in response to any points raised in the debate.

Even if all hon. Members present desired a change in the legislation, and even if the Front Bench agreed that a change were desirable, there is nothing that the Government could do about it. This is all a charade and a deception. Earlier today the Leader of the House assured us, as he did on business questions last week, that he is engaged in consultations with a view to finding a remedy to this situation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down has shown that some hon. Members are being consulted more than others. Rather than perpetuate this pantomime, it would be far better, and far more honest of the Government if, at the state opening of each Parliament, they introduced a Sessional motion giving advance approval to every and any order that the Northern Ireland Office might think fit to invent during the Session.

6.37 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

This order, being unamendable and restricted — despite its moral, constitutional and medical importance — to a short debate, is the Government's misguided attempt to force mass medication with a very dangerous substance upon a largely unsuspecting and trusting public in Northern Ireland.

The Government are doing this, not because they are a malign or ill-meaning Government—just the opposite — but because their advisers will not take the time objectively to assess the evidence of positive harm that fluoride does to our bodily functions, just as they refused to assess the evidence about thalidomide.

This Government, of all Governments, are brushing aside the invasion of individual liberty that mass medication involves, in favour of a medical lobby that does not care a fig about freedom of the individual or even medical ethics. If people believe that this rat poison will do their children good, they are free to put it in their water. But if the people do not so believe, or cannot possibly benefit because they are past benefiting or have no teeth —a sizeable proportion of the British population are in that state — why, oh why, should they be forced by Government diktat to take it?

I do not understand why the Government go on allowing themselves to be conned by a small faction of the medical profession obsessed with the so-called benefits of fluoridation, when those claims are, on an almost monthly basis, being disproved. I do not know why the Government go on accepting as scientific "fact" that fluoridation does no harm, when so little work has been done on its long-term effects, when the dose cannot be regulated because people drink different amounts of water or tea, or eat different amounts of substances cooked in fluoride, or breathe fluoridated air, or brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste when no one seems to give a damn about the effects on people who are allergic to it, or who, like kidney dialysis patients, are positively known to be harmed by fluoride, and when so much of the rest of the civilised world refuses to have any truck with the substance. I simply do not understand why a Conservative Government. believing as they do in the freedom of the individual. have allowed themselves to go into the totalitarian business of mass-medicating the public water supply when not one single life will be saved by such measures. We are now inflicting this dangerous nonsense, not on our worst enemies, but on our friends in Northern Ireland.

Not only were the Government conned into passing the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, but the conning goes on and on and the medical cranks get bolder. Let me give some examples. First, every Government publication by the Fluoridation Society repeats the lie that there is no evidence that fluoride causes any harm. How can the Government be party to that lie? Countless reports from reputable university researchers in the United States, Japan and Sweden and all the major countries of the Western world report physical harm. A few are listed in my short speech in the debate on the Bill in 1985. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I have no intention of repeating them now.

Since then, the evidence has continued to emerge. For brevity's sake I shall cite only one example. Scientists from the Medical Research Council's neuro-endocrinology unit in Newcastle upon Tyne now say that aluminium contamination of food and water is a possible cause of Alzheimer's disease — senile dementia — which affects three quarters of a million people in Britain. Two Sri Lankan scientific researchers reported to the reputable science journal, Nature, that fluoride added to water at one part per million brings a thousandfold increase in the aluminium content of water that is boiled to cook cabbages, tomatoes and other acidic foods.

I can understand the pro-fluoridation supporters saying that there is evidence on both sides and that they prefer the evidence that fluoride is utterly safe. But one has to be a fanatic to say that there is no evidence at all of any harm. Of course, if the fluoro-fanatics were to admit that there was some evidence of harm, that would be the end of fluoridation, because the public would not accept it for one moment. Therefore, the fanatics continue the fraudulent pretence and the Government go along with it. It does not seem to matter how many reputable scientists, from however many reputable universities, or however many Nobel prize winners, say that it causes harm, they keep repeating that there is no evidence.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that stomach cancers as a result of fluoridation have been reported in America? Does his speech cover that aspect?

