Water Bill, UK Parliament
The voting on the second reading of the Water Bill in Parliament does not reflect the views of MPs on fluoridation. This issue certainly 'hijacked' the debate, however, and many MPs stood up to voice their opposition. However, the voting at this reading went according to party. Labour MPs voted for the Bill to demonstrate their Government's right to make legislation. The Conservatives opposed it, because they are the official opposition! The Bill has now gone to Committee stage where it will be scrutinised line by line. Many MPs said that if it comes back with the fluoridation issue still there, they will oppose the Bill. The Committee must report back to Parliament by 21 October.
Two major legal points were eloquently expressed by Mr John Butterfill when he referred to judicial review and legal action.
(From Hansard)
Mr. Butterfill: "Fluoride is a medicine, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman [GP Dr Howard Stoate, MP] 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 are in breach of both those treaties, and the offer of [civil and criminal] indemnity [to water companies] is therefore illegal.
"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 that 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."
The full debate [which lasted for five hours, but contains quite a few speeches on fluoridation - some said it was 'hijacked' by the fluoridation issue!] can be found at here
Even the Government's solicitors concede that water fluoridation is open to legal challenge (letter from Chief Medical Officer to Doug Cross. See Doug Cross' response on www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/cross_lit.html).