Lords Sitting of 15 November 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by, the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

COMMERCIAL RETURNS
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave 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 steps they have so far taken to relieve industry and commerce of the administrative burden and expense involved in the making of statistical and other returns.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, as a result of decisions taken by the Government, more than a million fewer statistical forms will be sent to firms. I am expecting more savings to be made as a result of further reviews, including that being conducted under the auspices of Sir Derek Rayner.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. May I ask him to confirm what I think is implicit in it, namely, that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the very real burden, particularly on small firms, involved in the compilation of elaborate statistical returns? May I ask him, further, whether he will invite his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to cease to demand from very small farmers or market gardeners the completion of immense forms demanding, inter alia, the number of hectares under aspidistras?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I can certainly say to my noble friend that the small firm aspect of this problem is uppermost in my mind, and that it has priority. I should pay tribute to the previous Administration for starting an interdepartmental review of statistical
1382
inquiries which had already laid plans for the saving of some forms required from small firms. So far as farmers are concerned, I really cannot answer, but I shall draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that, if a sufficient amount of inaccurate statistical information is collected, the mean of it has a certain probability of being approximately right?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I have to say that there is no question that, in cutting down the quantity and sometimes the frequency of statistical forms, one is to a very small degree—and that has been our guiding light, that it is only to a very small degree—affecting the statistical accuracy of the final results as presented ; but if one uses all modern techniques and examines one's sample properly, I am convinced that we can go considerably further. I think I should put this in perspective by saying that the saving of a million forms relates to 4½million forms on the statistical side—not on the administrative side, where there are many more forms—and that, according to the thickness of the paper, if we piled them on top of each other I believe they would be considerably higher than Big Ben.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that the postponement of the verification of statistics is a good way to camouflage the consequent worsening of the situation under the present Government?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that is not part of the Government's intention, nor their achievement. The worsening of the situation has, at this stage still, far more to do with the incredible position we inherited than with anything we have done.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend include small shopkeepers among those particularly deserving of attention, as many are so sorely overloaded by form-filling that in villages all round our country they are even closing down, to the great disadvantage of village life? Secondly, will he

1383
remember that it is not just a matter of statistics but of administration forms as well, and that pressure needs to be kept up? It is no good doing it for once and then slackening off, because forms grow even faster than aspidistras.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning retail shops. Of the total number of forms I have mentioned, 150,000 forms have been saved by abandoning plans to hold a retail shops inquiry in 1981. So far as administrative forms are concerned, this is a more difficult problem and must follow a policy as to what the Government administer and what they do not. In this respect, and not included in my total, we have of course already made a small contribution. The Price Commission no longer sends forms; a few came from exchange control; and, while we have been criticised for it, our more effective but narrower regional policy will also involve fewer forms.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that a statistical investigation into the utility of statistics could be a cure that was worse than the disease?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think Sir Derek Rayner's sponsored inquiries have already shown their worth.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that, having cut down the form filling requirements, better use will be made of the forms that we do fill in? I filled in my livestock form and, being completely fed up with it, I put down: "one elephant and two giraffes" and nobody took any notice!
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords.

TEXTILE IMPORTS FROMNEW EEC MEMBERS
3.15 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government with regard to the integration of the textile and clothing industries of Greece, Spain and Portugal into the Community market, what specific transitional arrangements (i.e. residual quotas and other safeguard mechanisms) are envisaged in order to avoid serious disruption to these industries in the existing Member States.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, under their present trading agreements with the EEC, Greece, Spain and Portugal—that is, all the aspiring members—are entitled to unrestricted access to the Community's markets for textile products. However, at present, all three countries are restraining their exports to the Community within agreed limits on a voluntary basis. The Treaty of Accession which has already been signed with Greece includes a reciprocal safeguard clause which would allow the Commission to authorise action against disruptive imports during the transitional period. That transitional period for Greece is five years. We feel that the safeguard clause is in itself not a wholly satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, and we shall be seeking alternatives in the negotiations with Portugal and Spain.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I ask whether he will also bear in mind that for years the Greek Government have aided their textile export industry by tax concessions and other subsidies? Could we have some assurance that, not only now but when they are fully in the EEC, these practices, which are against the regulations of the MFA and indeed GATT, will cease and will not continue producing such unfair competition?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, we certainly intend, as my right honourable friends said in the other place yesterday in the debate on the textile industry, to investigate all allegations of unfair trading, and to help in any way we can to ensure that competition for this industry is on a fair basis.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the Minister say, with regard to his first Answer to the noble Baroness—in which he referred to the specific countries—

1385
whether in view of the critical position of the textile industries, Her Majesty's Government control in any way imports from low-cost countries into those countries, whence of course they in turn can come into this country under the arrangements he described?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, in the case of the countries of which we are speaking, they are generally regarded as being low-cost countries. I am not aware of them being used as, so to speak, intermediate points, as has been alleged in the case of Mauritius. We are looking into that. I am not aware of anything on those lines. To put the matter in perspective here—and I appreciate that from the textile industry's point of view it is the accumulation of small increases in imports that worries them—the 1978 figures for imports from Greece and Portugal were each 1 per cent. of the total imports into the United Kingdom. In the case of Spain, the figure was 5 per cent.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree that, for strategic purposes, it is absolutely essential to maintain both a cotton and a woollen textile industry of a reasonable size in this country?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, we are confident that on a fair competitive basis both of those sections of the industry, which are large and very important, will continue to have a major part to play. It is not for Government to ensure at any cost or by unilateral protection that the exact size or shape of any section of industry should be maintained.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is it not also essential that we should maintain this industry, which already has been allowed to dwindle from one of our very largest and most important and which has a high standard of employment and a record of freedom from industrial disputes, of acceptance of sacrifice throughout the century and of co-operation with the Government of the day? The industry is now seriously menaced. If I may incorporate a second point as regards what the noble Viscount said so well—and we appreciated what he said—if he is conducting an investigation into what is happening in the EEC
1386
in relation to textiles, will the Government see what checks can be applied? We all generally welcome the accession of Greece, but that means the opening of another frontier singularly close to many of those countries which are already sending a large amount of textiles, and which may open the necessity for a reexamination of the monitoring which is to follow the accession to the Treaty.
Viscount TRENCHARD: I should like to thank the noble Lord for those very interesting points. We agree entirely with much of what he said about the efficiency and adaptability that have been shown by the textile industry in recent years, but this is an age of change and that has to go on. I do not think it is the moment to go into the wider questions he raises. If I may return to the limited question with one final remark, which I hope your Lordships will not regard as flippant, I tried to look into the degree to which the voluntary agreements in relation to the three countries which are the subject of the Question today have been effective. I can really find only two instances of any major difficulty. The latest one, over which we are still negotiating, is in relation to imports of Spanish under-pants, which are well above their agreed voluntary level. Her Majesty's Government are looking at every possible way of lowering the level of imports of Spanish pants.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may we ask the noble Viscount whether they were male or female under-pants?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I asked that question and my office does not know. I think, in Civil Service terms, "pants" can also be "panties".

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION AND SMALL BUSINESSES
3.22 p.m.
Baroness DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to amend the

1387
employment protection legislation so as to give small business more flexibility in employing staff.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government are currently engaged in consultation on their proposals to amend the employment protection legislation, some of which have been framed with the specific purpose of giving small businesses more flexibility in employing staff. Copies of the working paper for consultation, published on 25th September, have been deposited in the Library.
Baroness DUDLEY: My Lords, is it true to say that if every small business employed one extra person it would cut unemployment by half?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, without wishing to initiate further statistical surveys, I understand that is roughly the position.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask whether he will be able to help to make the situation easier for invalids and older people who have to do shopping but can now no longer shop in the villages because the shops are closed? We used to have seven shops; we now have one. This is closely tied in with the transport problem. Will the noble Earl please give his mind to some flexibility both to help the individual shopkeeper and also as regards transport to other, nearer shopping centres?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I altogether agree with my noble friend that the proliferation of small businesses is useful not only in employment terms but also as regards services to the public, particularly in rural areas.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment we suffer from two employment protection Acts: that of 1975 and the consolidation Act of 1978, which did not appear to consolidate very much? Does the Minister not agree that it would be far better if a further consolidation Act were introduced, which was very much slimmer
1388
than either of the two present Acts, which would be of very great advantage to small businesses?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware, of course, that the Government are fully committed to the concept of employment protection. It was, after all, a Conservative Government which first brought into law the concepts of, for instance, remedies for unfair dismissal. But I agree that things very rapidly got out of hand, and that is why we are seeking to amend the legislation.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, despite his lip-service to the furtherance of small businesses, in view of the Government's fiscal policies there will be very few small businesses left in the very near future?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that inflation falls harder on the smaller rather than on the larger business.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in that case, of course, the noble Earl is agreeing with what I say, because the present Government are pushing inflation well above the 20 per cent. mark, and——
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord WIGG: ——it may well go even higher.

INTERFERENCE WITH RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
3.25 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, while expressing my apologies to the noble Baroness for too early an intrusion, I ask leave to put the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to prohibit interference with sporting and recreational activities and to impose or strengthen penalties for such interference.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, interference with sporting activities may infringe a number of provisions of the criminal law. My right honourable friend knows of no present need to strengthen the law in this area. The prevention of disorder at individual events is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned.
Lord BARN BY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that informative reply, may I ask him whether he understands that my Question should have referred only to recreational and not sporting activities? It is difficult to divide the two. I refer particularly to games such as football or golf, and so on. Is it not possible by some means to achieve—not by further legislation because that is not what I seek, but by administration—some cessation of interference in games such as I have described, by such bestial and uncivilised means of incitement as to put glass on football pitches and to tear up golf greens? There are millions who want to see lawful games played under authoritative rules, and it is that test of international strength which millions of the community want to see and which seemingly could be helped by more rigid action such as I have asked the noble Lord to give an assurance about.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern that when people put their views forward by taking action which goes beyond the limits which have been set by the law, that is something which should cause us all concern. My noble friend asks me whether this cannot be prevented, not by further legislation but by administrative means. May I give him two answers? I think, first, one needs to do as my noble friend did in his Question, namely, to look at the penalties; and I ought just to point out that the penalties for the kind of offences I think my noble friend may have in mind are not inconsiderable. To give one example only, conduct conducive to a breach of the peace carries with it now a maximum fine of £1,000 or six months' imprisonment or both.
Secondly, may I say to my noble friend that when he refers to administrative means to combat the sorts of practices
1390
he deplores, he may be interested to hear that the Government intend to increase the number of attendance centres, which are places where young people causing trouble may be given a more sensible occupation, particularly on Saturday afternoons, to keep them out of trouble. There are 85 such centres in England and Wales at the moment and the Government are taking steps to increase that number.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that modern society is suffering from an overdose of politics and that the invasion of politics into the realm of sport is becoming quite intolerable? Would not a Home Office note to the magistrates, that a few swingeing sentences here would be welcome, be extremely beneficial?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I agree with a very great deal of what the noble Lord has said, but not, if I may say so, with his final remarks. I think there are many noble Lords here who would jump on me very quickly, if I did not make the point that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the enforcement of the law.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many people in the country, among whom I include myself——
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the Minister has said that there are now 85 attendance centres. Is he referring to junior or to senior attendance centres?
Lord BELSTEAD: A mixture.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Lord know the number of senior attendance centres?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think the numbers are 83 in England, of which two are for girls and two for young adults, and there are two attendance centres in Wales.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many people in this country, including myself, who feel that the existing powers under the Race Relations Act are not being enforced at the top, to pick off the people

1391
who are egging on the crowds from the back? Is he aware that some of us feel that it is no good picking up the silly people in front, who throw the stones? What about the people who agitate at the back? Is there not sufficient power under the Race Relations Act to enable the Home Secretary to stop this trouble at source?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, so far as the enforcement of the law is concerned, as I was venturing to say to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, this is a matter for the police in consultation, as appropriate, with the Law Officers. So far as the effect of the Race Relations Act is concerned, this also falls to them to enforce.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, if I am not completely out of order by referring to an earlier Question, do the statistics not show that Question Time has been going on for 24 minutes?
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware——
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it is, of course, for the House to decide, but I think that Question Time has been going on rather a long time.

MONETARY POLICY
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Cockficld will repeat a Statement on monetary policy, which is being made in another place, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an amendment (privilege) made, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
3.33 p.m.
Lord MATS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1392
I hope that it will not be a contentious Bill, but there are one or two points which may cause your Lordships concern and I hope that I can, as briefly as possible, dispel those fears. As some of your Lordships know, Epping Forest, which is covered in Part II of the Bill, covers about 6,000 acres of the North-East of London. It is maintained by the Corporation of London as Conservators of the Forest, without expense to the public, under the powers contained in the Epping Forest Act 1878. That Act lays upon the Conservators two duties which are particularly pertinent in the present circumstances: first, to preserve as far as possible the natural aspects of the forest; and, secondly, not to sell, demise or otherwise alienate any part of the forest.
The Conservators take, and always have taken, these obligations very seriously. Nevertheless, they are only too well aware that they cannot completely ignore the fact that we are in the twentieth century so, when it is possible to do so without undue damage to the environment, they have endeavoured to meet the requirements of public bodies and others, primarily by means of a system of wayleaves. From time to time, however, very careful consideration has to be given to applications in connection with road improvements—and by that I mean mostly major road improvements—because of their effect upon the natural aspect of the forest, and also because of the 1878 Act, which contains specific powers to allow the Conservators to permit the dedication of forest land for such purposes.
Over the years, there have been a number of occasions when land has been dedicated in this way, although the areas involved have usually been small. Very approximately, since the Act was passed in 1878, the Conservators have in fact made available about 100 acres, and in return, because they are required to seek land in replacement, they have acquired back 175 acres, so that the forest has grown, not shrunk. However, where more substantial road improvements are in view, the Conservators advise the relative highway authority that the land cannot be made available without first seeking the sanction of Parliament to an appropriate variation in the 1878 Act.
On only one prior occasion has such an application been made, and that was in

1393
1967, when the Minister of Transport put forward proposals for re-routing the North Circular Road at Walthamstow. The Conservators asked that the road should be built in a tunnel where it passed under the forest and they were told that that was not practical. They then decided that their powers of dedication were inadequate, and the matter was referred to Parliament. After this had been considered and a public inquiry held, it was agreed that the matter should proceed, anyway, to planning stage.
The Conservators have at all times been concerned about the orbital road, the M25, since its inception and, quite naturally, our first reaction was that we did not want the road to go through the forest or anywhere near it. But, eventually, we came to appreciate that there was no alternative route. By 1970, the Department of the Environment had, in fact, produced five alternative routes through the forest for that road. The Conservators would have preferred a route that went further to the North, but that was not possible. So, eventually, they decided that the most northern route was the one that would cause least damage to the forest. That was the route that passed through Bell Common. But the condition was that the whole length of that road where it passed through the forest should be in a tunnel. That was eventually agreed to and that is the position today. Part II of the Bill reflects these proposals.
In addition, the Conservators maintain their stand with regard to the road being in a tunnel, and they have given an assurance that the cricket ground at Bell Common will be restored, and also that suitable land will be provided in return for the land which is taken, so that the forest will not suffer. Apart from Bell Common, the motorway and the associated roads encroach upon the common of the forest in three places, but it is roadside verge land which is involved. They are little patches of land, not connected with the main body of the forest, and their absorption into the motorway will not in any way diminish the potentiality of the forest; and, once again, the Conservators will receive back land in place of that which is taken.
The Conservators' first interest is and always has been to preserve the forest in its perfect state, but they have decided
1394
that the arrangements which have been now put forward are the very best that can be devised. For that reason, they lend their support to the Government through the promotion of this Bill.
So much for Epping Forest. May I for a moment dwell on Billingsgate Market. This is referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement. Your Lordships can imagine that the Corporation is somewhat sad at the thought of the City losing this ancient market. However, one cannot build a new market and at the same time keep the present one operating. Therefore we accept that it must be moved from the City both in the interests of traffic and in the interests of producing a modern market. We are glad that the market is to be moved to the adjoining borough of Tower Hamlets, where access will be better for the users of the market. We hope that it will provide employment in an area which requires additional employment facilities. From the point of view of the City, it will also render the through route at the end of the underpass very much better for through traffic.
I believe that certain of your Lordships could be disturbed about the clause relating to the Museum of London. In that clause we are seeking permission to charge for special and exceptional exhibitions. It is not the City's intention to impose for the time being any charge for ordinary admission. However, without being able to charge for special and exceptional exhibitions, the limited funds at the disposal of the museum are such that unless we can do this there just will be no special exhibitions. I hope your Lordships will agree that that would be unfortunate and not in the interests of the public.
Lastly, may I deal with Tower Bridge. This is a straightforward matter. The proposals have the full support of the London Tourist Board. The object is to make available to the public the upper two storeys of the two towers and the high-level walkways between the towers. They will be able to see the old hydraulic engines which used to operate the bascules and they will have an excellent view from those high level walkways. In no way does this obstruct the footpaths of the bridge itself, or the roadway of the bridge. When the bridge is open, it does not affect the upper storeys but it does affect the

