HL Deb 26 July 1983 vol 443 cc1421-4
Lord Avebury

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the judgment by Lord Jauncey in the Scottish Court of Session that water fluoridation is both safe and effective, but that the law does not permit it, they will now introduce legislation to permit water fluoridation.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the Government are at present considering the implications of Lord Jauncey's judgment. Until this consideration is completed it will be premature to reach any conclusion about legislation in respect of fluoridation of the public water supply.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that Lord Jauncey's examination of fluoridation, which extends to a 600-page report, convinced him that this is the best tried public health measure in the history of the world; and that, although fluoridation of water is beneficial, nevertheless the law does not permit the addition of fluoride to water? Bearing these facts in mind, is it not essential that the position of local authorities be confirmed as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind also that over the past 15 years the Government themselves have spent £3 million on assisting local authorities to fluoridate water?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is entirely entitled to his own opinion about the benefits of fluoride as a public health measure and the noble Lord has clearly gone through the whole of Lord Jauncey's report (I understand it runs to only 400 pages, but there might be another 200 pages that I have missed) and believes that fluoridation is of benefit to public health. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and your Lordships will agree that the main thrust of Lord Jauncey's judgment—and, indeed, the question upon which he adjudicated—was that the Strathclyde Regional Council had no power to add fluoride to their water supply. Accordingly, he awarded the interdict against them. Indeed, Lord Jauncey based his observations on Section 6(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. This lays on the water authorities the duty, To provide a supply of wholesome water to every part of their limits of supply". That is the end of the quote from that particular section. Lord Jauncey was adjudicating on other matters, but mainly on the question of the intention underlying the phrase "wholesome water". Lord Jauncey's judgment had that very much in mind.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, leaving the distinguished gentleman aside for one moment, can the noble Lord say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are in favour of fluoridation of the water supplies of Great Britain? Does he not agree that the difficulty is that there is no national policy in relation to fluoridation and that the decision to fluoridate water supplies in areas of Britain is made by nonelected bodies; namely, by nominated area health authorities? The worry and anxiety that emanates from some areas at the moment is on that account: that at the moment no elected person has a say as to whether or not drinking water should be fluoridated. Can the noble Lord concentrate his mind on those questions and give a short reply?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I will attempt to give a short reply to, I hope, a short question. The Government are indeed considering the whole question of fluoride in the water on a national basis. I will not go into the details of how the policies of successive Administrations in Scotland have dealt with the fluoridation of water in Scotland. It is broadly similar to that described by the noble Lord—which is, of course, applicable to Wales.

Baroness Hornsby-Smith

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that this controversy has been going on for 30 years? When I had the privilege of being in the Ministry with my late right honourable friend lain Macleod, the most exhaustive inquiry was made because of the post-war increase in the decay of children's teeth. The most exhaustive analysis was done, whereby it was discovered that, far from providing impurities in the water, as had been alleged, there were areas such as Anglesey and the Isle of Ely where the amount of fluoride in the water provided far better protection to the locals' teeth. Indeed, the recommended amounts were less than the amount naturally found in water in Anglesey and the Isle of Ely. This has been going on for 30 years, and is it not about time that we started taking action to protect our children?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's observations on the contents of the water in Anglesey and the Isle of Ely. I shall attempt to take my noble friend with me and we shall sample it, but not in your Lordships' time. I would stress to my noble friend that, among other things, Lord Jauncey found that fluoridation at a concentration of one part per million is not mutagenic. Secondly, no biochemical mechanism has been demonstrated whereby fluoride at a concentration of one part per million is likely to cause cancer or to accelerate existing cancerous growth. There are various other scientific conclusions that Lord Jauncey reached. I am sure that will be of great interest to my noble friend.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, surely the noble Lord will be aware that for the past 30 years the Scottish Office has been urging local authorities in Scotland in regard to the fluoridation of water. I remember the late Lord Stuart of Findhorn—Jimmy Stuart in another place—was quite pleased when Kilmarnock was selected as a test area, where they applied this for 10 years. It is quite wrong of the noble Lord to think that nothing more should be done. The Government have a responsibility to clear this matter up. Can the noble Lord give us a pledge that legislation will be introduced to settle it once and for all?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, may I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, the second part of my first reply: until the consideration which is at present being carried out by the Government is completed we believe that it is premature to reach any conclusion about legislation. I am interested in the noble Lord's observation about Kilmarnock being a test area. I understood it was for only six years that Kilmarnock had the benefits, or otherwise, of fluoride, from 1956 to 1962.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, can my noble friend say why those who want a nip of fluoride should not buy it and put it in their water themselves, rather than inflict it on the rest of us?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, my noble friend tempts me to refer him to a quotation from Lord Jauncey, among the 400 pages, that the duty of the water authorities is to provide wholesome water, but they should not use water as a means of passing into consumers' bodies substances which could be obtained elsewhere. Nevertheless, we will bear in mind my noble friend's most valuable observations.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether he is aware that every drop of water consumed in this House has been used at least a dozen times before, and that is an indication of how wholesome it is? Is he also able to confirm that every standing dental advisory committee and every standing medical advisory committee of the Department of Health over many years has commended to the Government the introduction of fluoride into water? Finally, can my noble friend confirm that he is aware—and here I should declare a non-interest—that the incidence of fluoride, even in toothpaste, is so affecting the dental profession that the dentists in London are grossly under-employed at the moment?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's third question, may I say that she should perhaps have declared another interest; I understand that she is a member of that profession. We are very pleased to see her in your Lordships' House giving us the benefit of such detailed and scientific knowledge. Regarding her second question. I shall certainly take note of that and draw her conclusions to the attention of my right honourable friend. To answer my noble friend's first question, the judgment was given in Scotland and Lord Jauncey could only speak for what was wholesome water in Scotland. So far as I know, no drop of water flowing into your Lordships' House comes from North of the Border.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord the Minister a very brief question: do they drink water in Scotland?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we manufacture it.

Lord Sandy's

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, even after 30 years, following the publication of the report, this subject is highly controversial, as this discussion this afternoon shows? Will my noble friend agree that the wisdom of Kilmarnock in banning fluoridation precedes Lord Jauncey's judgment?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's first question, the answer is yes. With regard to his second question, I do not know quite what he is referring to, the stopping or the starting of fluoridation. But I note his points.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that following the cessation of fluoridisation in Kilmarnock the dental caries rates reverted to those in the control town with which it has been paired and that it lost the benefits it would have had if fluoridisation had continued? Does the noble Lord agree with the judgment of Lord Jauncey that no adverse effects on the health of individuals who drink fluoridated water have been measured? In view of the fact that successive Governments have been committed to this programme over the past 20 years, as the noble Baroness said, will they now hurry along this examination and introduce legislation in the next Session?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the consideration of Lord Jauncey's judgment is taking place. We shall announce any conclusions based on that consideration as soon as possible. The noble Lord, and all your Lordships, will be aware that the entire issue is exceedingly complex. Indeed, 400 pages are not enough to complete the argument.