Mr. Lawrence

No, because my speech is meant to be short. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Secondly, every Government-supported publication on the subject repeats the assertion that as certain towns and cities have seen a reduction of dental caries in children's teeth after fluoridation, that is because of fluoridation, although the evidence is growing all the time that the same decrease in dental caries takes place where no fluoride is added to the water at all. I should like to read an extract from the reputable journal Nature, of 10 July 1986. A research scientist from the Australian National University in Canberra says: In fluoridated areas, there are now many … studies which record large reductions in the incidence of caries. The results of these and of fixed time surveys have led to the `fluoridation hypothesis', namely, that the principal cause of these reductions is fluoridation. Until the early 1980s, there had been comparatively few longitudinal studies of caries in unfluoridated communities … But during the period 1979–1981, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas … The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time. The scientist cites the following places in Britain: Bristol, Devon, Gloucestershire, the Isle of Wight, north-west England, Scotland, Shropshire and Somerset.

The reason for the improvement is that we eat better food and a better diet, less sugar, more whole-germ cereals and more brushing of the teeth, but the reason is riot fluoride. He concludes by saying: Perhaps the real mystery of declining tooth decay is why so much effort has gone into poor quality research on fluoridation, instead of on the more fundamental questions of diet and immunity. The Government are allowing themselves to be conned.

Thirdly, every fluoro-fanatical publication declares that all that is happening is a minimal topping up of the natural fluoride in the water, when that topping up is frequently a hundredfold increase, and when there is an important difference between naturally fluoridated water that has a high calcium and manganese content, which both reduce the harmful effects of fluoride and strengthen the teeth, and artificial fluoride, which contains much less calcium and manganese, and which is the effluent of heavy industrial processes.

Fourthly, emboldened by their unlikely support from an otherwise sensible Government, the fluoro-fanatics are now going on to even more incredible feats. They have persuaded Gallup, an otherwise highly reputable pollster, to ask a thoroughly absurd and unethical question: "Do you think fluoride should be added to the water if it can reduce tooth decay?" That question biases the answer. Of course everyone would vote for that, just as people would vote for the devil himself if they thought that it would would do any good. The fluoro-fanatics claim 71 per cent. in favour of fluoride in 1985 and 76 per cent. in 1987. That is nonsense. If the question was asked: "Do you think that fluoride should be added to the water supply?", that answer would not be received, and the fanatics know it. In practically every local poll taken in areas all over Britain the public are massively opposed to adding that substance to their water, and so are the elected district councils, county councils and parish councils.

Fifthly, so cocky have the fluoro-fanatics become that they have even investigated my district. They proudly put in their magazine: 5 year olds Fluoridated Uttoxeter An average of less than one tooth affected per child Non-fluoridated Burton An average of over two teeth affected per child. I am afraid that that is not very persuasive. To begin with, it is untrue that Uttoxeter is, or ever has been, fluoridated. It has natural fluoride, at a level of 0.9 per cent. That statement in the magazine is misleading. It is likely that children in rural areas will tend to eat more healthy food than the Asian immigrant community from which a substantial part of the sample was taken in the inner Burton area. We all know how much they delight in sweet food and that as yet they are not as conscientious about teaching their children to brush their teeth and have a proper diet as others are. To make the comparison between only 321 children in Uttoxeter and 186 in Burton and then to plaster all over the page in a magazine the statement that children in Uttoxeter have half the number of dental caries cases of children in Burton is misleading.

Evidence is now beginning to emerge in the fluoridated parts of my area of discoloration of children's teeth. One should tell the public that by the time they have breathed fluoride through the air, brushed their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste and consumed fluoride at one party per million whenever they drink water, tea or beer, or eat food that has been boiled in fluoridated water, their children will grow up to have brown, mottled and discoloured teeth. If one told the public that, would 75 per cent. be in favour of fluoridation? The information is nonsense and misleading, and the Government are going along with it.

I am sorry to see that the Government have taken no notice of the flaw that has developed in the British legislation, because they repeat it exactly in the Northern Ireland order. The Government were making a great concession to us. They would not allow the decision to be made by elected local authorities, but notice would be served upon them, and they had to be consulted. The idea was to keep the decision to fluoridate local even though there would not be democratic decisions, but that is not happening.

Let me give an example from the Burton area. Under the section that talks of the continuity of existing fluoridation schemes, notice need not be given if a scheme was in operation when the Act became effective. The same thing is being repeated in the order. To us that meant that if work was being undertaken, and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent, the local authority need not be consulted.

But that is not how it is being interpreted. If there are any plans on paper, that is to be a "scheme", and that will stop people from being notified and consulted.

Therefore, these fluoridation procedures can be steamrollered through without consulting the people whom we in the House decided to consult. That could be corrected if we could amend the order, which we cannot, and that is deplorable too. The Government should not go along with that, because they know that that is what is happening and I am sad to see it put in this legislation as though nothing wrong was happening.

Artifical fluoridation of the water supply has been carried on under consecutive Governments. I always said that it was unlawful, and I was right. The court in Scotland said that it was unlawful, and now we have changed the law to make it lawful, and it is being extended to Northern Ireland. It is also undemocratic and will go on being so unless the Government stop giving money to nonsense public opinion polls and stop turning a blind eye to breaches of Parliament's clear intention to give notification and consultation rights to local authorities.

Artificial flouridation is unbeneficial because the evidence of benefit is now being confounded, as it was as long ago as 1969 by the Government's own survey. It is unsafe, as a massive amount of evidence now shows. It is unethical for doctors to advocate mass medication where the patient, the dose and the state of the patient's health are unknown. It is also a shocking deprivation of individual liberty.

The order, like its parent legislation, is an utter disgrace, and I shall have no part in it.

6.52 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

Today's debate seems to be on the merits and demerits of fluoridation, yet the order is permissive rather than mandatory. I have great confidence that the people of Northern Ireland will vehemently express their view, district by district, on whether they want to be fluoridated. I have no doubt that all the district councils, area boards and many other organisations will make their views well known.

I am concerned not with the arguments for or against fluoridation but with the legislation before us and I want to ask the Minister about some what are to me, but obviously not to him, obscure points. In doing so, I 'draw the attention of the House to the unique fact that the Minister responsible is acting not only as the Secretary of State for the Environment but as the Secretary of State for Social Services. Therefore, in a sense, the Minister can either cure or bury us.

It appears from paragraph 3 that the Department of the Environment may, without further application, increase the dosage of fluoridation which is referred to in paragraph 3(4) without any further reference to any other body or authority.

Paragraph 3(6) says: Water to which fluoride has been added by the Department in exercise of the power conferred by this Article … may be supplied by the Department to consumers in any other area"— I emphasise the words "any other area".— in connection with the carrying out of any works … by the Department. Why does that power appear to give the Department the ability to fluoridate areas which have not requested it, acquiesced in it or agreed to it? That is also extended to the operation of existing fluoridation schemes under paragraph 5(3)(b).

Because time is pressing I want to deal with only two further points concerning publicity and consultation. I am aware, like many previous speakers, of the considerable intentions to consult organisations, health boards and district councils and I hope that they will be carried out. But the order gives the DHSS power to direct that the article giving the protection of public consultation shall not apply in relation to any proposal of the board to withdraw an application or to terminate a preserved scheme. Those dichotomies of the order require clarification, if possible this afternoon.

