§ Lord Colwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose in the light of the threat by Severn-Trent Water Authority to give notice to terminate the agreement by which fluoridated water is supplied from the Elan Valley reservoir to Birmingham, Solihull and adjacent areas unless, by 1st February 1989, the Department of Health and the Water Authorities Association resolve the current dispute over the terms of the indemnity granted to water suppliers; and
What have been the terms of the indemnities granted to water suppliers which have previously acceded to requests for fluoridation and implemented schemes; how the indemnity offered to water suppliers for new schemes implemented since the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 has differed from the indemnity offered before the Act; what extensions to the existing indemnity have been offered to the Water Authorities Association in the recent negotiations with the Department of Health; and whether any responsible government or insurance company could reasonably be expected to grant unlimited indemnity or cover; and
Whether, if the water industry continues to delay the implementation of new fluoridation schemes and if Severn-Trent Water Authority carries out its threat to stop existing fluoridation schemes, they will consider the introduction of new legislation which will place a statutory obligation upon water suppliers to accede to the requests of health authorities to adjust the level of fluoride in water for the benefit of dental health.
§ Lord HeskethA copy of the model agreement which provides the basis for discussions between health authorities and water authorities on the terms under which fluoridation of domestic water supplies may be carried out, including a copy of the terms of the indemnity provided for water undertakers operating fluoridation schemes, was placed in the Library on 16th January 1989. The only major change to the terms of the indemnity since the passage of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 has been the withdrawal of cover in the event of a legal challenge to the powers of water undertakers to add fluoride to the water supply. This was because the Act itself removed any doubt about these powers. The terms of the indemnity are being considered in the light of representations from the Water Authorities Association.
The Government believe that water undertakers must retain discretion as to whether or not to agree to fluoridation, since they need to be satisfied that health authorities' proposals are technically feasible. We have therefore no plans to amend existing legislation.
982WA
§ Lord Colwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many health authorities have, under the terms of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, following due and proper consultation in accordance with the Act, requested the North West Water Authority to adjust the level of fluoride in water supplies for the benefit of dental health; when those requests are likely to be acceded to; what, if any, appear to be the obstacles now standing in the way of fluoridation of water supplies to those health authorities; and how the level of dental health among children in the North West compares with that of children in other parts of the country.
§ Lord HeskethA survey of 5-year-old children conducted in 162 health districts in England and Wales in 1985–86 indicated that the five districts with the worst dental health in this age group were in the North West, with more than three teeth per child affected by decay. Twenty health districts in the region requested the North West Water Authority in 1988 to add to the levels of fluoride in the water supply. The North West Water Authority has deferred a decision on that request pending the outcome of discussions between the Water Authorities Association and the department on the terms of the indemnity given by the department.