1395
bridge. Apart from that, these proposals will in no way cause any obstruction to the normal operation of Tower Bridge.
There is another clause relating to Spitalfields. For years now, Spitalfields Market has been operated on a weekly tenancy and I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is most inconvenient. It gives the market traders no security whatsoever. Under this heading, the Bill is seeking to give to the Corporation authority to let or license the occupation of a stall or a stand for periods up to 21 years.
Lastly, Clause 21 relates to the increase of fines for offences under Section 35 of the City of London Police Act, which deals with certain offences in thoroughfares, including furious driving, obstruction and the discharge of firearms. Having sat for 20 years on the Bench in the City I have never yet had to deal with a case of discharge of firearms or furious driving. I have dealt with traffic charges under different headings, but personally I do not think we could disagree that to ask for an increase from a £20 to a £50 fine for discharging firearms or driving furiously is exactly overcharging by present-day standards. It is, in fact, a modest adjustment.
That is all I can say to, I hope, explain and possibly clarify this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Mais.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I rise to deal with Part II of the Bill relating to Epping Forest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mais, for the detailed explanation he has given of the position, therefore enabling me to cut down my remarks.
My interest is that I am one of those very fortunate persons who for practically all his life has been able to enjoy the amenities of Epping Forest. For over 30 years I lived in East London—in Leyton, in which some of the detached parts of the forest are to be seen. If one looks at those detached parts, one see what happens when roadways are constructed all round parts of the forest.
1396
I now live in Buckhurst Hill which is in the Epping Forest local authority area. That is the area in which most of the main parts of the forest are situated. Only this morning I passed what is known as Lopping Hall in Loughton, which was erected some 100 years ago as a public hall with funds which arose from the defence of certain interests in the forest.
I mention these personal matters because it is not just the interests of the people who reside on the fringe of the forest which are concerned. Epping Forest has been a valuable lung for thousands of people who live in East London. It has been a source of pleasure and recreation for all those people. The noble Lord, Lord Mais, referred to the Act of 1878 which established Epping Forest and gave powers to the Conservators. It arose because of public concern over the considerable encroachments which were being made on the forest. Those who know Epping Forest will appreciate that it is a forest of very distinctive charm.
I should like to pay my tribute to the Corporation of London and to the Conservators for the way in which they have cared for the forest. There is no criticism from me about their actions. It is because of their work that so much of the forest has been left in its natural state. Only last year there were widespread celebrations on the centenary of the establishment of the forest. A century ago the struggle was against illegal encroachment. Now the struggle appears to be against public bodies which seek to take parts of the forest for roads and other developments.
The Bill explains that the scheme is for some nine acres to be required permanently for the construction of a six-lane motorway and for 5½acres to be taken over temporarily in connection with road works. I readily appreciate that others will be vitally concerned with the construction of this motorway, believing that it will relieve their own areas of heavy traffic, particularly of juggernauts. It may be irrelevant to the Bill, but I must comment that surely a more sensible, integrated system of transport would mean that we could save a considerable sum of money on road works without having these massive vehicles conveying certain of our goods. While developments must take

1397
place—I recognise that developments may impinge upon the environment—we must ensure that nothing is done to damage one of our great heritages. Epping Forest is one such heritage.
Sir William Addison, who for over 20 years was closely concerned with the care and maintenance of the forest, has written in his book Portrait of Epping Forest:
"The threat to the forest in the 1970s comes not from a small number of privileged persons for the purposes of profit but from planning authorities in the name of progress".
Sir William Addison has been a verderer in charge of the care of the forest for well over 20 years. He also wrote:
"The threat of roads must remain the major anxiety of the Conservators for many years to come".
It is for that reason that I believe your Lordships should not allow a Bill of this kind to pass without the closest scrutiny. It may be said that only 14 acres are involved and that this is merely a nibble. Well, it seems that we have one nibble after another, and this seems to be a big bite.
I understand that there will be petitions against the Bill and I am sure your Lordships will agree that there are tens of thousands of people who take these things for granted. People in the vicinity and in East London take their forest for granted. Most people will not even be aware that a roadwork of this kind is contemplated until the upheaval starts.
I should like to make a few observations to your Lordships which I should be obliged if the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate will deal with. First, is it possible, even at this stage, to adjust the proposed route of this six-lane motorway affecting the forest so that encroachment may be avoided? If not, I hope it will be accepted that such encroachment will be avoided in future. Then, will the Minister confirm that this will be the last such road development to make a claim on the forest? That seems to be the view expressed in another place by the Committee which considered this matter, and I should appreciate the Minister's view upon that.
I have emphasised that the Conservators do a splendid job in caring for the forest and the rights of the public; but should the Minister be unable to give
1398
this undertaking for the future, it would be regrettable but I would hope that the Conservators, as good a job as they have done up to now, will have to decide that in future they will resist any such major road development of this kind.
I come to my last few points. First, what is the precise nature of the land which is to be handed over to the Conservators to replace the land which is to be given up permanently? If it is open land, will it be possible to develop that land as an integral part of the existing forest'? Will any woodlands which have been there for centuries be destroyed in the land to be taken over temporarily, and, if so, what steps can be taken to rectify that position?
In another place it was stated that it was very heavy lorry traffic that it was hoped would be diverted to the M25. What are the views of scientists and naturalists on the possible effects of noise and diesel fumes on the splendid wildlife which exists in the forest? In conclusion, my Lords, I appeal to your Lordships that in considering this matter, now and in Committee, the excellent objectives and the whole spirit of the 1878 Act are preserved and that this matter does not in any way mar the great characteristics of this fine forest.
3.53 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the Government's position on Part II of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Mais, said in introducing the Bill, this part is being promoted by the City of London to enable the Department of Transport to acquire land in Epping Forest needed to build part of the M25, the London orbital route.
This route has the highest priority in the Government's road building programme. It will serve three main functions. First, it will provide a convenient and safe way round Greater London for through traffic, particularly traffic from the Midlands and North going to the ports on the East Coast, on the English Channel and at Tilbury. It will also link Heathrow and Gatwick and provide a route from those airports to the M4, M40, and M1. Secondly, it will act as a general distributor, linking the radial routes that carry traffic into and out of London. Drivers

1399
will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient access road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes. No doubt many of your Lordships who use the present orbital roads will appreciate this point. Thirdly, it will also bring substantial local relief to many congested roads in the towns and villages on the outskirts of London.
At present, 32 miles of the road are open to traffic. Indeed a 9-mile section between Godstone and Sevenoaks was opened by the Minister of Transport yesterday. A further 15 miles are under construction. On the remaining 72 miles the route has been fixed for just over half and the department are completing the remaining statutory procedures for the acquisition of land and the final design work. The section which passes through the northern tip of Epping Forest comes in this category. Planning is well advanced on the remaining 34 miles for which the route has not yet been fixed, and in fact a public inquiry is being held at the moment into the route of a 13-mile stretch between London Airport and Rickmansworth. Assuming that we can complete these remaining procedures satisfactorily, I expect that the whole road will be finished by the end of 1985.
The North-East quadrant of the road, which includes the section through the forest, will play a significant role in taking traffic from the M1 and the A1 to Tilbury and Channel ports. It should also benefit more local traffic moving round this North-Eastern sector of London. Without this section, increasing volumes of heavy traffic would continue to use routes through London and its suburbs, or, alternatively, through rural Essex and Hertfordshire, on totally unsuitable roads causing increasing delays for both through and local traffic. My Lords, that would be undesirable both for those who live in the area and those travelling through it. A transfer of traffic to a purpose-built road will lead to substantial environmental benefits for the London suburbs and the towns and villages of Essex and Hertfordshire.
The proposed route for the section between the A10 at Bulls Cross and the A 11 near Brentwood was published in 1973. Over 1,500 objections were received and a public inquiry was held in Epping
1400
between December 1974 and July 1975. The inquiry sat for 89 days. At the time, it was the longest inquiry ever held. All the objectors had a fair chance to put their views forward.
The inspector reported in May 1976. He took into account the department's forecast of the number of vehicles likely to use the road, the environmental effects and the effects on agriculture, green-belt land and the forest. He declared himself satisfied that the road was needed and that the environmental damage it would cause would be more than offset by the environmental benefits enjoyed by the wider community. The report is over 900 pages long. Although the size of the report and the length of the inquiry are not themselves conclusive evidence that nothing has been overlooked, I hope that your Lordships will accept that all the relevant factors were very carefully and thoroughly considered by the inspector. He recommended that the line orders should be made, as drafted, subject to some minor alterations.
The then Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment considered the inspector's report, and their decision was announced in a letter dated 28th September 1977. The line orders were made on 1st March 1978. Since then the Department of Transport has been going ahead with the remaining statutory procedures, of which this Bill forms part. Public inquiries were held into draft compulsory purchase orders for other parts of the A10 to M11 section while this Bill was being considered in another place. Perhaps I should add that anyone who is compelled to give up land will of course receive compensation based on the market value of their property.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised various points, such as whether, even at this late stage, it would be possible to adjust the route of the M25 to avoid the forest. I should explain that the route for this section has been under study since 1970, and I think it would be fair to claim that almost all possibilities have been raised at some time or other. The noble Lord also asked whether this development would be the last, and, if not, whether the Conservators would object to further development. I cannot speak for the Conservators, but, so far as the department is concerned, we have no

1401
plans for any other schemes in this part of the forest. I know that the Upshire Village Preservation Society have been concerned about the A121, Honey Lane, which will be linked to the motorway by an interchange, fearing that it will need to be widened. Honey Lane is not a trunk road, so Essex County Council are the highway authority. I understand they have said that they have no plans to widen it. We certainly have not.
The department are, however, studying some road schemes further South designed to relieve congestion in the Hackney and Barking areas. Some forest land may be affected, but none of these roads is on the same scale as the M25, and the land involved consists of long narrow strips alongside existing roads. We are consulting the local authorities concerned and the Conservators of Epping Forest. No decisions have been taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is also concerned about the A121, Honey Lane interchange. We accept that Honey Lane may suffer some increase in traffic but other forest roads will benefit. On balance the Honey Lane interchange will result in a reduction in the amount of traffic using forest roads and will bring a great deal of relief to Waltham Abbey. The interchange is better left in than out.
The route in the area of the forest is a compromise. A route further to the South would have been more direct, but although it would have been cheaper and more convenient for motorists, it would have passed through a broad part of the forest. A route further to the North than the current scheme designed to avoid the forest altogether would have been significantly longer and so would have taken more land, property and houses, would have cost more, and would have been less convenient for motorists.
The compromise route is designed to have the minimum impact on the forest. It touches forest land at four points, but with the exception of Bell Common these are all roadside verges. At the two principal points where these verges are crossed the motorway will be carried on bridges so that riders and walkers will be able to follow virtually their present paths. At Bell Common the road passes through about 500 yards of the forest. The department had originally proposed that
1402
the road should be constructed in a cut-and-cover tunnel for about half that length in order to preserve the continuity of the forest land. The inspector, however, supported the proposal put forward by the Conservators that the whole length should be in a tunnel. The Secretaries of State accepted that recommendation. The cost of the tunnel will be about £13 million. After construction the land on top of the tunnel will be returned to its current use, which is as a cricket ground. Clause 7 will lay on the department responsibility to provide the cricket club with equivalent facilities to those they now enjoy. In the meantime, while the road is being constructed, the cricket club will be using another ground and the department will be reimbursing them for the rental.
The department will, my Lords, be taking all measures it can to minimise the effect of the road on the forest and its wildlife. In addition to the tunnel at Bell Common, one of the accommodation bridges will be wider than normal in order to allow deer to travel between the forest and the Essex countryside. A culvert under the road will be provided for the same purpose. There will be chain-link fencing along the side of the road in order to prevent deer trying to cross it directly. Trees and shrubs will be planted alongside the road; this could involve planting up to a quarter of a million saplings. The department has been discussing with the Nature Conservancy Council what species should be used, and wherever practicable will follow their advice. In particular, and with the agreement of the Conservators, the department will use saplings taken from the Forest, but it may not be possible to obtain the quantity which will be needed from this source.
The amount of land involved in Part II of the Bill is 14½ acres out of the 6,000 acres which form the forest. The department will be buying and giving to the Conservators 14½ acres of land adjacent to the forest in exchange. Landowners have been approached, but no agreements have yet been reached, so I cannot give any details for fear of prejudicing future negotiations. The Conservators know what we are proposing and I understand that they are content. Five and a half acres of the land to be taken for the road is in fact required only temporarily,

1403
and will be returned to the Conservators when it has been built. Of the remaining nine acres which will be held permanently six acres will be open to the public, including the area over the cut-and-cover tunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked how long it would be before the land acquired only temporarily was restored to its present state. I understand that the contractors will need the land for about two and a half years. When they have finished the department will landscape it, plant grass, shrubs and saplings, and return it to the Conservators. It should be back to normal in about five years' time.
My Lords, I hope the House will accept that the department has made every effort to find a route which does the least damage to the forest and has taken every reasonable step to minimise the effect of the route on it and its wildlife. This section of the M25 is urgently needed. If it were not built the damaging effect on the forest of the traffic seeking its way between the completed parts of the orbital road would be far worse than the impact of the road which is proposed. I regret that it is necessary to take land from the forest, but failure to complete the road would leave unsolved acute problems of congestion, noise, pollution and danger. My Lords, I would, therefore, ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House—and I regret any inconvenience to noble Lords who are interested in this particular Bill—if we now have the Statement which is being made in another place.

MONETARY POLICY
4.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
1404
"With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on monetary policy.
"The figures for October, just published, show that £M3 grew by 2 per cent. in that banking month. The growth since mid-June, the beginning of the target period, has been equivalent to just over 14 per cent. a year. Although the figure for banking October was erratically high, it is clear that the underlying growth of £M3 is still significantly above the target of 7 to 11 per cent.
"There have been two principal causes of this excess: a higher than expected public sector borrowing requirement in the first half of the year and the persistently high level of bank lending.
"Because of the timing of the Budget measures—in particular receipts from VAT and reductions in public spending—the PSBR was always expected to be higher in the first half of the year than in the second. In the event, the PSBR in the first half-year has been further increased by strikes and other industrial action, which have delayed the collection of VAT and telephone bills. At the peak arrears on telephone bills are expected to reach £1 billion.
"A large part of these arrears will be made good in the second half-year. Even so, the best estimate which could now be made of the PSBR for the year as a whole if no action is taken is that it would be about £9 billion, compared with the £8·3 billion Budget estimate.
"The monthly growth of bank lending has averaged about £700 million over the last quarter. Although the timing is difficult to predict, its growth can be expected to fall in due course.
"Nevertheless it is necessary to take action now to bring the growth of the money supply within the target range. The Bank of England accordingly announced this morning with my approval that Minimum Lending Rate would be increased to 17 per cent. This goes beyond the rise in market interest rates at home and demonstrates the Government's determination to act with the firmness foreshadowed

1405
by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier this week.
"The House will realise that interest rates overseas have risen sharply as other countries have moved to fight inflation by limiting monetary growth. In the United States, for example, prime rates have risen from 11½ to 15½ per cent. since the summer.
"In addition to sales of gilts, we intend to secure further funding of the PSBR through National Savings. The limit on holdings of the index-linked National Savings Certificates Retirement Issue will be increased next month from £700 to £1,200. A new ordinary National Savings Certificate will be introduced early next year. The interest rate on the National Savings Bank investment account will be raised to 15 per cent. from 1st January next.
"Although much of the increase in the estimate of this year's PSBR is due to the timing of receipts, further action is required to bring the PSBR down. In the light of this we shall require oil companies to make a payment on account of petroleum revenue tax at the time when they make their returns. This will have the effect from now on of advancing the due date for collection by two months, thus bringing the arrangements for PRT into line with those for collecting royalties. This will ensure that PRT reaches the Exchequer with the minimum of delay at a time when oil prices are rising.
"The Bill to achieve this will be introduced shortly. It will reduce this year's PSBR by £700 million and thus bring the estimated level back to the original Budget figure of £8·3 billion. It will also yield an extra £300 million next year, in addition to £400 million or so from the deferred payment of telephone bills.
"I set in hand some months ago a review of methods of controlling the growth of the money supply. The main instruments must continue to be our public expenditure and tax policies, which together determine both the size and the composition of the PSBR, and interest rate policies. Recently the Supplementary Special Deposits scheme, or corset, has also played a part in monetary control. I am well aware of
1406
the limitations of this scheme and do not believe that it has a permanent role to play. Nevertheless, the Governor and I have agreed that it is right that it should continue for a further six months. The Bank announced the arrangements this morning.
"In the future, other techniques, including one of the variants of monetary base control, could play a useful role, without the disadvantages of the SSD scheme. The Bank and Treasury will therefore shortly issue a discussion paper for consultation. I must, however, stress that no such scheme can avoid the need for the right fiscal and interest rate policies. Indeed, one of the possible advantages would be to improve the response of interest rates to monetary conditions.
"Finally, I am extending the period covered by the present target range for £M3 of 7 to 11 per cent. per annum. That target at present applies to the 10 months from mid-June 1979 to mid-April 1980. It will now cover the 16 months from mid-June to mid-October 1980. The effect will be to avoid building into the target for the new period the excess growth of the money supply in the recent past, while allowing a reasonable period in which to offset that excess.
Mr. Speaker, Britain's future depends above all on mastering inflation. This can only be done if we bring the money supply under firm control, progressively reduce the rate of monetary growth over the years, and pursue the most rigorous restraint on public spending. The supposed alternatives to these policies are a delusion. None of them would be responsible and none of them would be sustainable. The action I have taken today underlines the Government's total and continuing commitment to getting inflation down."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is not only the weather that is very bleak today. We have now heard that the minimum lending rate is going up to 17 per cent., which is the highest in the history of the United Kingdom. The Government's rigid stance on monetary policy which has

1407
reached an unenviable peak today, is a major disincentive to investment, resulting in an enormous setback to economic recovery. Higher interest rates will damage our overseas trade, and the ending of exchange controls—which the Government have recently done—means that it will be far more difficult to control the flow of credits. Many small businesses will be unable to afford future credit and I envisage countless bankruptcies and hardship.
At the election the Tory Manifesto said:
"The creation of new jobs depends to a great extent on the success of small businesses".
I ask the Minister, what comfort do the Government have to offer small businesses now? The Chief Secretary estimated the average unemployment for the year at 1.65 million, excluding school-leavers. Will the Minister calculate what unemployment is likely to be now? Two million or upwards? With high interest rates, a fall in exchange rates and no pay policy, does the Minister disagree that inflation could reach 20 per cent. or more next year? With mortgage rates now certain to go above the 12½ per cent. threatened for January—which again will be the highest in history—will the Minister agree that the prospects are horribly bleak for home owners and house builders?
The false election prospectus is now even more clearly revealed. The promise of lower taxation was kept—but at what a social and economic price! It has been completely subsumed by the 15 per cent. VAT and by all the economic events that have taken place since.
In spite of cuts in public expenditure, which will diminish services and increase the cost of living, the staggering increase in interest rates must result in a higher PSBR. I should like to know when the Treasury forecast on PSBR is likely to be announced. I have the feeling that the Government are slightly reluctant about that. Finally, after six months of Conservatism we now see monetarism following a monstrous path and the failure of the Government's monetary policy.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, but I must tell him from these Benches that we find the Statement itself, and the
1408
increased rates of interest which arise from it, absolutely horrifying. This particular announcement throws very serious doubt on the Government's competence to direct our affairs, when policy is changed so suddenly and so drastically overnight. That is not what the electors voted for. The Prime Minister claimed before the election that a Conservative Government could control monetary supply without increasing MLR, even after income tax cuts. What has happened to that Conservative belief?
I should like to ask for how long interest rates as high as the ones which are implied in this Statement, can be or are to be maintained? If they continue for any length of time it will become impossible to finance expansion and exports. They must lead to higher prices, which will lead to higher wage demands, which will hit particularly small businesses and small firms. It will certainly fuel inflation, and in my view it will not in any way counter the inflation which we all seek to control. This sort of panic panacea is in our view no substitute for a properly thought out incomes policy. I ask the Government, how long do we have to wait for that and for common sense to prevail?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, needless to say, while I have listened with great interest to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I do not agree with anything that she has said. The biggest danger facing this country is inflation and all our other problems flow from that. The Government remain determined that inflation shall be beaten. There is no question of any change in our policy. In fact, the Statement indicates that the Government are resolutely pursuing their policy and will continue to pursue it towards a successful conclusion.
The present problems arise from two causes. One is an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement over the original estimated level. May I remind the noble Baroness of what happened last year. The public sector borrowing requirement was estimated by the then Government at £8.5 billion; it turned out to be £9.25 billion. They did nothing to correct the situation and the results of that failure to take action are to be seen in the inflation which we face today.

1409
When facing a situation of a rising public sector borrowing requirement, the present Government have taken the action required immediately and at once. It is only in that way that we have any hope of rebuilding our economy. The comment was made that this will have a serious effect on investment and that many businesses will be unable to afford the cost of credit. So far as both those comments are concerned the position is perfectly clear: inflation would have a much worse effect on the level of investment and it would have a much worse effect on the level of output for small, as well as large, businesses. Although nobody likes to see interest rates at the present level, nevertheless to allow inflation to go on would be the choice of the worse evil.
This is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested, a failure of monetary policy. On the contrary, it demonstrates that monetary policy must be adhered to and that the only prospect of reducing inflation is to pursue a firm monetary policy backed by a correct fiscal policy, and particularly a correct policy in relation to public expenditure, which is what we are doing.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was obviously intending to lead to the suggestion that an incomes policy should be imposed. We do, of course, realise that this is a cardinal plank in the Liberal Party's economic platform. In this country we have tried an incomes policy on repeated occasions since the end of the war and every one of them has ended in failure. In fact, the period of readjustment after the end of an incomes policy has always been one of great difficulty and accelerating inflation. If anyone doubts that, let them remember for a moment the facts of last winter, when the final phase of the then Government's incomes policy broke down, ushering in a period of unparallelled industrial disruption and ushering in also a period of rising inflation. In fact, contrary to what the noble Lord said, an increase in the rate of interest is not inflationary. It is deflationary.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, it puts prices up.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is deflationary; it restricts credit and in this
1410
way it will ultimately bring down prices. It is the greatest protection against excessive wage increases and unless one has a strict monetary policy, which needs to be backed by an appropriate interest-rate policy, the effect will be to allow excessive wage increases to be matched by excessive rises in the money supply, this resulting in accelerated inflation.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, once again I want to ask the Minister a question. He did not answer any of my previous questions. As he has made a major point of inflation, will he please answer this specific question: Does he disagree that inflation could reach 20 per cent. or more next year I should like to have an answer that is on the record.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am not prepared to join the noble Baroness in the forecast that she is making. She must be responsible for her own forecasts.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, what is the noble Lord's forecast?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the forecasts under the Industry Act will be published shortly.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I have no doubt about the Government's honesty in wishing to fight inflation. However, I am equally convinced about their total inability to do so due to a complete failure to understand both the causes of inflation and the means necessary to control it. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, this 3 per cent. addition to the rate of interest is equivalent—as stocks are turned over twice a year—to a 1.5 per cent. increase in the prime costs of industry. Therefore, it is the same as a 3 per cent. increase in VAT. In what way does the Minister think that an increase in costs will reduce inflation, if there is nothing to prevent it from being passed on in higher wages?
I want to ask the Minister why the purely cosmetic changes in the borrowing requirement, on the one hand, due to the holdup of the payment of telephone bills and, on the other hand, due to the advance payment of the petroleum revenue tax, could in any way affect, favourably or unfavourably, the level of demand, the course of prices or the rate of change in the

1411
money supply? Finally, if the Government believe that the money supply is a controlling factor of inflation, why have they not studied the methods that past governments have adopted in controlling the money supply both during and after the war?—which were infinitely more effective than this very ineffectual policy of trying indirectly to control it through the rate of interest.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, there is, of course, a fundamental difference between the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, and the present Government on questions of economic policy. We reject in toto the kind of economic policy with which the noble Lord is associated. We believe that it is that economic policy which gave rise to the disastrous inflation from which this country has suffered particularly over the last five years, when prices more than doubled. We are determined under no circumstances to repeat the kind of mistakes which were made by the previous Administration based upon the theories of the noble Lord.
We believe that if the money supply is restrained, it will prevent excessive wage settlements and if wage settlements are made at a reasonable level, this will be the major factor in holding prices down. The noble Lord referred to what he described as purely cosmetic changes affecting the public sector borrowing requirement; namely, the delay in the payment of telephone bills and the new proposal to advance the date of payment of petroleum revenue tax. Neither of these is a cosmetic change. A shortfall of £1 billion in the payment of telephone bills—and this is a matter of enormous importance—has a dramatic effect on the public sector borrowing requirement and, therefore, upon the money supply. Equally, if the Government secure an additional £700 million this year from advanced petroleum revenue tax, that will reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and the pressure on the money supply. We believe that it is the rate of interest which in the end rations the use of credit, and in that matter also we differ completely from the noble Lord.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister not agree——
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, without in any sense subscribing to the pure milk of extreme monetarism, I ask the Minister to confirm my belief that no major inflation has taken place without an increase in the money supply? May I ask him secondly to indicate the relation between the money rate of interest now proposed and the prospective real rate of interest?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, for what he says. I agree with him that no major inflation has occurred without an inflation in the level of the money supply. This is why we are determined that there shall be no inflation in the level of the money supply now. The noble Lord went on to ask how the money rate of interest—that is the nominal rate of interest—compares with the rate of inflation; the difference between the two of course representing the real rate of interest. The present minimum lending rate is only marginally above the last figure for the increase in the retail price index. Currently, therefore, it represents an extremely small real rate of interest. From this point of view of course the effect on investment is of very great importance.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in the Minister's anxiety to blame Labour Adminstrations for the rate of inflation, I presume that, as he did not mention the period of policy during which Lord Barber was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he regards those Conservative policies as wholly deflationery, and the appalling problems which faced the Labour Administration in 1974 were presumably also imaginary. I should like to ask one other question. Has the noble Lord ever considered one simple fact? Over the centuries, the British people have solved all problems. They faced Napoleon; they faced Hitler; they faced the Kaiser, and they pulled through, but there was always one essential commitment, and that was national unity. This Government, if they do not know it, ought to realise that in six months they have smashed all hope of national unity. They have demonstrated, by the policies they have introduced, that those policies are not only inflationary but are a deliberate and major attack on the standards

1413
of ordinary people. If the answer cannot be found, if defence cannot be found through the normal political ways, a defence will be found, and this Government are smashing their head against a hammer that has broken more than enough Governments——
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord WIGG: —and it is going to smash this one.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the need for national unity. On that point, and that point alone, of course I agree with him. But if he seriously thinks that the deplorable events which occurred this last winter under a Labour Administration were a demonstration of national unity, f think he ought seriously to reconsider the ordinary use of the English language. The greatest evil, and the most divisive influence that this country faces, is inflation. It is only by the conquest of inflation that we shall be able to re-establish national unity; that we shall be able to re-establish progress in this country; that we shall be able to re-establish industrial peace; and that we shall be able to offer all of our people a better future. It is for those reasons that we are prepared to face the problems that we do face, to deal with them, and in the end to overcome them.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any consideration was given to the efficacy of restricting bank lending quantitatively in parallel with the raising of the minimum lending rate?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, that is a suggestion which has been made on a number of occasions. The problem that one gets into, quite simply, is that the more direct controls of this sort one imposes the greater the ingenuity of the financial community in finding ways around them. We believe, therefore, that the best solution is the one we have put forward; namely, the increase in the minimum lending rate. But there will of course, as I have said, be a discussion paper published shortly on various means of controlling the money supply, including the interesting suggestions which have been made about the use of a form of monetary base control.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, Her Majesty's Government having been driven to adopt a monetary policy owing to the complete failure of the incomes policies pursued by successive Governments over the last 15 years, he will now give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will have the courage to see it through, and if necessary to continue it even beyond the period of six months?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It was the failure of incomes policies as well as of other devices which brought it home not only to the Government but to most people that there was no alternative to a strict monetary policy, supported by a proper fiscal policy, as the means of controlling inflation. We shall continue with our policy, and we shall continue with it to the end of defeating the menace of inflation.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, inflation can be generated in many ways. Before you begin to pursue a policy you must find the correct diagnosis of the ill.
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the Minister will agree with me, I hope, that the incomes policy pursued by this country has been defective because it was pursued as a momentary intervention in a crisis with the intent to revoke it as soon as possible. On that basis obviously all incomes policies must fail because the whole thing returns. Does the Minister not agree with me that his incomes policy is what one might call promiscuous? It is promiscuous because it tends generally to affect many people who are not really important in causing inflation. Does the Minister, for instance, think that the coal miners will be restrained by 17 per cent.? The very fact——
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord BALOGH: Does the Minister not agree that the asseverations of the Chancellor—a young and ignorant man—in various public speeches imploring people to make reasonable settlements are an incomes policy? Is this not so? It is only a wrong incomes policy if——
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord BALOGH: I am asking the question. Now we shall see the answer.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, asked me whether I agreed with him. The short answer is that I do not agree with him. Most of the proposals he put forward and the arguments he advanced were proposals for dealing with the symptoms of inflation. We believe that, as with any other disease, the correct thing is to deal with the cause, and if you cure the cause the symptoms then disappear.
Lord WIGG: What about a bit of diagnosis first, my Lords?
Lord O'BRIEN of LOTHBURY: My Lords, for many years—from 1951, when we raised bank rate tentatively from 2 to 2½ per cent.—I have been concerned with the conduct of monetary policy and, later, with its formulation. Is the Minister aware that the Government's present policy in the monetary field has my very strong support?—the more so because for the first time for many years it is being fully supported by fiscal policy, as indeed it should be, because monetary policy alone cannot do the job, but the two together, resolutely conducted as the present Government are conducting them, and I hope will continue to conduct them will in the end I believe do the job. I give them my full support.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for the comments he made. On a personal note, I too remember well the occasion when bank rate was increased from 2 to 2½ per cent., as I was then working directly for the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was my senior sponsor when I came into your Lordships' House. It is of course entirely true that a monetary policy needs to be supported by an appropriate fiscal policy, and it is the Government's determination to go on so doing.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has been trying for some time to intervene. I think it might be the feeling of the House that after he has asked his question and my noble friend has replied we might pass on to other business.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would explain this to me: If it is so important to restrict borrowing, why are banks always putting out advertisements urging us by means of Access cards and other devices to buy things we cannot afford with money we have not yet got? Is there not something to be said for distinguishing between borrowing to increase personal consumption and borrowing to help the productive process?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord's remarks might well de drawn to the attention of the banks, because I felt very much that they were intended to be helpful in a most difficult situation that we all face. We believe the best way of rationing credit is through the price mechanism, that is through the rate of interest, rather than going in for direct control of individual kinds of borrowing, which would require among other things a considerable administrative bureaucracy to operate it and which is unlikely in the end to be satisfactory. The true rate of interest which is paid by people who use these special forms of borrowing—I was about to use a different term but I was very careful—such as Access is in fact very high.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.44 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Abardare): My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for now giving me the opportunity of making very few remarks on this Bill. I thought it would be useful if I said a few words on the procedure connected with the Bill, as it is a Private Bill and not a Public Bill, and in particular to remind your Lordships that there is a distinct difference between giving a Second Reading to a Public Bill and to a Private Bill. In giving a Second Reading to of a Public Bill, your Lordships are in fact approving of the principles underlying the Bill. But in the case of a Private Bill this is not so and all that your Lordships will be doing, if you give this Bill a Second Reading, which I hope you will, is agreeing that it should go to the appropriate committees.

1417
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, told the House, Part II of the Bill dealing with Epping Forest is opposed; the petitioners are the Upshire Village Preservation Society, and this part of the Bill will go to a Select Committee in the normal way, and that Select Committee will be able to hear the evidence from the promoters and the evidence from the petitioners and make recommendations to this House. The remaining clauses of the Bill, which were succinctly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Mais, will go to the Unopposed Bill Committee. The only other point I would mention is that all the remarks made in this debate I will ensure are made available to both those committees.
Lord MAIS: In view of the lateness of the hour, my Lords, I have no further remarks to make in connection with the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (GREEK ACCESSION) BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.
SHIPBUILDING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1979
4.47 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL rose to move, That the Regulations laid before the House on 1st November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to these Motions I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to both regulations. These two regulations alter the income limits both for legal aid in civil proceedings and for legal advice and assistance. It has become the practice in recent years for the financial limits to be increased annually in line with such increases as take place in supplementary benefit. The limits were increased considerably in April of this year as part of a package of improvements intended to help to restore the extent to which legal aid is available to the population to the level which was provided when legal aid schemes were originally introduced. The regulations which are under consideration in the House today ensure that the real value of the limits achieved in April of this year is maintained. I would remind the House that your Lordships approved the equivalent English and Welsh regulations on 30th October of this year.
The Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Contributions) (No. 2) Regulations 1979 increase the upper disposable income limit above which a person does not qualify for legal aid from £3,600 to £4,075. Perhaps your Lordships would appreciate a definition of the term "disposable income". It is a notional net figure which is arrived at after deductions have been made for tax and rent or mortgage and other necessary expenses.
They also deal with the lower—or "free" limit, as we call it—the level below which a person is not required to make a contribution from income, and in this regard there is one point to which I should draw the attention of the House. This limit currently stands at £1,500 and it is proposed by these regulations that it should be increased to £1,700. However, it has been found that Section 3(1)(a) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, which was recently amended by Section 9 of the Legal Aid Act 1979, does not now in terms confer the power to increase the

1419
lower limit. Prior to the amendment made by the 1979 Act, the Secretary of State had the explicit power by regulation to raise the lower income limit, and indeed it was not intended that this power should have been removed by the 1979 Act. I understand that it is intended to take steps to restore the power to vary when a suitable opportunity occurs, which I believe will be fairly soon.
But in the meantime the powers which are available to the Secretary of State for Scotland enable him by regulations to alter the maximum contribution from income payable by a person who is receiving legal aid, and to make different provision for different amounts of disposal income. Regulation 3(a) of these legal aid regulations provides that the maximum contribution required from an applicant for legal aid whose disposable income lies in the band between £1,500 and £1,700 shall be the merely nominal sum of £1, while the maximum contribution from a person whose disposable income exceeds £1,700 shall be an amount equivalent to one quarter of the difference between his disposable income and the figures of £1,700. These regulations, which I accept are exceedingly complicated, achieve an almost exactly similar effect to those regulations which were made earlier this year in respect of England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor.
I should now like to speak to the second set of regulations which I shall be moving presently: the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1979. These raise the upper disposable income limit for those persons who are seeking legal advice and assistance from £75 to £85 a week—income limits, my Lords. Another set of regulations—which we are not discussing this afternoon, and which are not subject to Affirmative Resolution—raises the lower disposable income limit below which no contribution is payable from £35 a week to £40, and amends the scale of contributions payable for persons with incomes between that lower limit and the revised upper limit.
I think that it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I were to mention that the allowances which are made for dependants in both legal aid and legal advice and assistance schemes also have to be increased. At present
1420
these are fixed at one and a half times the corresponding supplementary benefit scale rates and these were therefore automatically increased when the supplementary benefit rates changed at the beginning even of this week.
We estimate that legal aid is now available to approximately 70 per cent. of families with children, and I am sure that your Lordships would be interested to know that in the year 1978–79 about 15,000 full certificates were issued for legal aid in civil proceedings, and that about 34,000 payments in respect of legal advice and assistance were made to solicitors. All this was in Scotland. The net cost of civil legal aid, and of legal advice and assistance, was about £3 million excluding the costs of administration. The changes proposed in the regulations which are before us this afternoon are intended to ensure that numbers of people who without legal aid or assistance would be unable to enforce, or even to defend, their legal rights are not diminished by inflation. For that reason T commend the first set of regulations.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 1st November, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing the regulations and explaining them so clearly. I must apologise to him for having missed the first part of his opening remarks. I was called out of the Chamber to take an urgent telephone call and I am afraid that I did not return in time. As the noble Lord the Minister has explained, the regulations that he has introduced for Scotland are similar to those which were introduced on, I think, 30th October this year by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and we had then from this Bench an opportunity to welcome the introduction of those two sets of regulations.
I would wholly agree with the Minister that it is right that these financial limits should be increased in line with inflation and so that they remain in line with any increases that take place in supplementary benefit as well. Your Lordships would probably also be encouraged to hear what the noble Lord had to say about

1421
the plans concerning the power to vary as the occasion arises, which I believe will introduce a welcome flexibility.
I do not need to detain your Lordships this afternoon. As I indicated earlier, we had an opportunity from this Bench a fortnight ago to welcome the last sets of regulations, and I take this opportunity to welcome these two sets of regulations, too, so far as it is proper and not presumptuous of an Englishman to welcome two sets of regulations concerning Scotland. However, I am encouraged by the thought that I understand that those of my noble friends who are from Scotland would take the same course. So I would join with the noble Lord the Minister in commending these sets of regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 4) REGULATIONS 1979
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL: My Lords, as the House will be aware, I have already spoken as to the substance of these regulations, and therefore without further ado I beg to move them.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 1st November, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD AREA EXTENSION ORDER 1979
4.57 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order laid before the House on 23rd October 1979 be approved. The purpose of this order is to extend the area in which the Highlands and Islands Development Board exercises its statutory responsibilities to include the islands of Great and Little Cumbrae in the Firth of Clyde. The Cumbraes—both of the small islands—have a population of approximately 1,100, and they lie approximately two miles
1422
off the North Ayrshire coast. Until 1975 these islands formed with the other islands of Arran and Bute the local government unit of Buteshire, but since then they have been administratively part of the district of Cunninghame. The Highlands and Islands Development Board was established in 1965 to assist the people of its area to improve their economic and social conditions, and to enable them to play a more effective part in the economy of the nation. The board's original area was confined to the former crofting counties, but the 1965 Act enabled the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate additions to that area by an Order made by Statutory Instrument and approved by each House. In framing such an order the Secretary of State is still required to have regard to the character of the area to be included and to its existing proximity to the area of the board.
In 1975, with the reorganisation of local government, the board's area was extended to include the whole of the new Highland Region as well as the islands of Arran and Bute, which after 1975 became part of Strathclyde Region, and this measure left the Cumbraes as the only island community (on the two islands) off the West Coast of Scotland which remained outside the scope of the responsibility of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Government of the day decided that because the islands were linked to the economy of the adjacent part of mainland Scotland, the case for their inclusion within the Highlands and Islands Development Board's area was not in all respects so strong as that of Arran and Bute. But since then the people of the Cumbraes, supported by Cunninghame District Council, have pressed for the 1975 decision to be reversed, and they have presented convincing reasons why the islands should come within the board's remit.
We have recognised the force of these arguments, and the Conservative Party's election manifesto for Scotland contained an undertaking that the status of the two islands of Cumbrae would be changed in this way. Our conclusion is that the economic and the social conditions of the islands are much nearer in character to that of Arran and Bute, and indeed the rest of the Highland area, than they are to those of the mainland of Scotland, particularly in the Cunninghame district.

1423
The evidence which is available to us shows that the community on the Cumbraes is probably more precarious and fragile—in its numbers, I hope not in its physical sense—than are those on their neighbouring islands, which are already under the care of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The population of the two islands of the Cumbrae has declined for several decades, and regrettably it is still falling. A high proportion of the population is over retirement age, and the proportion of the active employed group is unusually low, even for the Highlands, indicating that the young people of the two islands of Cumbrae are emigrating for jobs. Indeed, some 80 per cent. of all existing employment in these two islands is in the service industries, which are almost entirely dependent on tourism, with its seasonal fluctuations. Since 1975 the number of local jobs has fallen with the completion of certain construction projects. Indeed, the employment opportunities on the mainland have, lamentably, also declined. This was recognised by the upgrading of the adjacent mainland area (which I think is covered by the Largs employment office area) to special development area status earlier this year.
Assistance can now be given to individual developments on the Cumbraes under the Industry Act, and indeed from the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Tourist Board, but the Highlands and Islands Development Board is capable of tackling the problems of rural committees in a very full and comprehensive way, and we believe that it has much experience in this task. The board will also be equipped with wide-ranging powers to give support and stimulus to any entrepreneurs and private businesses which may wish to set up in any sectors of the local economy. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the measure which I am proposing this afternoon would be beneficial to this island community, and I hope that your Lordships will welcome this small extension to the board's responsibilities. The addition to the board's responsibilities of the islands of Cumbrae will make a relatively small additional demand on the board's resources, and this is going to be found from within the approved estimate for grant-in-aid to the board and within future financial provisions.
By the terms of the Treaty of Rome the Government have to inform the Commission of any intention to extend the regional aids which are administered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We have been informed that the Commission has no objection to the changes proposed by this order, and with that conclusion I would commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining to those of us who do not come from North of the Border exactly how the Scottish Highlands and Islands Development Board works, and the advantage that this will be to Great and Little Cumbrae. Again, it is presumptuous, perhaps, for an English person to speak on behalf of her Scottish colleagues, but from this side of the House I am delighted to welcome this very small extension to the duties of the board.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think it would be churlish of me not to reciprocate the kind wishes of the noble Baroness, and, indeed, her charm and courtesy is welcome, as indeed was also that of her colleague who spoke earlier on a Scottish Motion. In commending these orders we hope that they will make a generous contribution to the economy of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
5.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th April of this year, in the last Parliament, be approved. This order consolidates the Industrial Assurance Acts (Northern Ireland) 1924 to 1958. and related legislation. It does not make any

1425
changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th April, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanatory statement as to what is proposed in this draft Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order, I wish to indicate support from this side of the House for it. As it appears to me that the following two orders, which the Minister is about to introduce, are based on the same principle of parity and consolidation, I hope it will be in order, and will help to expedite the business of the House, if I indicate now, in advance, our support for the next two measures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, of which a draft was laid before the house on 23rd October, be approved. The Administration of Estates Order will fulfil a recommendation made by the committee chaired by the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Lord MacDermott. This committee reported in March 1970 on the administration and structure of the Supreme Court. The order will fulfil the recommendations by drawing together provisions at present contained in about a dozen separate enactments dealing with probate and administration matters, some of which date from the 16th century. Although the language is technical, the order is primarily one of consolidation, and I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to go through it in detail. I should, however, draw attention to some of those provisions which are new to the law of Northern Ireland.
The order is divided into five parts. Part I deals only with the title and commencement of the order, and with its intrepretation. Part 11 is concerned with the powers of the High Court and, in
1426
contentious matter relating to small estates, of the County Court. These powers are to make grants of representation to the estates of deceased persons. It is largely a re-enactment of the provisions of Part III of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955, which generally applies only to the estates of persons dying on or after 1st January 1956. For this reason, Article 3 provides that, in the absence of a contrary stipulation, the provisions of Part II of the order apply only in relation to the estates of persons dying after the end of the year 1955. Article 4 adopts modern practice by providing in paragraph (1)(b) that, in normal cases, the order of entitlement to a grant of administration will be governed by rules of court. At present, the selection of an administrator is determined in accordance with directions issued by the probate judge. This change should make the relevant information more readily available.
Part III deals with the powers and procedures of the court preliminary or incidental to the making of grants. This part of the order consolidates provisions which are at present contained in the Probate and Letters of Administration Act (Ireland) 1857 and the Court of Probate Act (Ireland) 1859. Part IV of the order relates to the rights and duties of executors, administrators and other persons who, although not authorised to act as personal representatives, assume the responsibilities of such. It contains some provisions which are new for Northern Ireland. For example, Article 29 clarifies the position of a person who, having been appointed by a will as both an executor and a trustee, renounces probate or otherwise loses his rights of administration. In that situation his rights as trustee will automatically determine at the same time.
Part V of the order contains one article of special interest. Under the present law the surviving spouse of a person who dies intestate is entitled to the first £25,000 or £55,000 of his estate, depending upon whether or not the deceased left issue. This entitlement is known as the surviving spouse's statutory legacy. Section 7 of the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Act 1955 stipulates that this statutory legacy is to bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum from the date of death to the date of payment. This has become a wholly unrealistic rate.

1427
Accordingly, Article 41 provides that an alternative rate may be specified by order. This will provide the machinery to stipulate a more realistic rate, and at the same time give the flexibility to enable future moves in interest rates generally to be taken into account.
My Lords, this order will meet a long standing criticism that the law on these matters is scattered over too many different enactments. It is principally a measure of consolidation but, as I have indicated, the opportunity has also been taken to clarify certain elements of doubt and fill in a number of gaps in the existing legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TAX, CONSUMER CREDIT AND JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) ORDER 1979
5.11 p.m.
Lord ELTON: I beg to move that the Tax, Consumer Credit and Judicature (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1979, of which a draft was laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved. This order is consequential upon both the Administration of Estates (Northern Ireland) Order and the Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order. This order will amend the various tax Acts by substituting references to the Industrial Assurance Order and the Administration of Estates Order for references to legislation superseded by them. This is its only purpose and it is therefore purely consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 23rd October, be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID, ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
5.12 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Legal Aid, Advice and
1428
Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 be approved. The object of this draft order is to make improvements to the Northern Ireland Legal Aid Scheme similar to those recently enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Legal Aid Act 1979. The changes concern legal aid in civil proceedings and are similar to those contained in the 1979 Act. As that Act was considered by this House in February of this year, I will confine my remarks to the main provisions of the order.
The first major change is contained in Article 3 of the order, which would reduce the maximum contribution which may be required to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund by a legally aided person. At present a maximum contribution equivalent to one-third of the excess of a person's disposable income over £1,700 a year is required. This order would reduce the maximum contribution fraction from one-third to one-quarter. This should enable more people to avail themselves of legal aid. And I should perhaps mention here that, as some of your Lordships may have noticed, the maximum sum of £1,700 differs from that which appears in Section 4 of the 1979 Act, as it has just been increased from £1,500 by regulations which took effect from 12th November this year.
The Secretary of State would, by virtue of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, have power to fix by regulations different maximum contributions for different cases or classes of case. The exercise of this power would, we hope, help reduce the unnecessary collection of contributions in certain cases. For example, when an applicant has succeeded with his case, the contribution paid by him to the Legal Aid Fund is often returned. This occurs more frequently in certain types of case, such as personal injury proceedings. It is wasteful to collect substantial sums by way of contributions in such cases only to return them at a later date.
The second major change concerns representation in court. At present representation by solicitors or barristers can normally only be obtained under a legal aid certificate issued after an assessment of the applicant's means by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and consideration of the merits of the case by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern

1429
Ireland. These time-consuming processes are justified in the case of proceedings which may cost large sums, but are less so in smaller cases, particularly where the contribution required may be minimal or represent only a fraction of the total cost. In fact, in very many cases, particularly those involving separation and maintenance, no contribution at all is required.
Article 5 of the order would therefore enable the Secretary of State to extend by regulations the much simpler administrative procedure of the legal advice and assistance scheme to include representation in court in particular cases, or classes of case. The first use of this power would be to allow representation under the legal advice and assistance scheme in matrimonial proceedings before Magistrates' Courts.
Article 6 would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the maximum contributions payable by those receiving advice or assistance in the same way as Article 3 does for legal aid. This power would be used for example, to adjust the cost limits of representation in different types of proceedings.
There are also a number of minor or consequential amendments in Article 7. One of these relates to the penalties for breach of the secrecy provision and for misrepresentation, and increases them from £100 to £500. Also included is a technical extension of the terms of reference of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. We have also taken this opportunity to make some minor amendments and repeals to facilitate a consolidation of Northern Ireland legal aid soon to be undertaken.
I am sure your Lordships will welcome this extension to Northern Ireland of the improvement in the provisions of legal aid that were enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom earlier this year by the Legal Aid Act, and which could make legal aid, advice and assistance more readily available to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October. be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
5.17 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I must express gratefulness to the noble Lord for the clear and concise way he has explained
1430
the order which is before this House. In so far as the measures provide for the parity principle and bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, the order has support from this side of the House. However, there is one point in the order which I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify. It is Article 5. As I understand it, Article 5 amends the principal Act, the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Northern Ireland) 1965, to provide for legal representation for tribunals and statutory inquiries for eligible persons. The Minister has already indicated one area immediately brought under this provision, that is, matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts. It would be important if the Minister could indicate when the larger extent of the provisions will be effectively available or if there could be a list of the various tribunals and statutory inquiries that may come under the ambit of these provisions. It leads to confusion if a person considers that representation before a tribunal is available and then finds that some tribunals have been omitted from a particular list.
There is a further point to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. It arises from the principal Act to which this order refers. I have been told by community workers, trade union representatives, solicitors and lawyers that, to persons who are directly involved in using and operating this Act, its provisions have become incomprehensible, and that while they welcome this order, it will add to the complexity. Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether he could give urgent attention to making readily available a revised handbook dealing specifically with the measures and provisions for legal aid, advice and assistance as now consolidated in the two main proposals? I am pleased to support the measure before the House.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his welcome to this order and the endorsement of the principle of parity. I am also grateful to him for the notice that he was kind enough to give me of the questions that he proposed to ask on this rather technical matter. That is something which must be taken into account.
Of course, there is another matter which has to be taken into account and which

1431
will have become much more apparent in this House since the repetition of the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chacellor of the Exchequer in another place: that is, the problem of finding the necessary finance to cover the extension of the advice and assistance service to include representation before tribunals. The matter will therefore require further study in the light of the comments of the Royal Commission on Legal Services on this subject. I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to be contented with that reply on this matter.
The noble Lord also asked, with understandable passion, whether there could be some handbook or guidebook available not only to those who are users of the provisions but also to the practitioners who assist them. I agree with the noble Lord that the numerous amendments to the Legal Aid Act since its enactment in 1965 make it desirable that the legislation should be consolidated. I am pleased to say that work on the consolidation is in hand but at present there is not a legal aid handbook available. It might be less necessary when the consolidation is completed. I appreciate the point that a handbook would be useful, particularly for practitioners in Northern Ireland; and, although from the production point of view it is a small market and it would be difficult to make such an exercise cost-effective compared with the larger number in Great Britain, I will none the less ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in what I might call "approving terms".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FLUORIDE IN WATER SUPPLIES
5.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider action to restore the optimum percentage of fluoride, for protecting teeth, in water supplies in those areas where it has for centuries existed naturally, but where that optimum percentage has been diluted as an unintended result of amalgamating water systems, in order that families shall not be deprived of the benefit previously experienced in their districts. The noble Lord said:
1432
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I raise this subject because the time is approaching when all the information should be available, enabling decisions to be taken upon adding to, or subtracting from, the fluoride which exists naturally in all water supplies in Britain. After at least 20 years of trials, schemes in parts of this country and elsewhere and searching investigations, progress in one direction or the other should be made. My interest in this subject arises because, as a Minister of Health for nearly four years, from 1970 to 1974, I was naturally committed heart and soul to trying to improve and assist the health needs of the 5 million people within my responsibility. That was, of course, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and one of several of my functions was Minister of Health for Scotland.
Because fluoride exists in natural sources of drinking water supplies in Britain, in greater or less proportions, I am asking the Government to consider the position of families where fluoride has for centuries existed at approximately one part per million or more, until the modernisation of water systems and amalgamations diluted the proportion of fluoride. It is accepted by the large majority of medical and dental authorities in the world that if drinking water contains about one part per million (1 ppm) of fluoride by weight, the incidence of caries—the disease of decay in teeth—is greatly reduced, particularly in children.
The families who have lived in parts of Essex, South Shields and the Hartlepools, for example, have had the benefit of that protection. In some of those areas the introduction of wide distribution systems has incidentally diluted the fluoride to less than the ideal level. I am therefore raising the subject for a minority, but a very substantial minority, of people in this country: such people, I suggest, have just as much right to object to interference with their natural water supplies—perhaps even more right—as those people who have objected to small additions to the existing fluoride to bring it up to the ideal level in other areas.
How should the decisions on this matter be taken in this country? Because the amount of fluoride varies naturally from area to area, my view is that decisions should be taken separately in different

1433
areas. That is the position that exists today in Britain; but I believe it is the task of Government to provide all the relevant information and to ensure that the interested public have the latest facts. The Government, rightly, wish to be completely satisfied about safety, and in particular about possible links with cancer. My honourable friend Dr. Gerard Vaughan, the Minister of State for Healh in England and Wales, announced last month that a further inquiry into safety was being undertaken. I assume this is an internal inquiry within the DHSS and I would ask my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who is to reply, if he can tell us on behalf of the Government when it is likely to be completed. I would remind him that the Royal College of Physicians carried out a special inquiry over a period of three years, and that its committee reported as recently as 1977. Is the new inquiry to go over the same ground, or is it to go on from that report?
All the necessary information should become available soon to enable definite conclusions to be reached on whether fluoride in water, naturally or artificially, has any dangerous side effects, or whether its particular benefits to health make it, in the optimum quantity, a friendly aid to man's passage through life. If one is concerned to reduce pain for humankind, and in particular suffering among children, one cannot simply ignore the overwhelming recommendations in favour of arranging for 1 ppm in water supplies. I say "arranging" because, as I pointed out, in some areas naturally there is more than 1 ppm and therefore "arranging" is the correct word.
The British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Royal College of Physicians are quite clear in their recommendations that arrangements should be made for 1 ppm of fluoride in water supplies. Also the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which reported only last July, recommended unanimously that fluoride should be added in order to bring the amount up to approximately 1 ppm. That Commission were not asked to make such a recommendation within their terms of reference, but they none the less did so because they felt it important to draw attention to this. They felt that an immense improvement could be made in
1434
health as a result, and they were impressed by the large scale of the accompanying relief to the hard pressed health services. No one could surely suggest that all 16 members of that Royal Commission were in some way duped or deluded.
On the international scene, the World Health Organisation has recommended the same thing. There are now about 100 million people in the United States and Canada who enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water. Nor, my Lords, should anyone ignore the warnings of those who are worried about safety. Of course they should not be ignored. The facts must be set out, and the conclusions of those best equipped to interpret them made clear. For example, any suspicions of a connection with an increase in cancer must be scrupulously and fully investigated. The medical profession were definite and explicit in finding links between smoking and an increase in lung cancer, but the inquiry of the Royal College of Physicians has stated otherwise where fluoride is concerned.
There are two reasonable doubts about arranging for the optimum 1 ppm in water supplies. First is the possibility of dangerous side effects, particularly cancer. On this the Royal College, as I have stated, have categorically said that there is no evidence of any harmful effect to the water or the environment by adding fluoride to the 1 ppm level. The second doubt which is sometimes raised is whether, in principle, authorities should "doctor" the main water supplies for whole communities. All water from natural sources on land contains dissolved substances, including fluoride. For many years, several additions of further substances have been made by water authorities—for example, chlorine—with the object of rendering the supplies wholesome and palatable.
If adjustment of the fluoride content will result in the elimination of toothache and much suffering by children on a massive scale, without increasing risks of cancer or other dangers, why are we waiting? If I were to start a charity for this purpose, in this International Year of the Child, to reduce pain and increase health, money would surely pour in. I would call it something like Save the Children Pain Campaign. But money is not needed. That is the paradox.
Indeed, the process of fluoridation, if adopted all over the United Kingdom, would save about £80 million for the health services, for a cost of about £4 million. The money saved could be spent on kidney machines, extra hospital beds or be sent to the starving in Calcutta, if you like. It could be available for other purposes. Must many children, in the years to come, have to suffer pain and dentistry which could be avoided, in order to defend a principle? That question is there and it will not go away. I believe that decisions on it should be taken democratically in different parts of the country. Provided that the ideal quantity of fluoride is proved to be completely safe in water supplies, I would encourage people to vote in favour of it.
As for the principle of tampering with water supplies at all, some additions are made and some processing is carried out, anyway, to avoid upset stomachs or other ill effects of a supply which would not otherwise be wholesome. As I have indicated, the organisation of supplies over wider areas has unintentionally diluted the quantities of fluoride, where it was above what is regarded as the ideal level. That, of course, would be satisfactory in certain places. For example, in the Mersea area of Essex the amount naturally there is about 4 or 5 ppm, and if that were reduced to 1 ppm by dilution that would be satisfactory. But elsewhere, where it has been about 1 ppm, the dilution has of course had the effect of taking away the benefit.
May I point out, in passing, that most fish contain 4 to 5 ppm of fluoride, and that the sea itself is at the state almost all over the world of about 1 ppm of fluoride. Anyone drinking a cup of tea at the normal strength is imbibing it at the rate of 1 to 2 ppm. In fact, if they chewed tea leaves they would find themselves taking it at the rate of about 100 ppm.
I understand the attitude of those who say: "This should be left to the individual". In fact, they would have to say "to the individual family", because it is not really a choice for a child under about 6 or 7, which is the most important time of his life so far as this subject is concerned. Of course, a contribution can be made by fluorided toothpaste, but it is nothing like the protection from decay which is achieved by water supplies.
There is a régime of taking tablets, but to be effective that has to be daily from birth, or shortly afterwards, until the age of 12 or 14, taking small portions of a tablet each day until a certain age and then, eventually, a whole tablet a day. That is feasible in the case of extremely conscientious mothers. In practice, research has found that few, even though they started in earnest on this, have been able to carry it out fully for at least 12 years, with a dose a day to a child from about six months or even younger. Then, of course, there is the danger that the child will find the bottle and swallow about 100 or 200 at a time. That has already happened in various cases, and that is a danger which is not there when it is supplied in water.
It has also been pointed out that much decay in teeth could be eliminated if the population as a whole deliberately shunned sweets, sugar and similar food. I believe that that situation is virtually impossible to bring about. Again, it reveals a state of being completely out of touch with the conditions of family life, particularly in the more populated urban areas, to suggest that such a rigorous disciplinary diet could be generally adopted and adhered to. It would certainly be regarded by the children as an unnecessary hardship.
Anyone who, like me, has been involved in social work and conditions in areas such as the Glasgow conurbation, where there are over 2 million people, knows that many mothers are already over-taxed in coping with ordinary life and looking after the basic bringing up of their children. Some are also doing jobs during the day. The idea that many of them could apply a tablet régime for 12 to 14 years continuously is simply not practical. It has also been suggested that this task might be given to school teachers during the periods when children are at school. I really think that that is not a starter either. School teachers already have enough tasks given to them to do, which are not wholly connected with teaching, and I would quite understand their feeling that they should not be asked to do this as well.
I would remind your Lordships that there were similar fears and warnings at the time when vaccination and inoculation were first being considered, 70 and more years ago. Of course, safety then had to be thoroughly investigated, and it still

1437
has to be; but the boon of the virtual elimination of diphtheria and smallpox, and now the massive reduction of polio, has ended that controversy. We should remember that there were vigorous campaigns against vaccination and inoculation at the time, besides the ordinary anxiety about safety, which was right and was to be expected.
What worries me is that there are some who are putting out anti-fluoride material which is specially selected and slanted. I completely understand and respect, as I think I have indicated, the view that, as a principle, such a substance should not be added or subtracted. That is a view, though I do not share it myself. Should millions of unborn children suffer pain and unnecessary loss of teeth during their lives, as a penance for that principle? Should it be a penance? Should it be the price of supporting a principle?
What seems to me to be inexcusable is to distort facts concerning safety and cancer. I was naturally interested in the comparison made by Dr. Dean Burk, a retired American biochemist, and a colleague of his into the incidence of cancer in cities in the United States and also in this country, particularly Birmingham, where water had been fluoridated, in contrast with cities where it had not. The results in both cases appeared to show a connection between fluoride and increased cancer. But those results have been demonstrated to be invalid by the British Royal Statistical Society in the work commissioned by them and carried out by Professor Newall and Dr. Oldham.
They were invalidated for the reason that Dr. Burk had not taken into account the changes in age groups and other demographic changes in cities which affect cancer rates in a given size of population. For example, seaside towns in Britain where many elderly people settle in retirement have a higher than normal cancer rate. Cancer is more prevalent in the over 60s than in the under 40s. That kind of fact was ignored. Dr. Burk has been invited to travel widely in the world giving warnings, but his cause is damaged when facts are withheld. For example, a body calling itself the National Anti-Fluoride Campaign has circulated something which I think has come to many noble Lords. In paragraph 17 it says:
1438
"It should be noted that Dr. Burk was one of several witnesses who gave evidence last year in an American court case, the sole purpose of which was to determine whether or not there was a fluoridation-cancer link. The court found in favour of the evidence given by Dr. Burk and his anti-fluoridation associates. His credibility was well-established in these matters".
Paragraph 17 failed to add that that court's finding was later set aside as a result of a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Surely that important point should have been included. Its exclusion causes one to have doubts about the objectivity of those putting out this material.
Some objectors have alleged that there is a difference between substances introduced and those existing naturally in water—a difference, for example, between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride. But in the very small quantities in water which we are discussing, complete ionisation takes place. So we are speaking of the fiouride ion in water, and the differences alleged between these substances have no validity whatever.
On the procedure for taking local decisions, I would draw attention to the fact that there are three types of bodies involved. First, there are the water authorities responsible for the mechanics and physical supply. I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford is to speak in the debate because of his knowledge of the water industry. Secondly, there are the health authorities. Their members are appointed. Then there are the local government councils who are elected.
I should add that the organisation and the system are different, as one would expect, in Scotland. In 1972, I, as Secretary of State, carried out the reform of the Scottish Health Service a year before reform was carried out in England and Wales. Incidentally, I adopted a single tier of health authorities. In Scotland, there is only one tier of health boards. When there is criticism now about the two-tier structure and people say that one of them should be taken away, I hope they will remember that that applies only South of the Border because this seems to have been one of those occasions in Scotland when we got it right the first time.
It means that there is a difference as to how the decision is taken in Scotland. The effective decision on fluoride lies with

1439
the local government councils—the elected representatives. I understand that the situation is different in England and Wales. At present the situation is very well reflected in Scotland where the regional council of Strathclyde has a decision impending, and all the health boards in its area have recommended in favour of I ppm of fluoride.
Before I conclude, I must draw attention to a press release—which I understand has also been circulated to a large number of noble Lords—because it seems to be about me. First, it takes just a few words from my Question. My Question amounted to only five lines, but instead of just reproducing my question the press release takes about 1½ lines out of it and then, in four lines, tries to give its meaning—and, of course, gets it wrong. It then goes on:
"If what Lord Campbell says were true as a general statement, then his Lordship would have provided a most interesting and original argument in favour of fluoridation. But what he says is untrue".
Of course, anybody looking at my Question sees that it was not a general statement because the words are:
"… the optimum percentage of fluoride … in water supplies in those areas where it has for centuries existed naturally …".
I was making no general statement. Having got my wording wrong, they then go on to imply that I am being used by private interests,
"to promote the implementation of fluoridation by spreading yet another false statement in its favour".
That Press release comes from a body with headquarters at Thames Ditton.
I think that anybody who knows me will recognise that this is a nonsensical allegation. I have no private interests in fluoridation, and no private interest has prompted me to raise the matter. I understand that the private interests which they have in mind are industrial companies who might be able to sell some fluoride waste products. But that, as anybody who knows anything about this will recognise, is a derisory and minimal aspect and could hardly be of any great interest to industry.
I need hardly say that I am raising this subject in the same spirit in which I helped to start the parliamentary campaign for
1440
the severely disabled 14 years ago in the House of Commons. That was in 1965 and 1966 when I was fortunate in winning some ballots. I had to declare an interest then, because, as I think noble Lords know, I myself am 80 per cent. disabled as a result of the passage of a bullet through my middle. I am glad to say that that campaign was successful. I started it over three years before Mr. Alf Morris told me that he was going to take up the subject when he came first in yet another ballot in November 1969. I was able to assist the late Megan du Boissons to start an organisation called DIG—the Disabled Income Group—and its counterpart in Scotland. I rehearse this because it may recall memories to certain members of this House who were in another place in those days and who know the reasons why I raise subjects of this kind.
The selection of particular words from my Question on the Order Paper, the presentation of it then as a general statement—which was wrong—and the suggestion that I am misleading this House with a falsehood for the benefit of private industry I can only describe as a childish and outrageous distortion. It completely discredits anything else in that Press release which has been circulated and also the body which produced it.
I am very pleased that several noble Lords with special qualifications to speak have found the time to be here today and take part in the debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kidding-ton, who is a distinguished and successful chairman of a health board, the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis—because I know of his special interest in children's welfare—and my noble friend Lord Colwyn who is a practising dentist. I look forward also to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Yarborough. I shall watch, I am sure with some admiration, the way in which he manages to observe the usual convention of avoiding touching on controversial matters.
I appeal for more courage in public life. Once all the facts are clear the Government should make them widely available. Communities in different areas should be enabled to take their own decisions because of the quantities of fluoride already existing in the natural supplies there. It must be pointed out that children

1441
and grandchildren as yet unborn are those who will be most affected by decisions taken now. They will not thank us, nor will they bless us, for being timid and dilatory. The facts should be brought before the interested members of the public before decisions are taken by their representatives. Men and women in public life should not run away from this subject nor should they delay decisions on it indefinitely. The safety question is—I repeat—a vital one; but, if that is finally answered, a councillor in local government could well look back 20 years hence and realise that in one decision he had brought about more good for his area in measurable health standards and in saving resources than all his other council decisions during that period added together. That is the scale of the benefits that are involved.
5.52 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his introduction to this important debate which, if I may say so, was animated by common sense and by a sense of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of people who have to suffer unnecessarily as a result of our failure to implement fluoridation in this country. I should like to begin by declaring an interest because I am president of the Fluoridation Society, a post which I have held for some years, and the subject which the noble Lord has raised is one which has interested me ever since I first came into another place in 1962 and when I studied carefully the evidence which arose from the studies in Watford, Anglesey and Kilmarnock, and equally I studied the evidence (such as it was) which was presented to us by the opponents of fluoridation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that at a time when the National Health Service is by no means flush with resources the prevention of disease should be given far greater emphasis than it is. My noble friend Lord Winstanley emphasised this point yesterday in introducing the debate on the National Health Service generally, when he said that people give three loud cheers every time that preventive medicine is mentioned although they are not always prepared to do something about it. The fluoridation of public water supplies is,
1442
of all preventive public health measures, the most thoroughly tested in history. My noble friend Lord Winstanley said yesterday:
"No public health measure has ever been so exhaustively studied and found so free of undesirable side effects or consequences, and demonstrated to be so capable of making a substantial contribution to the public health".—[Official Report; 14/11/79, col. 1261.]
My noble friend is, of course, a general practitioner and, in saying that, he was echoing the views of the overwhelming majority of general practitioners in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has reminded us that millions of people in different countries of the world have been the subject of extensive studies over many years in respect of fluoridation, and these have all reached the same conclusions, that adjustment of the public water supply to a content of one part of fluoride per million of water by weight reduces tooth decay very substantially while, as the World Health Organisation report emphasises, this is:
"the only sign of physiological or pathological change in lifelong users of optimally fluoridated water supplies".
Apart from the number of persons drinking fluoridated water in the United States of America, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, there were in 1969 13 million people in the USSR drinking fluoridated water; in 1971 there were 4.9 million in Australia; in 1969 there were 3.6 million in Hong Kong. One might carry on with this list but I would not wish to weary your Lordships with a recital of the numbers of countries and the many millions of people who have been drinking artificially fluoridated water for many years without a single sign of ill-health resulting from that measure.
The scientific evidence for the safety of fluoridation is massive and overwhelming. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned that in the United Kingdom the Royal Commission on the National Health Service and the Royal College of Physicians most recently endorsed this measure. One could add the British Dental Association and numerous other bodies which have published authoritative endorsements of this as a public health measure. It is hard to imagine what additional information is likely to be provided by the study to which the noble

1443
Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred. One fears that this is simply another device to put off making the decisions which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has called upon us now to take.
Therefore why is it taking so long for this country to realise the enormous benefits which undoubtedly would accrue for the dental health of the people, at a negligible cost? The noble Lord touched on what I think is one of the main reasons; that is, the effect on public health of anti-fluoridation propaganda. The allegations made by opponents have included an increased incidence of mongolism, arthritis, allergies and cancer. As soon as one false statement is knocked on the head then, like a hydra, another one appears and has to be refuted. The anti-fluoridationists are continually abandoning one position and turning to another, but there is no doubt that over the years of all the allegations which I have mentioned the one which associates the fluoridation of water supplies with cancer is one of the most powerful weapons in the armoury of the anti-fluoridationists; and of course the suggestion carries added weight when it is made by persons who appear to have some scientific qualification.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the work of Dr. Dean Burk which has been used as the keystone of the literature and propaganda of the anti-fluoridation campaign. Dr. Burk, with an associate, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis of the National Health Federation of Monrovia, U.S.A., published evidence which claimed to show that where public water supplies had been fluoridated in the United States of America there had been a substantial increase in cancer death rates. It was said that because of the power of the vested interests behind fluoridation these two doctors had not yet been able to get official recognition of their evidence. I am quoting from the propaganda put out by the National Anti-Fluoridation Campaign. I think it is important to emphasise that neither Dr. Burk nor Dr. Yiamouyiannis are medical doctors—they are both biochemists; that the so-called National Health Federation is a front organisation in the United States of America for quacks and mountebanks who try to foist useless treatments on gullible sick people, such as the use of a
1444
substance called Laetrile which is derived from apricot stones and is alleged—quite falsely—to be a cancer cure.
As it has been alleged that fluoridation led to increased morbidity from cancer, it was clearly essential that epidemiological studies should be undertaken, as indeed they have been, to refute these allegations. In Britain there was a comprehensive study published by Dr. L. Kinlen in 1975, comparing the incidence of cancer of the breasts, bladder, colon, rectum, kidney and thyroid in a population of approximately 1.3 million people living in fluoridated areas with an equivalent matched population of similar size drinking unfluoridated water, and no differences were detected. The same result has been found wherever this comparison is made, in the United States, in Holland and in New Zealand, for example.
Dr. Dean Burk, however, published a critique of this study of Dr. Kinlen's purporting to show, by reanalysing the data in a different way, large increases of cancer in the fluoridated areas and pointing out the remarkably large difference in the absolute rate of cancer between two of the tables in Dr. Kinlen's paper which he said were unexplained. In fact, this was due to an elementary misreading of the tables, because they related to data which was accumulated over different periods of time and were thus not comparable, as Dr. Kinlen himself had clearly explained in a footnote. I think this illustrates the kind of propaganda we have to deal with when those who are analysing statistical data are not themselves even capable of reading the footnotes to tables.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, as an absolute ignoramus listening with enormous interest to the noble Lord and the previous speaker, I am quite ready to believe everything the noble Lord says is true, but if so, how have the others got away with it so far? On the showing of the noble Lord they are all a lot of nitwits or cranks or something. Just listening to the noble Lord one really cannot understand why this cause has not prevailed long ago.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, it is very remarkable. What I am trying to demonstrate to your Lordships is that the fear of cancer, and indeed of the other diseases

1445
mentioned by the anti-fluoridationists, is so strong that people do not look very carefully at the evidence and do not go into analysis of claims made by persons such as Dr. Dean Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis. They merely see that in the anti-fluoridation literature these people are represented as having scientific qualifications. If one reads the pamphlets one sees an enormous list of papers published by this gentleman which at first sight look very authoritative and make one think that anything he says should be taken extremely seriously. It is a fact of psychology that people do take these claims made by the anti-fluoridationists seriously. This is why it is important to examine them, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, but that we should refute them in a scientific manner rather than simply telling people not to read them.
Perhaps I can refer the noble Earl to a very interesting article in the American consumer reports for July 1978. The author of this article says that,
"' the real goal of anti-fluoridation groups', explains an American Dental Association official, 'is to create the illusion of a scientific controversy and to this end the facts are incidental '."
What we are trying to do and what we ought to be trying to do is to bring it hack on to a scientific plane. That is why one should look carefully, for example, at the information which is provided by Professor Sir Richard Doll, the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, who confirms the original study of Dr. Kinlen, that his findings were correct. He writes in fact that Dr. Burk's methods of analysing them were quite improper. There has indeed been an increase in cancer in Birmingham, which accounted for the vast majority of the 1.3 million people in the study, but as Sir Richard says, his colleague, Mrs. Cook-Mozzafari, looking at cancer mortality over a longer period and bringing the figures right up-to-date, confirms that increases have been recorded in all provincial towns with more than 400,000 inhabitants, a factor which Dr. Burk totally ignores in his analysis.
But, my Lords, when all these technical arguments have been demolished the anti-fluoridationists fall back into their hunker of alleging that this adjustment of the fluoride content of water is a violation of civil liberties. I take this very seriously,
1446
as someone who was formerly chairman of the parliamentary Civil Liberties Group over a period of seven years, and who is still extremely interested and concerned to ensure that the British people maintain and uphold the civil liberties that we have always enjoyed. When this matter has been dealt with by the courts of law the argument has failed, because it is based on the false assumption that fluoridation is a method of treating disease and is therefore a form of mass medication for a condition which individual patients ought to be allowed to deal with in accordance with the method of their own choice, on professional advice, which, of course, they are free to seek or not.
But the medical and dental authorities have made it absolutsly clear that fluoridation is not effective as a method of countering tooth decay when it has already occurred. It is a means of preventing that decay, and it is only one of as many as 38 chemicals which may be added to the water supply for improving its quality or safety. But we do not say that the addition of any of these other substances to the water supply is an invasion of our liberties. Nor have we demanded anything like the standard of proof of their safety which has been required in the case of fluoridation. Yes, by all means, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, let us give people the opportunity of objecting. But the fact is that by preventing or delaying a measure of proven effectiveness, against which not a shred of valid evidence of harm has ever been produced, the anti-fluoridationists are denying to the public at large the relief from suffering and improvement in wellbeing that a reduction of over a half in tooth decay would bring.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of YARBOROUGH: My Lords, I have delayed rather longer than usual, addressing your Lordships for the first time in, I think, something like 10 years, but I would crave the indulgence which customarily your Lordships accord to someone in my situation today. I know what I ought to do; I should be brief and non-controversial. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, it is a little difficult to be non-controversial on this highly controversial subject. But I am comforted by the thought that at least it has no party political undertones. I

