The Water Bill - November 2003

The Water Bill returned to the Commons on Monday 10th November.

Clause 58, which was the only part of the Bill relating to the issue of fluoride, was now part of the Bill having returned from Committee stages and from the Lords.

As you can see below in more detail the Clause simply clarifies the powers in relation to adding fluoride to water if a health authority requests a water company to do so. It does not force fluoride on any body - that is still a local decision.

There were 2 votes at 9pm on this Clause 58. The first was a 'wrecking amendment' designed to destroy this section of the Bill. I do not support wrecking amendments. The second vote was on an amendment to shift the decision making away from health authorities to local government. After consideration I did not think this in itself was desirable, although I would like to see local authorities as statutory consultees.

There was no division on the Bill at 3rd Reading so the Bill now becomes law.

However, I would urge people to read in depth the information and links below, because the headlines "MPs vote for Fluoridation" the following morning were a total injustice to the scope of the Bill and the narrowness of Clause 58. It was not about forcing fluoride on us.

Do you Support Fluoridation and the Water Bill?

The Water Bill (full contents available in the link below) receives its 'Second Reading' on Monday 8th September.

Please use the links below to read the arguments from the proponents and opposition. It is vital to look at the whole picture to get a balanced view. Some of the claims made on this issue make it difficult to make sense of the argument at times.

The Bill will update the framework for abstraction licensing, promote greater water conservation and planning for the future by water companies, and help to build a more stable and transparent regulatory environment that puts the consumer at the heart of regulation.

Last year's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg re-emphasised the importance of clean water throughout the world. The Water Bill will take to a new level the government's commitment to the sustainable management and use of water resources at home in the face of climate change.

Normally a Bill of this kind would receive little or no attention. It is the sort of Bill that is very worthy, has some technical improvements to regulation, environmental improvements and to water management but does not excite the public. However, since the government drew up the Bill they have accepted that a debate about fluoridation needs to be included following cross party back bench pressure and the introduction and support in the House of Lords.

Out of the 106 Sections, fluoridation of water is just one. I understand that during the passage of the Bill this Section will be subject to a free vote. At this stage (i.e. Report Stage) MPs will use their votes to discuss this subject in detail and to decide what should and should not be included.

There has been some misunderstanding put out by some pressure groups about the nature of the 2nd Reading debate. (See web links below) If MPs have objections to certain parts of a Bill they use the Committee stage or Report Stage to make those amendments. Voting out a Bill at Second Reading prevents the other 104 worthy sections being discussed. I find it remarkable that any sensible lobby/campaigning organisation would be calling for the rejection of a Bill at Second Reading because of one Section. I fear this sort of action discredits lobbying organisations and their arguments. I really wish campaigning organisations would take time to consider their actions as this has proved counterproductive to MPs like me who remain open to argument on the issue.

Section 63 of the Water Bill is an amendment proposed to clarify the position regarding allowing for fluoridation of water after consultation between Health authorities and water companies and consumers. The final decision still remains with local people.

In Leicestershire our water is not currently fluoridated.

As this issue has passionate followers on either side of the argument I have listened and researched carefully both points of view. Whatever your opinion, I would urge you to visit the web sites below to give a rounded picture of the disparity between the claims made by both sides.

Much of the disagreement centres on the issue of the science and the compulsory nature of the process.

On the issue of fluoridation of the water as a means of mass treatment I can live with this aspect, as long as the evidence of derived gain and risk is sufficient to warrant such action. At present I am not convinced the argument has been won.

I have read much of the scientific evidence from both sides, but often find this unhelpful as it is dressed up to prove the points for and against. Therefore, I have also sought further 'neutral' evidence. This proves to be difficult, but any close reading between the lines shows that both sides seem to have 'sexed up' their arguments!

On balance I think that the benefits of fluoridation would be worthwhile if there was not so much scientific doubt about the long term problems that may be caused by its introduction. I have not seen enough evidence to prove that it causes serious harm in the short term, but at the same time I have not been convinced that it can be declared safe over the long term, if some of the claims from the anti campaign have any real basis. This is not to say I support some of the wild claims, but if genuine fear exists we need to be able to refute it scientifically to give the public confidence in their water.

However, the level of suggested fluoridation would be similar to that found naturally in the Eastern parts of the UK in existing water and at levels introduced for millions of people worldwide.

Therefore, I will, and have always supported the notion that people locally should decide on the issue. In Leicestershire there has always been a strong anti fluoridation campaign and I assume during any consultation in the future their arguments will be allowed to be fully aired again.

I will not support any measure in the Water Bill that makes fluoridation compulsory across the country. (By this I mean that fluoridation should remain a matter for local people to decide. There should not be a blanket compulsion to force water authorities to fluoridate all of their water. The Bill achieves this in its current form as it allows local health authorities to decide in consultation with local people)

So during the passage of the Bill, I will support the overall Bill, and choose which amendments and clauses to support to maintain this local element of choice. It is important that people (from both sides of the argument) look very carefully at the wording of the clauses and amendments that will be discussed. There is a tendency for pressure groups to 'decide all or nothing' headlines are easier to work with, but the detailed discussions of Bills and amendments are not designed to simply complete their headlines, but to make workable laws.

Wording of section 61 of the Water Bill

Fluoridation of Water Supplies: Key Questions

Why is the government imposing fluoridation on the UK, when there are inherent health risks - what happened to choice?/Fluoridation plays a key role in reducing oral health inequalities in children - why has it not been compulsory before?

There is no intention to fluoridate the whole country, and new local schemes will be required to have local support. No area will have its water fluoridated without having undertaken proper consultation to ensure that the measure has local support. The measure in the Water Bill would remove the existing power water companies have to veto new schemes - and give local communities the choice of having their water supply fluoridated.

Fluoridation is about improving oral health rather than water quality, and is therefore a decision which should be taken by local Strategic Health Authorities. The Government will be encouraging Strategic Health Authorities in areas with particular dental health problems to consider fluoridating their water as part of their overall oral health strategy. No new consultations will start before the joint report from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer on the implications of the -Medical Research Council research is published in the autumn. Local authorities will therefore have the latest available research information on which to base their decision.

The government recognises that there are strong views on both sides of the fluoridation debate. There has been/will be a free vote on government benches in both the Commons and the Lords.

What about the impact of fluoride in the wider aquatic environment?

The target concentration for fluoride in water fluoridation schemes is 1 milligram per litre of water [mg/l]. The national regulatory standard for fluoride is 1.5mg/l, derived from the World Health Organisation's recommended guideline value that is intended to safeguard health on the basis of a lifetime's consumption. If the fluoride concentration exceeds 1.5 mg/l in England or Wales the Drinking Water Inspectorate may initiate enforcement action against the breach. The Environment Agency carries out extensive monitoring in fresh waters and has derived an Environmental Quality Standard, published in 2000, for fluoride in water. This drew on research which indicates that effects on aquatic life from fluorides occur at concentrations of 9 mg/l to 350 mg/l. The safe upper concentration for fluoride in animal drinking water is 2mg/l. An additional 1mg/l of fluoride in drinking water would only cause adverse effects in domestic animals if they were already receiving excessive, close to toxic amounts in other components of their diet or environment.

What is fluoride and why is it being added to water supplies?

A1: Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance and it has been used in dental treatment and toothpaste. According to the Department of Health:

'About half a million people in this country receive water which is naturally fluoridated at, or about, the optimum level of one part of fluoride per million of water. A further one million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still confers some dental benefit. These areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north, down to parts of Essex.

About 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham and throughout the West Midlands, and also in Tyneside.

Who will make the final decision about fluoridation of water supplies.

A2: Following changes in the law, decisions and responsibilities for adding fluoride to drinking water will lie with health authorities and the Department of Health, following approval by consumers. Water companies will in effect act as contractors to carry out the decision.

Who will be responsible for the supply of drinking water.

A3: The quality and supply of water will be the responsibility of the water companies. They will need to maintain operational flexibility, as water supply zones can vary seasonally, during different times of the day, and as a result of essential operational measures.

What rights will the public have about the fluoridation of water supplies.

A4: There will need to be a statutory and appropriate consultation with the local consumers by means yet to be determined.

What happens to customers who cannot drink or use fluoridated water.

A5: There will need to be alternative arrangements for the supply of water without fluoride.

Who will pay?

A6: The decisions and responsibilities about fluoridation will lie with the health authorities. This should include the reimbursement by health authorities of all costs of providing and running fluoridation plant, and also of any modifications to distribution systems. There will also need to be the provision of full indemnities by the Department of Health to water companies for any liabilities that they may incur as a result of fluoridating the water supplies.

Updated May 2003