§ 1. Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)What plans he has to introduce legislation on the fluoridation of drinking water. [156283]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart)Over the last 40 years, the fluoridation of water in selected areas has made a worthwhile contribution to improving oral health, but we are taking further expert advice on the effects of fluoridation before considering whether changes should be made to the current legislation which leaves the water undertakers to decide whether to agree to health authority requests for new fluoridation schemes.
§ Mr. WintertonI am personally strongly opposed to the mass fluoridation—the mass medication—Of the public water supply, so I ask the Minister how the present Government and the Medicines Control Agency can reconcile their policy and practice with United Kingdom and European medicines legislation because the whole purpose of adding fluoride to drinking water is to treat, prevent or cure a disease. That is the intention of those authorising the process, and that is how the consumer perceives it. Is there going to be legislation compulsorily to medicate our total water supply?
§ Ms StuartIt was our desire to establish a good scientific evidential basis for fluoridation. The York report was published last October and as a consequence of that we have asked the Medical Research Council to provide a better evidential base; but as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the purpose is to improve the dental health of this nation, so I hope that, despite the fact that we shall be asking for evidence, he welcomes the tremendous investment in South Cheshire health authority, which has approved some 27,000 extra registrations for dentists. He now has a dental access centre in his constituency, and some £60,000 was invested in the dental care development fund. We are therefore working on both fronts—to improve the dental health of the nation and to obtain better evidence.
§ Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)My hon. Friend is aware that this is a hugely contentious issue. I wonder 832 whether, in the light of the fact that the Government are committed to devolving decision making in a range of areas to local people, there may be a commitment in principle to enable local ballots to take place to ensure local determination on whether fluoride is added to water supplies.
§ Ms StuartDespite the number of applications that we have had for fluoridation, none of them has succeeded simply because we have made it absolutely clear that the majority of the population would have to be in favour of any extra fluoridation, should it be implemented.
§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)But is not the evidence extremely mixed, including that from the York report? Although it appears that fluoride does have some good topical effect on teeth, too much fluoride discolours teeth and we do not yet know its long-term effects on the bone mass. Fluoride is, after all, a poison. Will the Minister comment on that?
§ Ms StuartOf course there are also hugely varying levels of naturally occurring fluoridation in the country—there are many areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. That is why there is a two-pronged attack. We are not only looking at the evidential basis of what adding fluoride would do, but at the same time improving access to and the quality of the dental services available. In particular, we are paying attention to what happens to children—setting up pilot projects that encourage young children to brush their teeth more frequently. We are working along both lines, to improve dental health and to do further research on fluoridation.