Heath chiefs fight on over fluoride

Heath chiefs fight on over fluoride
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
HEALTH chiefs insist they will defend their decision to approve plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to Hampshire homes.
A judge has granted permission for a judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's move to give the controversial scheme the green light, because of claims public opinion was ignored.
But the SHA says it is confident it followed the law and met or exceeded all the legal requirements placed on it, and its decision was right.
Mr Justice Mitting said the application for a judicial review, lodged by Southampton woman Geraldine Milner, raises a "stark public law question" over whether the SHA should have taken public opinion more into account.
More than 10,000 people responded during the public consultation into the fluoridation plans, which affect two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Of those living in the affected area who gave their views, 72 per cent said they did not want the chemical added to their water.
The SHA also held a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, in which 32 per cent backed the plans, compared to 38 per cent who opposed them.
The authority will now have to explain why it did not listen to those views when its board unanimously approved fluoridation for Hampshire.
The judge said statements made by ministers when the regulations were before Parliament were "unequivocal" in saying fluoride would only be added to the water where the local population supported it.
He accepted the SHA's defence it followed the law, which says it only had to "pay regard" to public opinion, but wants the lawfulness of that approach to be scrutinised in court.
But Mr Justice Mitting rejected claims there were any other faults with the SHA's decision making.
An SHA spokesman said the authority will now defend its position on public opinion.
"Mr Justice Mitting found that there
was an arguable case in relation to whether South Central Strategic Health Authority was entitled to rely on the regulations, or whether it should have had regard' to verbal statements made in Parliament," he said.
"South Central Strategic Health Authority is pleased with the ruling and the Judge's view that 'in all other respects the decision-making process was unimpeachable'.
"The SHA remains confident that the decision that has been made by the SHA board was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by Parliament, and is in the best interests of the health of local people."
Campaigners criticise rising cost of battle
IF health chiefs use all the money they have set aside to fight the judicial review into the decision to fluoridate Hampshire's water, it would take their total spending on the issue to £650,000.
That figure - which includes a £400,000 war chest to defend the legal challenge - -is enough to pay for more than 30 dental nurses each earning £20,000 for a year.
And it doesn't even include the staff costs associated with staging last year's 14-week public consultation, or the cash which has been ploughed in by the NHS in Southampton. Anti-fluoride campaigners say the health authorities would be better off spending the money on frontline services to target the poor dental health in children that fluoridation is being brought in to improve.
"The amount that's been spent is an outrageous waste of public money, and they should stop the whole process straight away," said John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation.
"All the way along it has been a waste of money, and it's just getting worse."
He went on to say: "The NHS should be spending money on things that are worthwhile, and not on" something so controversial that will have no benefit."