I am fairly familiar with Northern Ireland, as one may assume. We have five health and social service boards and 26 district councils serving a population of only 1.25 million. Will water fluoridation be carried out by district health board, by district council area, or in areas dealing with water conservation or water distribution? Unless we have a network of stopcocks, how can fluoridated water be prevented from flowing from an area which desires it to one which does not?

6.56 pm
Mr. Needham

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and welcome him to his position. I hope that we shall have more time in future to discuss these matters.

I am sorry if the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) feels that I took him to task. I assure him that it was only because he accused me of not being at my post in the Province as often as I should be, which is not fair or true.

I understand the feelings of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), as he is well aware, but there was a consultation period on these orders. It would have been helpful to have had his and his colleagues' views. I understand why we did not, but nevertheless that facility was there.

I have read with great care everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had said in previous debates. I have been through all the points that he has made over a lengthy period, but I cannot agree with many of them with regard to Northern Ireland and the treating of children there, which the order is designed to assist.

I assure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there is no question of areas being fluoridated against their will or against the procedure laid down in the Order. Where water is no longer available because of a breakdown or maintenance, water boards will be able to take it from a fluoridated to a non-fluoridated area. Once the work is completed, that will cease. I appreciate that I may not have dealt fully with all the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that I shall write to him.

This measure will be of immense benefit to most children in Northern Ireland and I am sure that it will be welcomed by them and their parents.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 40.

Division No. 28] [6.58 pm
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Baldry, Tony
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bottomley, Peter Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard McGrady, E. K.
Brandon-Bravo, Martin MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Bright, Graham Maclean, David
Burt, Alistair McLoughlin, Patrick
Butcher, John Major, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Cash, William Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda Martlew, Eric
Chapman, Sydney Maude, Hon Francis
Chope, Christopher Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Colvin, Michael Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Moore, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Cope, John Neale, Gerrard
Couchman, James Needham, Richard
Cran, James Neubert, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina Newton, Tony
Curry, David Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Oppenheim, Phillip
Davis, David (Boothferry) Page, Richard
Devlin, Tim Paice, James
Dorrell, Stephen Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Patten, Chris (Bath)
Dover, Den Patten, John (Oxford W)
Dunn, Bob Porter, David (Waveney)
Durant, Tony Portillo, Michael
Fallon, Michael Raffan, Keith
Favell, Tony Redwood, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Riddick, Graham
Forman, Nigel Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Roe, Mrs Marion
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus Shaw, David (Dover)
Freeman, Roger Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
French, Douglas Sims, Roger
Gale, Roger Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Soames, Hon Nicholas
Gill, Christopher Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Stanley, Rt Hon John
Greenway, John (Rydale) Stern, Michael
Gregory, Conal Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Summerson, Hugo
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Harris, David Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hayes, Jerry Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Hill, James Thurnham, Peter
Hind, Kenneth Tredinnick, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Trippier, David
Holt, Richard Twinn, Dr Ian
Howard, Michael Viggers, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Waddington, Rt Hon David
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Waldegrave, Hon William
Irvine, Michael Walden, George
Jack, Michael Waller, Gary
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Ward, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Wheeler, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Wilkinson, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Wilshire, David
Kirkhope, Timothy Wolfson, Mark
Knowles, Michael Wood, Timothy
Lang, Ian Yeo, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Young, Sir George (Acton)
Lee, John (Pendle)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Tellers for the Ayes:
Lilley, Peter Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Alton, David Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Ashby, David Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Bidwell, Sydney
Beggs, Roy Butler, Chris
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy Meale, Alan
Cryer, Bob Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Fookes, Miss Janet Parry, Robert
Forth, Eric Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Ground, Patrick Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Skinner, Dennis
Haynes, Frank Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Hinchliffe, David Steel, Rt Hon David
Hood, James Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Janman, Timothy Winterton, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles Winterton, Nicholas
Kilfedder, James Wray, James
Lawrence, Ivan
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Tellers for the Noes:
Livsey, Richard Mr. William Ross and Mr. Neil Hamilton.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Maginnis, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.