Norman Baker MP Member of Parliament for Lewes constituency

|Home

|Issues

|Press

|Norman and his work

|Useful Links

|Contact Norman

|Site map and Search

|Norman's flickr page

|Norman's Facebook page

|National LibDem site

2003 (and previous) press releases

Lewes MP Slams Drive To Fluoridate Water

Lewes MP and Lib Dem Environment spokesman Norman Baker has hit out at Government moves to give Strategic Health Authorities the power to add fluoride to people's drinking water. At a recent vote in the House of Commons at the third reading of the Government's Water Bill in Norman and many of his Liberal Democrat colleagues voted against the principle of fluoride being added to water, but were defeated on a free vote of the Commons.

Worse, an attempt to ensure fluoride could only be added if the idea was backed by local people through their councils was also lost by 43 votes, as government moves to leave the decision with distant unelected Health Authorities carried the day.

Speaking on the subject Norman comments:

"I am very concerned about the implications of mass fluoridation. Whilst doubts remain over whether its orthodontic benefits outweigh its potentially harmful side-effects we should be even more worried about the violation of civil liberties that this represents. Access to water is a basic human right yet people could soon be facing a situation where they are forced to use drinking water which has had a chemical added whether they want it or not. It is a mockery of a democratic system to make such an important decision which will affect the life of every single person to be determined by the judgment of the local Health Authority - a wholly unelected body, rather than in an open and more accountable manner. The government must act to make sure that any decision is only made following a thorough consultation of the people and, should fluoridation go ahead then its both beneficial or detrimental, must be recorded and made public."

Notes to Editors

1) Norman Baker MP spoke at the third reading of the Water Bill, during which he addressed the question of fluoridation of water supplies during which he said:

"Does fluoride give health benefits? I conclude that it does but that the benefits are limited. Are there health risks from fluoride? Probably not, but there might be risks, so we need to do further work on that. That equation is not sufficient to justify overriding civil liberties and the genuine opposition of at least a minority of the population to the adulteration of water-as they see it-by adding a medical substance. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) talked about choosing the common good over civil liberties, but civil liberties are the common good, so we should not mix up those two concepts. In Committee, the Minister said with some sophistry-without wishing to be rude-that fluoride is not medication because it is not classed as a medicine. The whole purpose of adding fluoride to water is to derive a medical benefit. Hon. Members clearly have a view of whether that is right or not, but let us not pretend that fluoride is not a medicine. For the purpose of the Bill, it is treated as a medicine. Let us concentrate on whether it is appropriate to use the mass-medication process suggested in the Bill…Having said that it would be more preferable for a strategic authority to make the decision, it would not be the best solution. If fluoride is to continue to be added to water, it is better for that to be decided by common consent with popular support. The decision will receive popular support if it is taken independently. However, SHAs are not independent because they have an agenda. They are not democratically elected and there is only a thin line between them and the Secretary of State for Health, which shows their democratic credentials. SHAs would not take a local decision because they are not local. It would be quite wrong to impose a measure that many people would consider to be an infringement of their civil liberties by a mechanism that was not independent, democratic or local, which would be the case if SHAs made the decision. If new clause 1 is unsuccessful and the House accepts the principle of adding fluoride to water, it is important for us all that there is a means of dealing with its addition in a way that commands public support. In that way, even those who do not want it will know that they have had an opportunity to have their say and had an input into the decision. That can be achieved by involving local authorities. They might not be perfect but they are local, democratically elected and accountable, which is more than can be said of strategic health authorities."