Lymington Times

CAMPAIGNERS have won the right to challenge in court an NHS plan that would add fluoride
to the drinking Wilier of 8,000 Totton residents.
A Judicial review launched by :'Southampton resident Geraldine Mllner has been given the go ahead to scrutinise the legality of the decision which will affect overall 190,000 people in and around the city if it goes ahead as planned next year.
Southampton Primary Care Trust's scheme was approved in February by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) despite protests, a 15,000-name petition, and a Mori poll showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
It was billed as key to reducing above average child tooth decay in Southampton, and supporters said there was no evidence behind claims it was harmful, beyond occasional mottling of teeth.
Mrs Milner's lawyers argue fluoridation should not have been approved because it was at odds with pronouncements from members of the government that such schemes should only be allowed if most of the local population were in favour.
Sean Humber, from solicitors Leigh Day and Co, told the 'A&T" that although the laws created in 2003 and 2005 were "silent" about public opinion, ministers' comments had shown the way.
He said: "Government minister after government minister stood up when the Act was being passed in parliament and said it should only go ahead if the local population was in favour — but that was not in the actual legislation."
The case could see the Department for Health being called on to explain its rules, and the SHA having to pay costs if Mr Justice Hitting finds against it. Mr Humber said: "I think we have a good case and they are in a bit of a hole."
The new laws gave the NHS powers to order water companies to add fluoride. The SHA claimed it could go ahead, even if the public opinion was against it, as it had followed due process and was convinced of the health benefits.
Mrs Milner also said opponents' arguments were not properly considered but the judge hearing the case decided that only the legality of the decision would be investigated.
The SHA said in a statement: "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."
Mrs Milner's lawyers have challenged the judge's ruling against the second half of her case, which is scheduled to be heard on October 23rd. Depending on the result, the judicial review could be heard as early as next year with a decision in the spring.
Totton councillor David Harrison said: "Hopefully, the court case will expose matters, forcing government to concede that they cannot interfere with our water supply without our consent."
The issue was discussed last week by a meeting of New Forest district councillors where Coun. Maureen Holding said: "Our input and the
wishes of the majority were totally ignored — the outcome is unfair and they need to be taken to task over it."
Retired dentist Coun. Tony Swaine told the employment, health and well being review panel: "This is being imposed upon people because of a small minority who appeared not to be able to look after their teeth properly."
Coun. Miranda Whitehead said alternatives to fluoride should be considered: "We are talking about medicating the many to protect the few who are unable to protect themselves.
"Having worked in casualty I've been truly shocked by the state of children's teeth and it really does represent a socio-economic divide." A joint complaint to the ombudsman by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Coun. Harrison alleging the consultation was one-sided and ignored residents' opposition will be put on hold until after the court challenge.
The impact of the judicial review has already been felt by the NHS in the north-west where the SHA there has delayed investigating fluoridation until the case concludes.