Page 572 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government, nor any act on the part of the Government foreshadowed here, which would have the effect of delaying debate until 31 August. As I indicated in an interjection, if Mr Stevenson would like to debate the matter next week - if he cares to - or on the next sitting day, he is perfectly able to do so, provided he can get support from members on the floor of the house. Moreover, I can assure Mr Stevenson that the Assembly will be debating this matter well before 31 August.
That is the intention of this extension for six months - to allow the Assembly adequate time to deal with this matter. I should remind the house that, on a previous occasion when we considered what would be an appropriate period of time to allow for public and community debate on fluoride, we underestimated the amount of time that we would require. Mr Stevenson was a member of the committee which came back to the Assembly and said, "We need more time. While this debate goes on, please extend the time for which fluoride is to be added to the water supply".
I do not want to be placed in that position of coming back again to introduce a Bill and saying that we have made a mistake and that we need more time to debate this matter. Clearly, it is appropriate for us to allow six months. After all, those six months have to include time for public reading and understanding of the report that was tabled last week and time for the Government to draft its response to that report. Whether or not this is a matter of conscience, as Mr Prowse suggested, it is still appropriate for the Government to table its response to that report and to allow time for the Assembly to debate that response and the original report. In turn, time has to be allowed for the legislation which has to be drafted, whether it is to repeal the original Bill or whether it is to make some other change. Time has to be allowed for whatever needs to be done. In the circumstances, I hope that six months is a quite adequate period of time. It certainly could not be described as too long. It might even be criticised as being too short.
The point also needs to be made that the passage of this Bill does not prevent the Assembly taking action in the meantime. In fact, the Assembly can do a number of things. The Assembly can retain fluoride in the water supply at the present level during that period, or the Government can adjust the level of fluoride in the water supply. It can take up the suggestion made in the Wood committee report and reduce the level of fluoride in the water supply by half. It can do so at any stage. The stay of legislation does not prevent that. It can also, if it wishes, repeal either the Water Supply (Chemical Treatment) Act, as amended today, or it can repeal the Electricity and Water (Amendment) Act that Mr Prowse moved in the Assembly in 1989. Those things can all happen. This Bill does not prevent those things happening, nor does it prevent debate occurring. We need to be very clear about that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .