FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES

HL Deb 06 July 1954 vol 188 cc455-7

2.35 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals were made to the Councils of Norwich and Kilmarnock to induce them to add fluorides to the public water supplies; what were the extent and terms of the indemnity offered to these local authorities; what financial assistance was offered to them; under what statutory authority were such indemnity and assistance offered, and to what other local authorities have similar proposals been made.]

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the length of this reply, but the noble Lord's Question raises quite a number of separate points. The Medical Research Council, in a report to the Minister of Health in 1951, recommended that a small mission should visit the United States of America to study the fluoridation of water supplies as a means of reducing the incidence of dental caries. Following this report a Mission was appointed by my right honourable friends the Ministers of Health and Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Medical Research Council, and this Mission visited the United States of America in the spring of 1952. In their report, which was published in 1953, the Mission said that the evidence is conclusive that among children in fluoridation areas there is a reduction in the incidence of dental caries to a level comparable with that experienced where fluoride occurs naturally in the water and that there is no scientific evidence that there is any danger to health through the continued consumption of water containing fluoride in low concentration. The Mission recommended that before fluoridation was generally adopted in this country certain investigations were desirable. On December 3, 1953, the Minister of Health announced that the Government had accepted the Mission's recommendation.

The Councils of Norwich and Kilmarnock were referred to the report of the Mission and to the Government's decision thereon. They were informed that for technical reasons their areas were suitable for the studies proposed by the Mission, and they were invited to carry them out. They were also informed that the Minister and the Secretary of State would be prepared to assist them with technical advice, and that at all stages during the course of the study his officers would be glad to work in the closest co-operation with those of the Council. The Minister and the Secretary of State undertook to defray the expenses which the Councils would necessarily incur in connection with the studies. It was added that while the Minister and the Secretary of State were advised that such action on their part would be within their statutory powers, they would be prepared to indemnify the Council for the cost of any legal proceedings in which the Council might be involved should the legality of the Council's action be challenged. The Minister, in making this proposal, was acting under the power conferred on him by Section 16 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the Secretary of State was acting under the power conferred on him by Section 17 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. Similar invitations have been extended to the Councils of Anglesey, Darlington and Watford. The Councils of Anglesey, Darlington, Kilmarnock and Watford have decided to accept the invitation. The Norwich Council have decided to defer their decision. I think that answers all the points in the noble Lord's Question.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what were the technical reasons why these particular localities were selected for this experiment?

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I am afraid that I have entered the lists of this controversy so late that I am not able to answer that question without notice, but I will do my best to find out for the noble Lord.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

May I ask the noble Lord this further question? Is it, then, the intention of the Minister to conduct this compulsory experiment upon human beings and to treat them as if they were no better than guinea pigs? Is that the resolve of the Government?

LORD MANCROFT

I would not accept either of the implications in the noble Lord's highly provocative supplementary question. There is nothing at all compulsory about this. I used the word "invitation," and it is an invitation that these councils have accepted.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Will the noble Lord then explain how any individual will be able to escape being treated in this fashion when this stuff is put into the public water supplies?

LORD MANCROFT

If anybody feels as strongly about this matter as the noble Lord does—and the noble Lord is in a minority—he can move to an area which has not accepted the Minister's invitation.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, may I ask if there is any evidence at all that the dilution proposed has any injurious effect on the health of the individuals who consume the water?

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, not only is there no evidence that it has injurious effects, but the evidence is to the contrary.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

Exactly.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Will the noble Lord say what beneficial effects are obtained by anybody, let us say, who has no teeth at all?