1447
would expect divergent views on this subject from all parts of your Lordships' House. I am just about to introduce the divergence on this side—at any rate the first divergence on this side of the House.
Perhaps I might be allowed to state, first of all, my general stance in regard to the whole matter, which is that I have been an opponent of fluoridation since the idea was first mooted, for the basic reason—and this has been touched upon already—that it interferes with what I at any rate conceive to be the liberty of the individual. So far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with making the water pure and treating the water as such. I regard it as medication. I think the intent of fluoridation is to create a pathological change in those, or at lease some of those, who drink it, and that to my mind is medication, and one can call it mass medication certainly. So I find it unacceptable that a public service like the water supply should be used to convey any substance. It happens in this case to be sodium fluoride, but I would object just as strongly if it was anything else. Given the intent, and I think the intent is important, to put what I regard as a medicinal product in it, intended to affect the body of the recipient, I would regret anything being put in it for that purpose, however good the result might be. It is perhaps a somewhat purist view, but it is, I think, a view which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said he respected, although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not really think very much of it.
I object particularly strongly because I lean rather heavily towards the homeopathic approach to medicine. As your Lordships know, under that approach everything is done to provide what a particular individual may need on an individual basis. That type of treatment is the exact reverse of what is proposed. However, I recognise that not everyone will take that view and so I shall put that behind me, having stated that it is the fundamental reason for my holding the view that I do hold.
In the Question and indeed as regards what has already been said, optimum levels have been considered. The first thing I should like to know is optimum for whom?—given that we are all different; that we all drink different amounts of
1448
liquid in which there may or may not be fluoride; and that we all eat different foods in which, as has been pointed out already, there is very often fluoride. Presumably if we were considering a middle-aged person with dentures the optimum would be nil. The optimum might very well be nil for the great majority of the population.
Let us consider for a moment those to whom fluoridation is directed—that is, children between, let us say, seven and 14. I read some figures which seemed to indicate that there was a factor of eight as regards the difference between the bottom and the top of what they might consume, at any rate in liquid form. What is one to do? Just put the pin in the middle and say, "That's it"? I suggest that that is a rather unscientific and haphazard way of reaching an answer.
What of the other members of the population who do not need fluoride? The vital question is: how safe is it? I do not want, especially on this occasion, to engage in a battle over statistics or who said or did what. But it is my sincere understanding that there are medical grounds for at least suspecting it—leaving it as vague as that—especially as regards mongolism, genetic change and certainly the incidence of cancer. I have read a number of different opinions. I would only say tonight that I am very concerned that there is a safety problem. There needs to be more research especially on what may be the long-term effects of fluoride. If we put it in all the water supplies it will be a life sentence—we must have it.
I should like to consider the situation which has obtained for a number of years. The whole area of fluoridation has resembled nothing so much as a battlefield. Skirmishes have taken place throughout the country with local authorities and health authorities. Sometimes the result has gone one way and sometimes the other way. Sometimes decisions have been reversed and sometimes they have been upheld. I should like to suggest that the pressure be taken off and that we have a cease-fire or perhaps a moratorium.
I was delighted to learn that there is to be another inquiry. I did not know that until I came to your Lordships' House this evening. However, I suggest that it should

1449
be a judicial inquiry and not an internal inquiry. There is so much disagreement and suspicion of each side's motives—although I am prepared to accept that most of it is unfounded, it does exist—that what is needed is some judicial body to hear the evidence and to weigh it, because that seems to me to be a judicial function. All the experts could give evidence. Their evidence would doubtless conflict as it normally does when there are two or three experts together. It would be the function of this commission, body or whatever one might call it, to come out with its findings.
Already this evening examples have been quoted of what occurred in America. What I read was rather different from the picture painted this evening. It was my understanding—if the case quoted was the case in Allegheny in Pennsylvania—that it was found proven that fluoride was a danger to health. I know that there was some legal wrangle about jurisdiction but I thought, on the facts presented by a number of experts, that that was the finding and that the facts had not been challenged but merely the jurisdiction of the court to grant a temporary injunction. However, I could well be wrong. In any event that exemplifies the difficulties of the matter.
One must also have regard to what has happened in other countries, especially Europe. We are the only country, apart from Eire, that now has fluoridation. Other countries have tried it. For example Sweden tried it and did away with it in 1971. Holland had it, but got rid of it in 1973. I am sure that all those countries have gone into the question of safety and in some cases they have concluded that it is a potential health hazard. Therefore, I do not think that all the evidence points in one direction.
One reason why I suggest that we should have some judicially based body, is that it is difficult to escape the feeling—and I do not want to be critical especially on this occasion—that those in the Health Service and the Department of Health have over the years adopted an entrenched position. Those of us who have tried individually and in groups to influence these issues and let the other side of the case be heard, have found them perhaps a little unresponsive. As came out earlier they have also been somewhat dismissive.
1450
Whether your Lordships think that I am a nut case this evening, I do not know, but I shall no doubt be told in due course. There have been some fairly rude aspersions cast at anybody who—I assure your Lordships in my case very sincerely—opposes the whole idea of fluoridation.
In conclusion I should like to say that I am entirely sympathetic with the motives of those who want fluoride. I understand perfectly what they are trying to do. I would question—because I think that there is some doubt—how effective it is. It certainly has an effect on children's teeth. My understanding is that all it does in fact is to delay the incidence of caries and that it does not prevent it. However, that is something with which I am sure other noble Lords will deal.
In this age in which we live our environment is heavily dependent on chemicals in one way or another, and deeply involved with chemicals. We have them in our food in the form of colouring; we have additives; and preservatives; we have chemicals in our drinks; they are in the soil and in the air. I know that there are specified bodies whose duty it is to monitor those matters and I am sure that they do their job admirably. However, there seems to me to be a great danger in adding to the number unless it is absolutely necessary.
I would include fluoride in this category of potentially dangerous substances. We may set a safe limit for the vast majority of people but there are always those on the fringe who, for some reason, are particularly sensitive to some chemical or another. If we add to the numbers of such chemicals that are potentially dangerous, it increases the likelihood of those people who are particularly sensitive encountering one that will be severely damaging to them. Turning to the Question, and holding the views I do, in this particular instance I believe that the water authority has done a service by reducing a naturally high level of fluoride to one that is lower and I would therefore suggest safer.
6.21 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I am very pleased to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his maiden speech; especially on his temerity

1451
on making it on a subject as controversial as this. His was an interesting and reasonably-stated contribution to the debate and it is, of course, right that he should state his views and reservations as clearly as he has. I feel sure that, if his future interventions are as non-controversial, we can look forward to hearing them keenly. I shall now proceed to disagree with him totally!
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as a member of the Government party, is testing the water but I am glad that lie has raised once more this too long debated matter. Perhaps our debate this evening will encourage some action. If it does, millions of people—in particular children—will lead happier and healthier lives. Everyone in this House must have suffered toothache and, as a result of dental caries, had fillings and extractions, and experienced the pain that dental treatment often causes. Probably everyone, too, can remember how much worse it all was in childhood. I can, vividly.
For children the experience can be traumatic and can create a lifelong fear which makes many adults—and I know several—simply let their teeth go, avoid the dentist's chair and finally opt for false teeth. Treatment is much better today and involves far less discomfort, but only the overconfident or masochistic face a visit to the dentist without some sense of fear. I do not want to dwell on this aspect of the subject, although I want us to achieve a position where the need for dental treatment is dramatically reduced, where that treatment is simpler and where suffering and fear are replaced by real interest in preventing dental disease. Much the worst aspect of it, of course, is the unnecessary loss of teeth—often complete loss in childhood.
I intend neither to discuss the cases for and against fluoridation nor to comment on the documents that we have received from an address in Station Road, Thames Ditton, except to say that in telling us where our duty lies, the language is exaggerated and the tone strident, if not almost hysterical. They remind me of nothing so much as a re-run of that once fiecrely debated question "Can man live at 100 miles an hour?"
1452
I have weighed the evidence myself; it is the best that I can do. As a member of your Lordships' House, it is my responsibility to do so and then, if I feel strongly about the subject—as I do in this case—to put my view before the House. My view is that we should put into effect a programme of water fluoridation. I have been persuaded to this point of view by a number of considerations, and not least by the findings and recommendations of two important reports. One, entitled Fit for the Future, is the report of the Committee on Child Health Services under the chairmanship of Professor Donald Court, which was published in December, 1976. Pointing out, in a section on dental health, that fluoridation is
"one measure that would prevent a great deal of dental caries without individual effort",
it says:
"The presence of fluoride, to a level of one part per million in all water supplies, would substantially reduce dental caries in children and restrain it in adults, and the procedure is safe, effective and cheap".
On safety, it quotes the 1976 Report of the Royal College of Physicians which concludes, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have pointed out, that there is no evidence that the consumption of water containing one part per million of fluoride in a temperate climate is associated with any harmful effects. On the other hand, the effectiveness of fluoridation is indicated by, among others, the case of New Zealand, where there has been a dramatic decrease in the need for dental care since fluoridation, and the average number of fillings inserted annually has fallen from five to three per child.
Why, the Court Report asks, do only
"8 per cent. of the people of Britain enjoy the benefits of fluoridation",
while 92 per cent. are deprived? It concludes that:
"The real obstacles are public apathy, minority prejudice and governmental reluctance to impose a political solution. The cost in unnecessary disease, personal pain and discomfort, misuse of professional resources and national expenditure has been immense".
The committee's recommendation is unequivocal:
"We recommend that immediate steps should be taken to introduce fluoridation on a national scale, if necessary with new legislation".

1453
The second report, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is that of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, under its chairman, Sir Alec Merrison, which was published in July of this year. The section on fluoridation is quite lengthy and I shall not delay your Lordships by quoting extensively from it. I should like simply to quote one short section, which reads:
"We are not simply convinced of the wisdom of introducing fluoridation, if necessarily compulsorily; we are certain that it is entirely wrong to deprive the most vulnerable section of the population of such an important public health measure for the sake of the views of a small minority of adults for whom its benefits come too late".
The Commission's recommendation is as direct as that of the Court Committee. It is:
"the Government should introduce legislation to compel water authorities to fluoridate water supplies at the request of health authorities".
Finally, I am greatly impressed by the views of dentists themselves, such as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who, it seems to me, display professional responsibility of the highest degree in pressing the case for fluoridation. I not only support the request of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; I would go further and ask the Government if they will accept the recommendations I and others have referred to—and recommendations such as the resolution of the 28th World Health Assembly in 1975—and take action to introduce fluoridation on a national scale. By doing so they will not only save children and adults unnecessary suffering, but will also save the nation's professional resources and its money.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Yar-borough, on his maiden speech. I am afraid I must admit that I shall also disagree with him; but that, after all, is the essence of the debate, and I shall welcome exchanging views with him many times in the future. I am sure that there are many subjects on which we could agree, but on this one I must take the opposite view. I was going to finish my remarks with a certain statement, but I think I shall start them with it. It seems tragic that on a question as im-
1454
portant as this, the voice of the anti-lobby is heard so much more loudly than the voice of the pro-lobby. This is true with many problems that face us. The people who are in favour tend to keep quiet. I am therefore delighted that so far in this debate we have had one, two, three, and this is the fourth speech in favour, and only one against so far. I think it is our duty, if we believe in fluoridation of water, for us to go out and say so as loudly as the anti-lobby.
I was tremendously sad not to be able to be present yesterday at the debate on the Health Service. Many speakers in that debate referred to the problems of the finances of the Health Service itself, and to the fact that if ever we are to be able to meet the costs of the needs of this nation from a health point of view, we must concentrate on preventive measures which can, and will in the long run, reduce the cost to the nation and to the service. Here, I agree, is one measure which could demonstrably help to save money, and it could do that at the same time as it would prevent suffering for a lot of young people.
There has been a great deal of reference to the question of safety. Various reports have been quoted. I want only to add one thing to that. It is interesting to see that in Australia, to which my noble friend Lord Avebury referred, there are 4·9 million people drinking fluoridated water. In Australia they have recently carried out a research project into the suggested connection between cancer and fluoride, the outcome of which has been that the Director-General of Health has lately issued a report supporting fluoridation in that country. That is one additional support for the safety angle.
I really want to talk about the problems of implementation as they affect a regional health authority. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that he felt that the decision should be taken locally and that individuals locally should have a right to participate in the decision-making. In actual fact that is what happens at the moment, because it is the responsibility of the health authorities to consult as widely as they can with interested bodies before they take a decision to recommend fluoride.
May I talk about my own region. Every single area in my region has taken

1455
the decision, and so has the region, that we should like fluoride added to the water supply within our region. For a number of years we have attempted to get this done. The problem is that there is no enforcement order between the health authority's recommendation and the water authority's need to comply with those recommendations. I believe that on the whole the water authorities are resistant to this recommendation because of their responsibilities under the Water Act to produce clean, wholesome water. If they are worried about it, I think they should refer to a case that was brought in 1964 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, will perhaps be glad to hear that it was a judicial committee that considered the subject. It was a case brought from the New Zealand courts by the Attorney General of New Zealand against the Lower Hutt City Corporation. The judicial committee decided that the addition of fluoride added no impurity and that the water remained pure water, and that the corporation, as a water authority, was empowered to make the addition. I know that this case does not apply to this country, but at least it is something to which we can refer.
Since the setting up of the new regional health authorities, the only water authority in this country to comply with the health authority's recommendation to add fluoride to the water is the Yorkshire Water Authority. The Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council began an action to prevent the Yorkshire Water Authority from implementing the area health authority's decision, and the water authority accepted the Secretary of State's immediate offer of indemnity, and so the case was to go forward. This all happened in the middle of 1978, practically a year and a half ago. So far the case has not been heard, and no date has even been set for hearing. If we want to test the case, surely the hearing should be brought forward.
I recognise that the previous Administration did almost all they could to help the health authorities implement their desire to have fluoride added to the water under the present system. They went to great lengths to give indemnity assurances to the water authorities, but that was not enough. There were, therefore, strong
1456
requests from health authorities that legislation must be introduced, because when questions were asked in the other place about enforcement the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in the last Administration, Mr. Denis Howell, said:
"I have no powers to give such a direction [to a water authority]. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I have encouraged water authorities to comply with requests made by area health authorities to add fluoride to water supplies, where it is technically possible to do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/78, col. 637.]
But he had no power.
At the end of the life of the last Administration the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Health and Social Security, Mr. Eric Deakins, on 29th June, when addressing the National Association of Health Authorities, admitted that we had come to the point where introducing legislation was probably the only answer, but he said that it was impracticable for that Administration to do so at that late stage. Well, I agree with that.
I speak in this debate because I should like the present Government to give strong consideration to introducing legislation to enforce decisions taken by health authorities, because I believe that the consultation that health authorities carry out before they come to the decision that fluoride should be added is very wide, and is adequate for pressure groups in the population of that area to make their wishes known. I would ask the present Government to consider this very seriously.
As a regional chairman I am always interested in funds for the Health Service. About four or five years ago a special fund was created in the department to help health authorities with the setting up of fluoridation schemes, and £500,000 a year was set aside centrally for that purpose. It will cost health authorities quite a bit of money, and as the years go by the cost will be higher. I sincerely hope that that fund is sacrosanct, and if we get the power to introduce fluoride that the money will be forthcoming from the department.
6.40 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this interesting subject for us to discuss

1457
and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Yarborough on his very interesting maiden speech. In this particular field, which is controversial, up to date he has found himself a single voice on the side of those who oppose fluoridation, but he has comfort to come because I see the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in his place and I know he is a doughty warrior among those who wish to keep fluoridation out of our water. He will therefore have substantial support there. And of course it is a fact, as noble Lords well know, that outside the House there are many people who feel passionately on this matter and therefore it is right and proper that we should debate it here and listen with great attention to those who sincerely feel opposed to it.
I am making a brief intervention from the point of view of the water industry primarily, for which I was responsible until this time last year. The position is that water supply is now in the hands of what is, in effect, a national water industry composed of 10 regional water authorities and 28 water companies, and substantially the position in regard to the fluoridation of water is that it is unchanged by the new structure which came into existence in 1974. It is substantially unchanged in regard to fluoridation; that is to say, the new water authorities have carried on with fluoridised supplies where they existed in the past and substantially have not made any change. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, is right in saying that the Yorkshire Water Authority were preparing to introduce fluoridation in supplies in their area, but so far as I know they have not yet done so, but Calderdale have taken out a writ against them and, so far as I know, that is still lying there, so that physically the position has not significantly changed.
Three years ago we, through myself as chairman of the National Water Council, had considerable discussion with Ministers on this matter. It was perfectly true that Ministers in the last Government wished to see an extension of this treatment and the position is, as the noble Baroness said, that the regional health authority would make the request to the regional water authority and then it would be for the regional water authority to carry it out if they thought it was the proper thing to do. The difficulty for regional water
1458
authorities was that in their judgment the law was not sufficiently clear to authorise them to proceed to give the fluoridation treatment to water supplies within their regions as the law now stands.
Therefore, we explained to the Secretary of State for the Environment that we were unable to make this treatment unless the Government were prepared to legislate, first, to clarify the statutory authority of regional health authorities to make this request; secondly, it would oblige regional water authorities to carry it out; and, thirdly, there would be complete indemnification for regional water authorities against anybody who took an action against them in damages.
We felt that that was the only proper course we could take in this very controversial field where action could be taken from either side, either by those who felt that regional water authorities should be so treating the water or by those who were bitterly opposed to it. In the event, as the noble Baroness recorded, the last Government were not able to legislate in this field, and so the position remains substantially unchanged.
In regard to the technical point in my noble friend's Question—that the effect of the regionalisation of supplies might dilute previous fluoridised supplies—that has not significantly happened, although of course regional networks of water supply have been developed and were substantially completed following the emergency of the drought in 1976. The position remains thus. I wish to deal with the point which Lord Yarborough dealt with so cogently, which is of course one of the major objections to the fluoridation of water—namely, that it would amount to an unwarranted medication of water by introducing a chemical into the water and so adulterating it. The present practice is, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said, that many chemical substances are added to water, the four main ones being chlorine, copper sulphate, aluminium and calcium; but there are many others as well and these are added first to make the water safe and secondly to make it palatable.
We must not overlook the fact that a very large part of our water supply has mixed with the natural supply what is called re-used water. If we take, for instance, the supply of excellent water we

