| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lidington: I have read that assessment and it appears that the limited competition offered by the Bill will cut prices for a handful of very large industrial consumers of water, but seems unlikely to provide much benefit to other consumers. It is also being made clear by potential investors—companies such as Centrica—that the limited competition regime will not provide them with sufficient incentives to enter the business and offer alternative sources of water supply to the existing companies.
Clearly, geography and the design of the current infrastructure impose limits on how much competition is practical now but I am puzzled as to why the Government did not extend competition further than the 50 megalitre limit that they are currently proposing, allowing those business and domestic consumers who would be able, in practice, to take advantage of competition to do so.
Dr. Starkey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he concludes. Will he clarify whether the views that he expressed on fluoridation were his personal views or the views of the Conservative party, whether he has consulted the shadow spokesman for health on the matter and whether the Whips will impose a three-line whip on his colleagues?
Mr. Lidington: When the hon. Lady studies Hansard tomorrow, she will find that I opened my remarks on
fluoridation by making it clear that there will be a completely free vote among Front-Bench and Back-Bench Conservative Members. I have talked to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, about the matter. He knew what I was proposing to say. I know his view and he is perfectly capable of expressing it as robustly as ever. I very much look forward to him doing so.
Mr. Wray: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman's request to me that the Minister give way makes it tempting, but I want to conclude to allow other hon. Members to speak.
Water bills are being kept unnaturally high by the increased level of bad debt that water undertakers have to carry. The Government decided to abolish the right of water companies to disconnect customers who consistently refused to pay their bills, and one understands their motive for making that decision. Now, however, nearly one fifth of households do not pay their bills.
Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington : No, I will not. I hope that the hon. Lady will get the opportunity to speak later.
Most hon. Members know, through their constituency correspondence from pensioners and others who struggle to pay the bills demanded of them, that those people find the current level of water payments difficult, and even oppressive. It is unfair on those people who are struggling to pay their bills that we should be prepared to tolerate deliberate—I stress that word—non-payment. Estimates were made during the debate in the House of Lords that an average of up to £9 is added to every household's water bill to cover the cost of those citizens who refuse to pay their bills. I regret the fact that the Bill has taken no steps to address those problems.
The Bill will not deliver all the benefits that the Minister and the Government claim for it. It fails to address many of the important problems now facing the water industry. Our amendment gives the House the opportunity tonight to register its dissatisfaction with legislation that is badly flawed, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to express their scepticism about the Bill by joining me in voting for the amendment this evening.
6.22 pm
Mr. James Wray (Glasgow, Baillieston): It has been quite some time since I raised this issue in the House, but I have spent a great deal of time on it. I am very interested in water and where it goes, and I was very much against the privatisation of the water industry. When it went into private hands in Scotland, one of the reasons—
Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Is it right that the Bill, and particularly the fluoridation proposals, do not apply to Scotland?
Mr. Wray: I am here as a Labour Member of Parliament, a Westminster Member of Parliament. I am not here to vote on Scottish issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will make clear his intentions as his speech continues.
Mr. Wray: I was saying that the last time that I raised this issue was in Scotland, and that I was very concerned about it because there was a restriction on borrowing by local authorities. That is when all the peddlers moved in to get hold of the water, because it is a very profitable industry. They came in with their meters in the commercial sector, and now they are waiting to get full control so that they can meter domestic water, and I am very much against that. They have made millions by transferring the business from various companies all over the country.
One thing that really bothers me is the way in which the Government have introduced clause 61, in which they propose that health authorities should be given new powers regarding fluoridation. Obviously, some people think that they know better than others. When I first came across the issue of fluoridation of public water supplies, I wrote to people in various countries for two years before I took the matter up, because I wanted to know more about it. I then decided, 25 years ago, to entice one of my constituents to take the matter to the Court of Session, because the Strathclyde regional authority wanted to spend £75,000 on machines to help the chemical industry. It certainly was not going to help the people. We all know that we get fluoride anyway, from our tea and our bread and from the fresh air that we breathe. It is also very difficult to measure one part per million. We undertook that case from a moral aspect, as well as from a medical and a legal aspect. We won it on the legal aspect because it was outwith the remit of a medical engineer to treat the people who drank the water. It was his job to treat the water and to make it wholesome for drinking.
Ministers have obviously not done their homework on this issue. A committee was set up which could not reach a conclusion one way or another. It is claimed that fluorides are not a medicinal product, but section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 states clearly what a medicinal product is. Fluorides are claimed to be a medicinal product under European Union legislation. The Medicines Act defines a medicinal product as a substance mixed with another and used to treat an animal or human being to cure a disease. Dental fluorosis is not a disease. I did not create the terms "skeletal fluorosis", "dental fluorosis" or "chronic fluoride poisoning"; they come from fluoride.
Fluorosilicates are banned in Europe, and fluoridation is a criminal act under the Poisons Act 1972. If the Minister looks up all these various Acts, he will find these measures. They even exist under legislation relating to the protection of children. The new measures target children. In Birmingham, which has had fluoridation for 25 years, there are more dentists than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not know how those children get mottled teeth, but this is certainly a breach of civil liberties so far as the people of Britain and other parts of the world are concerned. That
is why I am against these proposals. The fluoride is not self-administered; this involves mass medication, which people are getting against their will.The Government should accept and respect the decisions made in various other countries that have voted on this issue and decided against such measures. They should respect people such as Dr. Moolenburgh in Holland, who carried out double-blind tests by splitting the country into two, one part of which was fluoridated, the other not. He became a Member of Parliament, because the whole country was split over the issue of the mass medication of people.
This is a matter of individual choice. People can take fluoride in tablet form or in milk form, or in toothpaste. Even toothpaste manufacturers realise, however, that big claims could be made against them. Who would have the right to indemnify against such claims? Will this Government indemnify anybody if a case is brought against a pharmaceutical company? I do not think that they would, once the problem began, even though they say that they would.
The easiest way to get rid of one's wife, if one wanted to do so, would be to go to a city with fluoridated water, and boil a kettle two or three times a night. That would produce a film in the kettle because of the high concentration of fluoride. If one were to stir a spoonful of that substance into her tea, she would be dead within 10 seconds.
That is the danger. That is the problem.
Fluorosilicates gather in cast iron pipes, which have been neglected over the years; they have not been repaired, and that has made it very difficult for the consumer.
Why accept the medical profession's view on the matter when there is a split and a big question mark? Those who support water fluoridation should not think that they are right. During my time here, people have regularly written letters to me about fluoride—some against it and some for it. Those who are against do not want to accept that there is no real medical evidence. I hope that, when it comes to the vote, the people will vote against it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |