Fluoridation (Hansard, 6 December 1983)

§ Mr. Fowler

The Government have given careful consideration to the conclusions reached by Lord Jauncey in his detailed opinion following this lengthy court case which lasted for 201 days.

Lord Jauncey considered that the addition of fluoride to the public water supply at a concentration of one part per million would be likely to reduce considerably the incidence of dental caries in the Strathclyde region and he concluded that there was no evidence that the addition of fluoride at such a concentration was harmful to health. But he took the view that Strathclyde regional council has no power to add fluoride to its water supply and no such power was included in its statutory duty under section 6(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to provide a supply of wholesome water.

Fluoridation has been supported by successive Governments as a safe and effective public health measure and we consider that Lord Jauncey's opinion amply demonstrates that the Government should continue to support fluoridation as a positive means to promote good dental health. It is therefore the Government's intention, when the parliamentary timetable permits, to bring forward legislation which will clarify the power of water authorities in Scotland to add fluoride to the water supply on the recommendation of the appropriate health boards. Lord Jauncey's judgment is not binding outside Scotland but for the avoidance of any doubt the Government propose that the legislation should also cover all statutory water undertakers in England and Wales and that corresponding legislation should be enacted for Northern Ireland. In the light of Lord Jauncey's confirmation of the safety and beneficial effect of fluoridation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have agreed to maintain the current indemnities in respect of fluoridation schemes in England and Wales until the legislation is enacted. In Northern Ireland indemnities are unnecessary as the water undertaker is a Government Department.