1459
drink in London every day, this comes as two-thirds from the River Thames. The water in the River Thames has been used by millions of people living on the banks of the Thames, from the large towns of Swindon, Oxford, Reading and many smaller towns all the way down its banks. However, by processes of very carefully controlled treatment, these sewage effluents are made perfectly safe so that by the time the water comes to London it can be finally treated by the Thames Water Authority. This water is supplied through the pipes to us safe and clean and in every way palatable. What has gone into that water from factories and homes by the thousand is every sort and kind of chemical and impurity. However, these can be cleaned up and the water can be made perfectly satisfactory and palatable to use. We must therefore have a sense of proportion about this. It just does not make sense to say that one small chemical addition of fluoride will so adulterate the water as to make it completely objectionable.
This has brought me away from the position of complete neutrality which I took, I thought advisedly, when I was chairman of the National Water Council. I then thought I should be completely neutral and I have never before expressed in public a view about the merits of fluoridation. But now that I am, so to speak, a free man and can do so, I declare that I am entirely convinced by the evidence both in this country and throughout the world that the case for fluoridating the water is absolutely unanswerable. I may say that I am fortified in this view because my wife has for nearly 30 years been a governor of the Eastman Dental Hospital and therefore I am freely and well-advised at home by my ever-loving wife of the truth of this matter.
If one looks at any of the documents which have been so lucidly quoted today by many noble Lords, one sees that the scientific evidence is really compelling, and I shall refer to only a few points. One that struck me most forcefully was from a report of the Royal College of Physicians in 1976; that 37 per cent of the population of this country over the age of 16 have no teeth at all left in their heads—they have nothing but dentures—and in Scotland, where my noble friend comes from, the figure is 44 per cent. This
1460
really is terrible and, as the noble Baroness will know well, unfortunately in over half our households a toothbrush never appears. But if before they were born their mums were drinking water with fluoride in it, these children would have natural protection against this miserable disease which costs the National Health Service £140 million a year as well as inflicting a great deal of pain and suffering. The greater part of this would be saved.
Experience throughout the world—the World Health Authority has been quoted—shows that in no less than 30 countries this treatment is given to water, covering a population of the order of 150 million. The WHO made a firm recommendation to consider fluoridation of water "as a proven health measure". They said that in 1969 and they reiterated it in 1975. That is really convincing evidence. It has been tried worldwide by over 100 million people and found to be satisfactory.
We have of course all this scientific evidence to show that the health dangers about which the opponents are so con-cerned—particularly cancer—are simply non-existent. I quote only one sentence from the report of the Royal College of Physicians:
"There is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ".
and they deal with various other possible afflictions, too.
So I conclude my few remarks by saying that I hope it may be possible that this Government, who are full of such splendid purpose, and who have many other things to put right, can include in their programme this splendid piece of legislation. In a few areas there is natural fluoridation of the water, and there the population are enormously lucky. I should like to see that splendid natural benefit spread to the whole country, and I hope that my noble friend will find time for this legislation.
6.51 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I am very happy to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his maiden speech in which he dealt with a controversial subject in a way which I think every Member considered to be unexceptionable, and I hope that we shall soon hear

1461
him again. If I do not make myself heard, will someone prod me—I am suffering from the aftermath of influenza.
Fluoridation is one of the greatest delusions that has ever afflicted the medical and dental professions. It started with some statistical surveys made in the United States and published in 1942, comparing the incidence of dental decay in children of 12 and 14 years in areas which had varying amounts of fluoride in the water supply. The author of this report said that his figures showed that there was a reduction of 50 or 60 per cent. in dental decay. That is totally untrue. The statistics showed quite clearly that there were enormous variations between places which had the same amount of fluoride in the water supply—differences of up to 50 per cent.
This is typical of the way in which people have approached this subject ever since, because they have made the tacit assumption that the only factor that affects the level of dental decay is the amount of fluoride in the water supply. That indeed is exactly where the Royal College of Physicians' Report starts off in its very first sentence by saying:
"It has been shown in many parts of the world that the amount of dental caries in the population varies inversely with the amount of fluoride in drinking water".
That statement is not true. There are very many other factors which affect the incidence of dental decay.
There is at any rate one case in which some allowance was made for the fact that other causes might be at work. That was in an experiment carried out under the auspices of the Ministry of Health in which the precaution was taken of having a survey in the year preceding fluoridation in order to ascertain whether the area to be fluoridated was comparable to a control. After 11 years a report was published on the results of the experiment, and it showed that at age 8 there were on average in the permanent teeth of children two decayed teeth in the control area and 1·2 in the study area; a difference of 0·8 of a tooth. At age 14 the difference was exactly the same. Dental decay had increased by equal amounts in both the control and the study areas. A saving of decay in less than one tooth for one year is not a substantial contribution to solving dental decay, and still less is it a
1462
contribution to solving the problem of teeth, because after the age of maturity the loss of teeth is mostly occasioned by paradontal disease, not by dental caries, and that will not be altered at all by fluoridation. The result will be that there will be almost exactly the same situation as at present.
After all, what has happened in the United States, where 90 million people are having fluoride in their water supply? The cost of dental treatment is going up every year. The amount spent on research—millions of dollars—is also going up every year. This panacea has not altered anything substantially.
Let me point out, first, that fluorides are not nutrients. They are in this connection drugs. Of course drugs are not necessarily medicinal. They may also be preventive, and this is well recognised. I shall quote one well-known authority, Vruton and Simmonds' General Bio-chemistry. They say:
"Bromide and fluoride … are generally considered non-nutritive and toxic for higher animals".
In a book written by the late Lord Horder and Sir Charles Dodds, it is pointed out that,
"fluorine is an extremely powerful enzyme poison".
This is what we are asked to add to the water supply and therefore we certainly ought to be extremely careful.
It has in fact been known for a very long time that fluorides have detrimental effects. In 1937, Colonel H. E. Short, FRS, conducted a series of investigations in India showing that fluoride (in, I agree, somewhat higher amounts) had caused serious skeletal disability, pain and so on; and in the same year there was published in London and Denmark a classical study by Dr. Roholm, who collected all the information relating to his book, and who described his own personal experiences and experiments with regard to fluorides.
The conclusion to which he came was that they were very toxic, and that they should on no account be added to any foodstuff. He pointed out, in particular, that their effect upon the enamel of teeth was, on the whole, detrimental; and this was found in the United States at an early stage, because it was found that teeth with dental fluorosis were brittle and difficult

1463
to repair. Observe that at this so-called optimal level there are going to be quite a number of children who will have some fluorous teeth. The figure of one part per million was not chosen as an optimal or desirable level. It was chosen as the maximum which should certainly not be exceeded, as many water suppliers were exceeding it, although even at that level 10 per cent. of children would develop dental fluorosis. This, as the Medical Research Council has said, is the first detectable symptom of chronic fluoride poisoning, and so it is a serious warning.
In 1924, the Ministry of Health Departmental Committee on Preservatives in Food made a report in which they said that fluoride and formaldehyde were the most toxic substances which had been proposed as food additives; and during the last 50 years, in this country, it has been illegal to add fluoride to foods, with one minor exception. Unfortunately, under our legislation water is not classified as a food, but, nevertheless, the inference is very clear. There are other indications of injury from fluorides. I will not say that everybody will develop symptoms, but we are at a point where some people will.
A very extensive survey was carried out in the United States by a very competent doctor, Dr. Rapaport, of the incidence of births of children suffering from a mental disorder popularly known as mongolism, or Down's syndrome. He found that the number of cases was correlated with the amount of fluoride in the water supply. This was an investigation in four American States and a second one in one of these over a different period of years. I took the trouble to calculate what the odds were that these results were credible. I found that the odds were 62½ million to one that this was not due to chance. This research has been brushed aside on most trivial grounds. One member of the American Public Health Service said he had made a survey of some of the area covered by Rapaport, and had found that any difference was probably due to chance. But that investigation has never been published. No data are available, and yet it is quoted all over the world as evidence. It is not evidence of anything at all; and this is the way in which many of these matters have been handled.
1464
My Lords, there is a very large amount of evidence. There is, indeed, a memorandum of the Medical Research Council on goitre which indicates that fluoride may cause goitre. This has been verified in various parts of the world—in this country, in South Africa, in India and elsewhere—and a very eminent Austrian doctor called Gorlitzer von Mundy——
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Has the noble Lord finished with the subject of mongolism?
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: Yes, my Lords. I do not want to detain your Lordships.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I intervene briefly? I merely want to make sure that when people read the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard they also appreciate that the work which he has mentioned, of Rapaport, alleging a connection between fluoridation and mongolism, has been refuted; for example, by Berry, WTC, in a study of the incidence of mongolism in relation to the fluoride content of water, in the American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 62: 634 (1958). So anybody reading the noble Lord's remarks will also have the reference to the article in which they are refuted.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I am perfectly familiar with that paper, and the conclusion to which Berry came was that the incidence of mongolism in this country was not well indicated by a count of cases being cared for in institutions. That was intended to be a criticism of Rapaport, who included those and others. Since then, Berry's statement has been quoted as a refutation. It is nothing of the kind.
My Lords, I was going to quote Dr. Gorlitzer von Mundy, who conducted thousands of animal experiments and afterwards treated very many cases of goitre by the administration of small doses of fluoride. What he said was that fluorides should not be administered indiscriminately, especially to young children whose need of iodine was very great. These observations have never been refuted.

1465
Let me say just a word about this question of cancer. It is becoming acutely controversial. Dr. Dean Burk and his colleague produced a very impressive paper which showed a connection between fluoride and cancer as a result of a survey of 10 of the largest fluoridated cities in the United States and 10 of the largest unfluoridated ones. The United States National Cancer Institute and Professor Newall in this country have said that insufficient adjustment has been made for the effect of age, race and sex. They produced a calculation which purported to show that fluoridation had not increased the incidence of cancer.
I do not want to go into the technique of this statistical argument. What I will say is that the method which they adopted, and which they said was the only valid method of correcting crude statistics, was used by another American investigator, Dr. J. D. Erickson whose paper was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. This survey covered an even larger population of 46 cities of over 250,000 people, about half fluoridated and half not. Crude death rates were higher in the fluoridated group. Dr. Erickson processed the figures in the way which these critics have said is the only proper and valid method and he still had an excess of cancer deaths in the fluoridated cities. He then processed the figures for length of schooling and percentage of open space, and came up with a different result. If anybody believes that the latter operation was a valid method I am surprised. Certainly nobody ever demonstrated a connection between the incidence of cancer and the number of years people had been at school.
Now let me go back for a moment to this question of a so-called optimal level of fluoride in the water supplies. As I said, it was never adopted for that purpose. The World Health Organisation in its resolution in 1969 recommended Member States to introduce, where suitable, fluoridation in public water supplies where the intake of fluoride from all sources was below an optimal level. There are many sources besides water supplies; more probably may come from food or from drinking tea.
Anyhow, the simple point is that every individual is different, his consumption of water and many other things is different.
1466
There is no such thing as an optimal level for a population. There might or might not be one for an individual, but for a population not at all. Therefore the resolution passed by the World Health Organisation is absolutely meaningless. Nobody could ever carry it out because one cannot ascertain how much every member of the population is consuming. Nor can one determine how much more one will get if one puts fluoride into the water supply. This, like many other authorities which are quoted, is a meaningless statement which can carry no conviction for anybody who thinks about what it implies.
The report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service certainly made the recommendation which has been quoted, but I do not know what evidence they received. I do not know whether they heard anybody who had any criticism to make of fluoridation; and it certainly was not in their terms of reference. That is a rather strange circumstance. Reference has been made to a case heard in the United States asking for an injunction to prevent fluoridation in which the judge, after hearing evidence for and against of the most eminent kind, came to the conclusion that fluorides were dangerous to health and liable to induce cancer. That judgment still stands. The decision to issue an injunction was appealed against and it was decided by the higher court of Pennsylvania—not the Supreme Court of the United States—that the injunction ought not to be issued. But the substance of the finding has been unassailed.
Reference has also been made to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this country on an appeal from New Zealand. All that the Privy Council did was to confirm the judgment of the court below, which was based, as it said, on the assumption that fluorides are naturally found in water supplies and that the water supplies of New Zealand were deficient. That finding was made entirely upon the evidence advanced by the promoters of fluoridation, because the plaintiffs did not call any evidence. They assumed, it would seem, that the case was so to speak, self-evident. So that judgment clearly has no bearing upon the controversy which we are considering.
Always appeals are made to emotion—about children having dental treatment

1467
and suffering from pains in their teeth—and appeals are made to authority in the shape of bodies such as the Royal College of Physicians' Committee. I pointed out that it started off on the wrong foot and anybody who reads the report can see that the conclusions are quite unbelievable because, although they quote evidence of injury from fluoride they quote other people who said they had not found it. If they had said that on balance they thought there was no damage to the human body from fluoride, one could possible have believed it. But to say in chapter after chapter that there is no evidence, when the evidence is palpable—I have given some examples tonight—is certainly not a scientific way of going about things. I am reminded of what Galileo said; that in matters of science the opinion of one informed person may be worth that of thousands of others.
There are a great many eminent scientists all over the world, including Nobel prize-winners, who have objected to fluoridation, and on health grounds. After all, there still remains the ethical question: What right has any Government to impose a method of treatment upon people against their will? It has been a cardinal principle of the National Health Service since its beginning that no compulsion would be exercised on doctors as to their method of treatment. If they are not to be compelled, their patients certainly are not to be compelled. It is quite improper that they should be.
It is all very well to say that fluorides are found naturally in some water supplies. Very rarely are they in amounts such as are proposed. Lots of other things are found naturally in the water supplies—radioactive materials, for example—but it does not prove it is a good thing that they should be there: far from it. So I say once more that it is totally wrong that anybody should impose a treatment of this kind.
Reference was made by one speaker to vaccination against smallpox. Smallpox was never so rife in this country as at a time when vaccination was most stringently enforced on the population. The elimination of smallpox from the world has come about, not by vaccination but by the simple plan, known for a century or so, that what you need to do is to isolate the
1468
contacts and prevent the disease from spreading. That is an illustration of a medical myth which is still believed everywhere. I hope it will not be so for long.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, purely as a matter of information, could he inform the House whether he has a conscientious objection to drinking chlorinated water?
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I have to drink chlorinated water; but let me point out that chlorine is added to water supplies in order to kill germs in them. It is not there for the purpose of being a treatment or as medicine for the consumers.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, if the noble Lord would forgive me again——
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that one intervention should be sufficient.
7.26 p.m.
Lord COLWYN: My Lords, I, too, welcome the introduction of this debate today by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I agree it is high time something was done about this subject. We have heard some interesting speeches and I should like to include my contratulations on the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, although I did not really agree with anything he said.
I appreciate that fluoridation is a very emotive subject and I have no doubt that our deliberations this evening will have reprecussions for many weeks to come. When society is involved in vigorous, acrimonious and frequently apparently irrational debate on a topic which admits of no compromise, the time comes to stand back a little from the detailed battle and review the general position. Such a topic is the great issue before your Lordships' House today.
Over a number of years I have practised dentistry myself. I ought to have declared an interest, although just before the debate started the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, reminded me that perhaps it was not an interest to declare since if everything goes through I shall have no work to do at all! I shall not go into all the minute details about how many teeth are saved,

1469
and what happens to this or that, because I, too, could go on for two to three hours and bore your Lordships.
The scientific arguments for fluoridation are no longer in question. There is no room for scientific doubt that the addition of one part per million of fluoride to the public water supply is astonishingly effective in reducing the incidence of tooth decay. The apparent irrationality of some of the arguments offered by those of us who are against fluoridation and their consequent difficulty in defending them, must not lead those of us in favour of fluoridation to be too contemptuous, especially on occasions such as this, for it is often the case that in human affairs such a response is indicative of a deep socially important sense of duty which is not always rationally expressed by those who hold it. Indeed, such people may not even realise the nature of the deep-seated reason for their opposition to an innovation which looks to so many other citizens as overwhelmingly desirable.
The experience of the City of Birmingham, for instance, where the introduction of fluoride has now resulted in there being not enough children with decay for dental students in the hospitals to practise on, is just the most recent dramatic example of the effectiveness of fluoride. It may be that this particular episode in the nearly century-long history of knowledge of the effectiveness of fluoride in caries reduction will prove the ultimate clinching argument which will turn the balance of public opinion in the direction of fluoridation of the public water supply.
Current dental practice is very much aimed at prevention. We hear of topical applications, of fluoride rinses, of fissure sealants, and my noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned fluoride tablets. In fact, I disagree with him. They have to be taken for only six years, because teeth actually start forming six years before they appear in the mouth, so that if they are taken at conception and finish at around the age of six, that is sufficient protection. It is also a fact that correct oral hygiene—that is, cleaning of the teeth—done properly, will completely also eradicate dental caries.
But the present scope of dental treatment is just not reaching the vast majority of the population of this country. Only 40
1470
per cent. of us regularly visit our dentist, and 60 per cent. hardly go at all ! Only 30 per cent. of the population of this country have a functional toothbrush. That is a sobering thought. If everybody decided in the next week or so that they would go and see their dentist, the dental services just would not be able to cope with the patient demand.
Why do so many dentists—and I number myself among them—tend now towards private practice? It is because, under the health system, we were dealing with between 40 and 60 patients a day with dental decay. That is hard work, and as you get older is just impossible to deal with. We cannot cope with this epidemic problem. Perhaps the introduction of fluoride in the water supplies would enable far better use to be made of our National Health Service.
Before us we have a proved and effective treatment reaching the entire population. I have seen the children who suffer. It is all very well saying that they should clean their teeth and that we should take their sweets away from them. But it is not until you have had to hold down a screaming four-year old child, anaesthetise it and pull out baby teeth that you realise the difficulties and the immorality of not initiating a proved comprehensive treatment plan that will prevent untold cases of future suffering. Never has so much research been put into a single preventive programme. There are 158 million people in 38 countries who now drink fluoridated water. The scares and the correlation of fluoride in one part per million to detrimental health have been shown to be totally untrue. I have papers here—hundreds of them—showing not a single correlation between any of these diseases. The connections between cancer deaths are as vague as showing that cancer deaths in London are related to the frequency of No. 11 buses.
To be slightly light-hearted for a minute, in March, 1977, the Sunday Times warned us of the dangers of a new fire-fighting agent called "water"—a wonderful and total extinguishing resource. Its effectiveness in dealing with fires had been thoroughly tested and proved. But what of its dangers? Despite its efficiency, we must not store it in open spaces for people might fall in. If anyone accidentally immersed his head in a three-gallon

1471
bucket, it would prove fatal in three minutes. A reservoir might hold enough water to fill 500,000 of these buckets. If a bucket was used 100 times, there is enough water in one reservoir effectively to kill the entire population of the United Kingdom. Risks of this size should not be allowed, whatever the gain. If the water were to get out of control, the results of Flixborough or Seveso would pale into insignificance by comparison. What use was a fire-fighting agent that could kill men as well as fire?
I do not see fluoridation as compulsory medication. It is merely a process of supplementation or adjustment of a normal constituent of most natural waters to its optimum content, from the standpoint of public health. In any organised community, some sacrifice of personal liberty for the general good is inevitable. Insistence on absolute personal liberty is compatible only with anarchy. It seems to me to be possible that some, at least, of the strength of feeling of those against fluoridation has been due to the attempts of those, such as myself, to comment on the possible dangers of fluoride in too authoritative or too derisory a manner. Authority is all very well and is, of course, necessary in what we call a free society—by which term we mean a society in which the individual is not really free to do anything he feels inclined to do, but has to observe the restraints necessary to allow the rest of us to be free. But it is all too possible in these days, when we are already over-administered, to take authority too far, even to the extent of inciting a backlash. It seems to me that this point may well have been reached some years ago in the continuing fluoride debate.
The ordinary citizen has become more than a little tired living in a society which is usually described as free, but which he knows all too well is not, because he has to spend a great deal of his life filling in official forms, which become more and more intrusive as the years go by, and being careful to observe all manner of regulations the purpose of which is not always clear to him. The state of mind induced by this kind of experience, which we all share, is bound to induce in some the urgent need to express themselves as opposed to yet another intrusion upon their freedom.
1472
Where such a climate of opinion exists, it is really no wonder that some opposition will be of the diehard variety, and completely deaf to what those of us who are convinced of the benefit of fluoridation feel sure are reasonable arguments, such as the presence already in our water of various additives to make it wholesome as the law requires health and water authorities to supply. Their ears will also be closed to statements that we consider true, such as that fluoride in the strictly limited amounts necessary is perfectly safe.
One of the most noticeable facets of the important and continuing debate is that, in the main, the politicians keep out of it. They know how votes can get lost. Some Members of the other place have shown that they know it, by publishing their names in this circular which we have from Thames Ditton. On the other hand, the dental and medical professions, out of true compassion for the children and adults whose teeth could be spared the purges of decay, appear sometimes to move beyond their specialised and expert permit, and to enter further into the political arena than is their place or is likely to advance their cause.
In conclusion, I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say how distressed we are that progress towards fluoridation has been so slow. I urge the Government to introduce legislation to compel water authorities to fluoridate our water supplies at the earliest opportunity.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one short question to him? Could he confirm that fluoridation of the water supply can have no beneficial effect whatsoever upon anybody who has already achieved the age of 13 years or more?
Lord COLWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. The fluoride in the water certainly has a beneficial effect on the formation of teeth. But it is quite possible—and research is still going on—that the existence of fluoride may well have some kind of inhibitive reaction on the bacteria which actually cause decay. So that I would not necessarily agree with the noble Lord's statement.
7.39 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in view of the length of time that this Unstarred Question has taken, I am sure it will be of interest and pleasure to your Lordships to know that as I have to catch a particular train I shall not be speaking in this debate. There are, however, just one or two comments that I want to make. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his maiden speech, and of course I hope that he will not wait the same number of years before he delivers his second speech. Speaking for myself, it was rather a joy to hear my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis again, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and I hope that we shall hear them more often than we have heard them recently.
I remember that on 12th March 1975 the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised a question on this matter in your Lordships' House. He drew attention to a survey which had been carried out in Anglesey. Fluoride had been introduced into the water and the survey showed conclusively that the dental health of children there was much better than the dental health of children in Bangor and Caernarvon. I mention that for one reason and one reason only.
When I was talking to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penton today, he happened to remark that at that particular time the decision to introduce fluoride into the water was taken by the county council. There seems to have been a change, either in recent months or in recent years, for it is now done by the area health authority. I was not aware of this, and I am wondering whether this ought not to be done by the elected representatives.
I am also wondering whether the noble Lord could find time to write to me at a later stage and let me know whether this is done exculsively by the area health authorities in this country. Certainly it is not done by the health authority in Scotland because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to say that it is done by the local councils. It seems to me that it is a decision which should be taken by them.
The only other matter I want to raise is this. The noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, made some reference to the Department of
1474
Health and Social Security. I think he said that the health authority appears to have taken an entrenched position. I take "the health authority" to mean the Department of Health and Social Security. I spent some five years in the department and got to know it very well. I came away with the deepest and greatest respect for the ability and competence not only of the department generally but of the medical division in particular. If there are experts anywhere, they are to be found there. They would not have advised any Secretary of State or, for that matter, anybody else to take a particular course of action unless they were perfectly satisfied that what they were suggesting was based upon sound medical and, if I may say so, scientific evidence, because they also had on their staff a very distinguished scientist. I do not want to say anything more about that because it is terribly important that we should hear what the noble Lord the Minister is going to say by way of answer to this debate.
7.43 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASH BOURNE: My Lords, I am sorry that we are going to be denied hearing a little more from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. However, it is getting late. I shall be as quick as I can, but I am afraid it will take me a little time. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this debate and to those who have spoken from their knowledge of this subject, with its implications for dental health and hence the general health of the whole community. I am sure that attention will be paid outside this House to the remarks of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially those with expert knowledge of the subject.
The score is 7: 2 at the moment. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is on the side of those who are in favour of fluoridation. Those seven in favour would like me to be able to say that the Government will wish to legislate during their term of office. The other two would like me to say that an inquiry will be held. I am afraid that I shall not satisfy any noble Lords. However, I can tell my noble friend that the announcement of an inquiry by the Minister of State is not accurate. Ministers are continuing to encourage fluoridation and their professional advisers will continue

1475
to examine carefully any material about fluoridation which gives adequate information on data and methods. I noticed in the newspaper today a report which said that a plan for legislation on fluoridation had now been scrapped. In point of fact, there was no plan. So these Press reports have to be very carefully looked at.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, whether the fund was still in existence, the fund of £½ million a year. The fund is still in existence and intact. I am afraid that I am bound to be rather repetitive, but I have quite a lot to say. Much of it will answer points which have been raised by noble Lords. As to my noble friend's Question, I understand that nearly all water supplies contain some fluoride, but that in Scotland—where he has served with distinction as Secretary of State—some 95 per cent. of public water supplies are derived from surface water with a low fluoride content. I am advised, therefore, that it is most unlikely that there are any areas of Scotland where the optimum proportion of fluoride is present.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, I tried to make it clear that the areas were South of the Border. There are no areas in Scotland. I mentioned some of the areas: Essex, South Shields and Hartlepool. I want to make it clear that I was not raising it in a Scottish context because it does not apply in Scotland.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be mentioning some of those, too. In England, which my noble friend has in mind, there are only a few water resources which contain naturally one part per million or more of fluoride. These are groundwater sources—as my noble friend says, occurring mainly in Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Essex, Dorset, Derbyshire and Cleveland. With the exception of one major area, these sources are relatively minor and those which contain more than one part per million are either diluted with low fluoride water or are only used as emergency supplies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is not aware of any sources of supply which naturally contain the optimum level of fluoride but which
1476
are intentionally or unintentionally diluted to below the optimum before being put into supply or into distribution. It would, however, take a disproportionate effort to establish this for certain.
The major area with a natural fluoride level of rather more than one part per million of fluoride is Hartlepool in Cleveland, to which I shall refer later. The water is supplied by the Hartlepool Water Company to a population of about 100,000 and the fluoride level is 1·3 to 1·4 parts per million. Although there are relatively few water supplies naturally containing the optimum level of fluoride, the better dental health of communities in areas served by such sources directed the thoughts of medical and dental research workers some 40 years ago to the possibility of devising a means of reducing the prevalence of dental decay—one of the commonest diseases—not merely in individuals but in the whole community.
These workers found that the greatest dental benefit occurred when a community's drinking water naturally contained about one part of fluoride per million parts of water. In temperate climates this was therefore regarded as the optimum proportion mentioned by my noble friend. Since, as I have said, nearly all water supplies contain some fluoride, the research workers considered that similar beneficial dental effects would be obtained by adjusting to the optimum level the fluoride content of supplies deficient in it naturally. Such adjustment was termed "fluoridation". Studies which began in the United States and Canada in 1945 showed that fluoridated water in the study areas, by comparison with low-fluoride control areas, also produced the protective effect against dental decay which had been observed in the areas with a satisfactory natural level of fluoride. For the greatest protective effect, fluoridated water had to be consumed from birth during the years of tooth formation; that is, to 14 years of age.
These results stimulated interest in this country and, on the advice of the Medical Research Council, the then British Government sent to the United States and Canada a mission consisting of dental, medical and scientific experts to study fluoridation in operation and to advise whether fluoride should be added to those

1477
water supplies in the United Kingdom which were deficient in it naturally. The mission reported in 1953 that fluoridation was a valuable public health measure through its effect in reducing dental decay, but that in this country fluoride should be added to the water supplies of some selected communities before its general adoption was considered.
Studies accordingly began in three areas of the United Kingdom in 1955–56, and reports published in 1962 and 1969 on the first five and 11 years showed substantial dental benefits in children who had consumed fluoridated water from birth, compared with children of the same ages in low-fluoride control areas. My noble friend will know that a study area in Scotland, Kilmarnock, decided to cease fluoridating its water supply in 1962. I am sorry to say that by 1968 experience of dental decay in five-year-old children, having previously improved, had in consequence increased to substantially the level of the unfluoridated control town. An expert Research Committee, set up to supervise the studies, concluded in the report on the first 11 years:
"The fluoridation of water supplies at the level of a part per million of fluoride is a highly effective way of reducing dental decay".
Later studies of children brought up in fluoridated areas have confirmed the substantial benefit to their dental health compared with children in unfluoridated areas.
The reports of the official studies and of others in the United Kingdom could examine the effects on dental health only of children, bearing in mind that fluoridation in the areas concerned had not been in progress long enough for older people to have consumed fluoridated water during their early years. Fortunately, however, the areas with about the right level of fluoride naturally in their water supply provided an opportunity to study the effect of the optimum level of fluoride in water consumed during childhood on dental health later in life.
Studies in Hartlepool, for example, have shown substantially better dental health in adults who have lived all their lives there compared with people of the same ages in low-fluoride York. In one such study it was found that in dentate persons aged 45 and above the
1478
number of carious sites in teeth was 44 per cent lower in Hartlepool than it was in York. Such results disprove the suggestion that fluoridation merely delays the onset of dental decay. On the contrary, a satisfactory intake of fluoride in childhood confers protection against dental decay which persists during adult life. Experience has shown that other methods of providing an adequate intake of fluoride—for example, fluoride tablets or drops—are less effective than fluoridation, principally because it is difficult to ensure the necessary regular administration in all children over a period of years. However, other methods have a place in areas where the water is not yet fluoridated or where it is not feasible to do so.
My Lords, some of you will know that some years ago the Royal College of Physicians decided, as an independent body concerned with public health, to review the evidence on the fluoridation of water supplies. A committee of the college carried out a comprehensive review and reported in 1976 that fluoride in water, added or naturally present, over the years of tooth formation substantially reduced dental caries throughout life. There was, moreover, no sound evidence at all of harm to health. One chapter of the report dealt with an alleged link with cancer and concluded that there was no evidence that fluoride increased the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ.
This and similar conclusions have attracted criticism notably from two United States biochemists, Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis, who have claimed that cancer mortality increased more in 10 American cities than it did in 10 unfluoridated cities in the same period. This claim was carefully examined by recognised cancer epidemiologists and medical statisticians in this country and North America, who have independently concluded that there is no difference in the changes in cancer mortality in the two groups of cities when appropriate corrections are made for different changes which have taken place in their age/sex/race compositions. Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis have since announced the results of further analyses, although without the necessary supporting evidence at certain critical points or in some cases at any point. Moreover, this material has not

1479
appeared in the usual scientific Press, where it would have been open to assessment by other scientists.
Dr. Burk has also re-examined data published in a 1974 paper from Oxford University about differences in cancer incidence in various organs between certain fluoridated areas and certain similar control areas, and between sets of areas with varying levels of fluoride naturally in their water supplies. I understand that differences reported in the Oxford paper could have arisen by chance and, as the author himself concluded, do not indicate an association between cancer incidence and fluoride in drinking water, whether present naturally or added artificially. It is notoriously easy to mislead by the inappropriate use of statistics. I have been advised that the persistent attempts to persuade the public by the use of figures which take no account of the demographic composition of populations under study is without justification and bound to mislead. I know that this judgment would have the widest and most vigorous support from expert epidemiologists and medical statisticians.
Because of the allegations of Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis many other studies of this question have been undertaken by appropriately qualified persons and published in scientific journals of good repute. The results of none of these studies support the allegations. Furthermore, reviews by experts in this and other countries have concluded that animal and other laboratory tests do not support the view that fluoride is a carcinogen; no properly authenticated tests have supported the assertion that fluoride salts, as used in fluoridation, are a mutagenic hazard to man.
My Lords, reference is often made to a case brought by local residents before the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to require a water authority to stop fluoridation in part of Pittsburgh and some outlying districts. The judge, sitting alone, said he was "compellingly convinced" of the plaintiffs' evidence, based largely on claims by Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis of a link between fluoridation and cancer. He therefore issued a preliminary decree until the court held a final hearing or until the matter was dealt with by the Pennsylvania
1480
Department of Environmental Resources. The court's jurisdiction is still the subject of an appeal, but meanwhile the Department of Environmental Resources, having considered the evidence given to the court, has directed that the water authority should continue to fluoridate. Fluoridation also continues in the rest of Pittsburgh, where it began in 1952. The case has therefore had little local effect, and the implications claimed for it are not convincing.
A commission appointed by the Governor of Minnesota also considered the claims of a link with cancer, including the evidence given in the Allegheny court. The commission issued a report last February concluding that claims of carcinogenic and other adverse health effects—
"were not supported by the preponderence of available scientific data".
More recently still, a working party of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council has reviewed the evidence available up to mid-1979 on possible adverse effects of fluoridation. The working party summarised its conclusions as follows:
"The evidence suggesting various adverse effects, and in particular the recently much published allegations that fluoridation leads to an increase in cancer mortality, does not stand up to scientific scrutiny".
It is perfectly apparent that there is an overwhelming weight of evidence and of properly qualified scientific judgment that fluoridation is not a cause of cancer and is safe.
My Lords, on behalf of my right honourable friends the Health Ministers I must emphasise that the Government's professional advisers will continue to examine in the normal way the whole question of fluoridation. However, I hope my remarks have shown that there is no good reason to disturb the conclusion of the Royal College of Physicians and others that there is no evidence that the measure is associated with any harmful effect.
Noble Lords may have heard that the Quebec Government has declared a moratorium on fluoridation. I understand that this consists of the suspension by the present Quebec Government of the previous Government's measure to require all municipalities in the Province to fluoridate their drinking water, as distinct

1481
from the general position of encouragement of fluoridation by the Federal Government, while leaving the decision to individual municipalities. I gather that some Quebec municipalities, representing about 14 per cent. of the urban population, are continuing to fluoridate, and that about 46 per cent., which is about 8 million people, of the total urban population of Canada now receives fluoridated water.
We and the Republic of Ireland are at present the only EEC countries with fluoridation, and the reasons why the process is not more popular in Continental Europe are not entirely clear. I understand that comparable studies to our own were undertaken in the Netherlands with comparable results, but that fluoridation had to be discontinued because of a Supreme Court ruling that a separate unfluoridated water supply should be provided for those who wished to have it, This, of course, was technically impracticable. The measure continues on a substantial scale in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and others that the Government, like their predecessors of both main parties for many years, continue to support the fluoridation of water supplies as a valuable preventive health measure. Our support stems from the results of our own properly controlled studies which have been endorsed by reports from independent workers and from medical and dental organisations, both here and abroad. We will, of course, continue to consider carefully any propely supported contrary claims which may be made. My honourable friend the Minister of Health will, I am sure, read with great interest the speeches made by your Lordships today. The Government will, however, be considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this, together with many other issues.