| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Why does the hon. Lady think fluoridation has been abandoned in Switzerland after 41 years, amidst evidence that dental decay was increasing in spite of it?
Dr. Starkey: The hon. Gentleman is misusing science. Of course fluoridation cannot protect those whose diet is rich in sugar and who do not eat high-fibre foods. As he should know, children in fluoridated areas should be compared with others eating the same food and living in areas where there is no fluoride.
That brings me to the need for Members to understand how scientific research and methodology work. The balance of scientific and medical opinion is clearly in favour of the view that fluoride causes no demonstrable harm to public health, provided that it is at or below the recommended level. The World Health Organisation itself is certain that a level of 1.5 mg per litre poses no significant risk to consumers throughout their lives.
Of course it will always be possible to find a scientist who has expressed and will express a dissident view, but the key is to look at peer reviewed science, the balance of scientific opinion, and the evidence emerging from meta-studies—the accumulated data from a number of different studies. That evidence is clear. It is dangerous to pay too much attention to dissident scientists. We should bear in mind the damage done by Dr. Duisberg, who persisted in propagating the view that there was no connection between HIV and AIDS despite a clear majority of scientific opinion that he was wrong. It is a mistake to cite non-peer reviews or dissident scientists who say that fluoride is dangerous. It is not dangerous: 300 million people worldwide drink fluoridated water, and many communities have been drinking it for up to 50 years.
Opponents of fluoridation also keep describing it as mass medication. It is not; it would be if it were pharmaceutical, but it is supplementation. The analogy with added vitamins in bread flour and margarine and butter is entirely correct.
Those are the main arguments that I wanted to present. This is a public health issue, and I am proud that it has finally been included in a Water Bill. I hope that Members will take account of the balance of medical and scientific opinion and not be led astray by alarmist rumours put about by many people that are based on no scientific reality.
8.19 pm
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): First, I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) in expressing her view. Secondly, I accept that dental caries are
unacceptably common in certain deprived communities in this country and that something needs to be done about that.As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) said in his powerful speech, however, there are ways of addressing the problem other than adding fluoride to the water supply. Fluoride treatments can be offered in ways other than through the water supply, and education is also important. I would not object to affected areas being given special subsidies to try to improve the dental health of the children concerned.
I accept the view of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West on the scientific evidence. I went to the lengths of having my children's teeth fluoridated—one can get a special treatment privately—and buying them fluoride toothpaste. I do not deny—she suggested that some of us who are against fluoridation deny this—that there are benefits to fluoridation and that it is unlikely to be damaging. However, she accepted that there are alternative views. Indeed, some states in America are withdrawing fluoride because of the possibility of class actions.
There is a principle that must be upheld. I am shocked and appalled by the British medical profession's view because I had believed that its ethics were that medicines should not be given to members of the public without their informed consent. Such a practice also breaches the Council of Europe convention on human rights and biomedicine, which states:
- "States may not medicate any individual contrary to their wishes except under . . . recognised public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's needs."
Mr. Butterfill: Fluoride is a medicine, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman is so keen on it and why it is being treated as a medicine. There are alternative medicines, but there are no alternatives to fluoride in the water supply. Although the Minister thinks that we can all go out and buy Perrier water, I am not sure that the poor, about whom he purports to be concerned, can afford to do so.
Fluoride is a poison under part II of the Poisons Act 1972, and fluoridation violates the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Government can, of course, get over that problem by designating fluoride as a medicine, but the use of an unregistered substance for medical purposes would breach EC codified pharmaceuticals directive 2001/83. They would have to register fluoride as a medicine and subject it to full clinical testing, but it has not been registered or clinically tested.
Unfortunately for the Government, fluoridation also breaches the European convention on human rights. That is a serious difficulty, as this country has adopted, either directly or indirectly, a body of legislation that the Bill would breach. If the Government insist on the measure, they must amend the relevant legislation. In some cases, they will need to obtain the consent of the European Community. Water fluoridation violates both articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights.
Water fluoridation also breaches article 35 of the European charter of fundamental rights, which states that
- "the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular drugs or treatments—or to prevent them from having such treatment administered against his/her wishes."
The Government cannot have it both ways. They could say that fluoride is a medicine and go through all the procedures to amend the legislation. The Minister is shaking his head because he wants to administer fluoride as a substance, but it is actually a poison. I must warn him that there is no doubt that judicial review will be sought if the Government persist with their approach.
The Minister should take cognisance of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who said that this important Bill should not be hijacked by a completely different issue. Water fluoridation is an important issue that should be debated, and the legislative framework for it should also be properly debated.
As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Alan Williams) said, the Government introduced the clause under an extraordinary measure in the Lords, where there was not enough time for a proper debate. Indeed, there will not be enough time here for a proper debate. The issue is extremely important and concerns fundamental human rights. The Government are behaving in what I hope I can describe as an uncharacteristically authoritarian way, although authoritarianism seems to be creeping more and more into everything that they do.
