UK - MP's speech in the House of Commons

In the time available to me tonight, I want to touch on a principle, a policy and a tribute. The principle is that the fluoridation of water should not be carried out without the general consent of the people affected by it. In an unusual, and quite positive, cross-party alliance, the Liberal Democrat councillor, Councillor David Harrison, who represents Totton in my constituency, and I, as the Conservative MP, have been working together to try to involve the ombudsman in exposing the corruption of a flawed consultation process that completely ignored the fact that 72 per cent. of the people who responded to it were against that kind of mass medication.

I will say no more about the specifics of that case, however, because the matter is now subject to judicial review and I do not wish to trespass on that territory. That is why I shall talk only about the principle. The problem was first highlighted in March 2005, when the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were being debated in the upper House. Earl Howe, the shadow Health Minister, drew the House's attention to regulation 5, which was passed into law. It states:

"A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding."

The noble Earl Howe asked what this was supposed to mean, and pointed out:

"When we debated Section 58 of the 2003 Act, the Minster emphasised that:

'no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the support of the majority of the local population determined by local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities in England and the National Assembly in Wales'."

Earl Howe emphasised the words "majority of the local population" and went on to observe:

"I see nothing in the order which fulfils that undertaking."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 8 March 0005; Vol. 670, c. 709.]

Neither do I. However, even if 72 per cent.—or 100 per cent.—of the people oppose mass fluoridation of a water supply, as long as the strategic health authority can satisfy itself that the health arguments outweigh the opinions of the people affected, their opinions can be ignored. Only the courts and the ombudsman can do something about this; MPs evidently have no influence, and we must await the results of the case to which I have alluded.

Barbara Keeley (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

Dr. Lewis raised the tricky question of fluoridation, which also arises for us in the north-west. He covered the issues well, noting that it is difficult for MPs to influence the situation because the decisions are taken out of our hands.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

There is an active all-party group on fluoridation, which has exposed some practices and the way in which area health authorities have tried to drive fluoridation forward. Should not the House have a further opportunity to review the use of fluoridation as an alternative to good dental practice? It is not acceptable, and that should be said loud and clear.