The Government should withdraw the clause to allow proper discussion of the important issues contained in the rest of the Bill in Committee and on Report. If they persist with this perverse measure, they will prevent proper discussion and reasoned amendment of this important Bill. I praise them for introducing the Bill, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, it has defects. None the less, if they persist with the measure, they will face legal action.
8.27 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy (Wansbeck): I intend to deal with two measures in the Bill that affect Waters and Robson, a major employer in my constituency that bottles Abbey Well natural mineral water at source. My concern is based on the proposals for time-limited licences and a maximum period of 12 years. Although the Environment Agency would be minded to agree to further licensing periods, the Bill could still affect the future investment plans of companies that bottle water.
Bottled water is now a £1 billion-a-year industry. Many people prefer it to tap water because it is seen as pure and natural and people who take the Government's health advice and drink two litres of water per day probably drink it. Surprisingly, only 39 per cent. of the population drink bottled water. However, regular drinkers now drink 64 per cent. more bottled water than they did in 1992 and the market is predicted to grow year on year.
I should like bottled water to replace over-sweetened drinks in school vending machines. In fact, Waters and Robson has just developed a plastic bottle that will fit into vending machines that dispense cans.
Despite the rapid growth in bottled water in the UK, we drink much less of it than any other country in Europe. In 2001, the Italians drank most mineral water, consuming 167 litres of it per head per annum, followed by the French, who drank 143 litres per head. People in Belgium, Spain and Germany consume more than 100 litres each per annum. In the United Kingdom, people consume only 26 litres per annum.
Consumption in the UK is forecast to increase at a minimum of 10 per cent. year on year. The UK water bottling industry currently bottles about 1.4 billion litres of water per year, which sounds like a lot of water. However, to put that figure in perspective I shall repeat a statistic that was given earlier: it is equivalent to less than nine hours' leakage from the mains water system.
The bottled water market is very competitive. Imported brands have a strong presence, taking some 25 per cent. of the market. The best-selling and best-known brands in the United Kingdom are, sadly, French. British companies are determined to gain market share, but will need time and substantial investment in order to grow. Investment is needed for equipment, new bottling halls, warehouses and connected infrastructures. The payback on such capital investment is usually calculated at around 20 years. Investing in marketing, advertising and brand promotion is also crucial if UK bottlers are to compete with large continental brands. Marketing incurs a significant financial outlay, and returns are achieved over many years. Banks and other investors will be reluctant to invest in bottled water companies whose business might be curtailed by the length, loss or uncertainty of their abstraction licence.
As a result, English and Welsh businesses—for it appears that this legislation is not to be introduced in Scotland—will have difficulty in expanding to meet projected consumer demand, and imported products will take an even larger share of the UK market. That will lead to job losses, often in rural areas that already suffer above average levels of unemployment. That is precisely the case at Waters and Robson in my constituency. It wishes to expand, but is unable to secure the necessary investment because of the uncertainty of time-limited licences. I therefore urge the Minister to exempt the bottled water sector from time-limited licences—or, if that is not possible, at least to allow them a licence period of 20 years.
Although my first call was for a relaxation of regulation, my second call is for a tightening of regulations to protect existing natural mineral water sources in the form of boreholes. Let me explain a case, as yet unresolved, that could affect the Waters and Robson plant in Morpeth. The Northumbrian Water
Authority Act 1981 granted an exemption on Environment Agency involvement in licensing to any extraction of less than 400 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year. The Bill expands that concept nationwide in the equivalent of litres—namely, 20,000 litres per day. A new company has just agreed to set up a water bottling plant some 200 m from the site of the Abbey Well borehole. It has applied for planning permission to build a factory and to sink a borehole. As it proposes to extract less than 1 million gallons a year, it did not have to apply to the Environment Agency in order to drill—all it had to do was to seek planning permission from the local planning authority, which, as it freely admitted, had no expertise in this field. Permission to drill for a well that pumps fewer than 20,000 litres a day falls between two bodies—the local authority and the Environment Agency. The local authority sought the view of the Environment Agency, which replied stating that there was a possible risk to Waters and Robson's current extraction.An important issue arose from the meeting between the planning authority and the Environment Agency's licensing officer: even if the proposed drilling had come under the agency's jurisdiction, it would not cover the protection for the specific requirements of natural mineral water. If the analysis of natural mineral water changes by more than 10 per cent. during one year, recognition could be withdrawn. So if a new drilling project introduces water of a different chemical make-up into a natural mineral water aquifer, thus causing a change in consistency, the mineral water brand extracted from that aquifer would lose its status and the company would effectively cease to exist as its brand would be dead. The Environment Agency has a responsibility only to prevent sources of water from being made unsuitable for drinking. It does not have a responsibility to concern itself with the specific make-up of the water.
In view of that, I ask the Minister to ensure that protection is given to existing extractions that have specific requirements, such as natural mineral water. Any proposed drilling within 1 km of a natural mineral water source must be investigated by the Environment Agency, irrespective of the volume of water to be extracted. Moreover, the special requirements of natural mineral water must be considered in respect of the mineral content remaining constant, not just the water remaining drinkable. I urge the Minister to amend the Bill to include those two protections.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |