• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The application for judicial review
brought by Southampton resident Gerald-ine Milner against the Strategic Health Au-thority will be going ahead following thedecision by the judge reviewing the applica-tion. On 23rd July 2009 the HonourableMr Justice Mitting gave limited permission
for a Judicial Review of the SHA‟s decision
stating that the case raised important ques-tions of public law. He also said that deter-mination of the claim required the activeparticipation of the Secretary of State forHealth and declared him an interestedparty.Ms Milner is being represented by LeighDay & Co Solicitors. The application chal-
lenges the SHA‟s decision on the grounds
that it is Government policy that fluorida-tion should only go ahead if the local popu-lation is in favour. The evidence in theHampshire case is that there is a lack of local support. The regulations for the con-sultation undertaken by the SHA also re-quired an assessment of the cogency of thearguments for and against fluoridation andthis did not occur.However, the judge only upheld part of therequest for a judicial review relating to thefirst argument about requiring local sup-port arguing that "
The lawfulness of this [theSHA's] approach is a proper subject for judicial review 
." He has not allowed the claim thatthe SHA had not adequately assessed thecogency of the arguments during the con-sultation to be part of the judicial review.The solicitor has now appealed againstthis ruling and the appeal will be heardat an oral hearing in court on the 23rdOctober. Depending on the outcome of this hearing the full judicial review ei-ther on the first ground only or onboth grounds will be heard early in2010.In the meantime, all progress towardsfluoridation in Southampton and otherparts of the country has been put onhold (see story on page 2). However,HAF will continue to campaign againstthe SHA and the decision to fluoridatelocal water supplies.More detail of the judicial review appli-cation is given onwww.leighday.co.uk/news/news-archive/southampton-fluoridation-challenge-launched
Judicial Review Granted
WWW.HAMPSHIREAGAINSTFLUORIDATION.ORG
Inside thisissue:
 
 Judicial Reviewof South Cen-tral StrategicHealth Au-thority deci-sion to fluori-date Julian LewisMP speaks inParliament on water fluorida-tion Join HAF
www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.orgWebsite: hampshirea-
September 2009
CONTENTS
Judicial review 1Local involve-ment networks2 North West SHA puts water fluori-dation on hold2Local MP speaksout in Parliament3Legal challengeto MHRA4HAFmembership4
 
 WWW.HAMPSHIREAGAINSTFLUORIDATION.ORG
PAGE 2S-LINk is the SouthamptonLocal Involvement Network 
and works like Hampshire-LINk toimprove all health and social carewithin their areas, through inter-action with the local community.This is achieved by residents regis-tering with them which allowsthem to have their say. You cando this either by post or on-line.Anyone who has anything to sayabout services can comment andthe LINk is required to reply tothem within 20 days. The on-lineforums are also monitored and if there are a lot of comments abouta subject this will be reportedback and the LINk have to look into it. Certain organisations havesigned up to the LINk 
 — 
one of them being South Central Strate-gic Health Authority! We urgeyou to join your local LINk so that
you can have a „voice‟.
One of 
HAF‟s members who spoke to
Hampshire LINk was told that if more people had registered with
the LINk and „had their say‟ they
felt sure that fluoridation wouldnot have gone through.
 
Have your say about local health services
The Steering Group is made up of ordinary citizens who can offertheir expertise on anything usefulto the organisation. There can beas many as 20 people on the steer-ing group, but at present there areonly 7, so there are many vacan-cies that need filling. We listenedto the Financial review and min-utes
 — 
which were agreed by mem-bers. Dr Andrew Mortimore thengave a long address on the state of health in the city and what thePCT were doing.Questions were then taken fromthe floor and HAF chairman, JohnSpottiswoode asked a question onthe subject of fluoridation. In all,we felt it was worthwhile attendingand it highlighted the need for HAFmembers to register and get in-volved with this group. I even man-aged to give the recent DVD
“Professional Perspectives onFluoridation” to Dr Mortimore!”
 To register with S-LINk or H-LINk telephone 0845 0949497 or 01225701120 or register online at: http://www.communityvoicesonline.org/
A group of representativesfrom HAF
attended the recent S-Link AGM at the Novotel andwere able to have an information
stall there. This is Caroline Place‟s
report.
“
Although not bursting at theseams with people we did havesome enquiries from members of the public who still did not knowanything about the problems of fluoride. They received our infor-mation and the DVD and went off aghast that such a thing should behappening! One of the City Coun-cillors who voted for fluoride ac-tually asked for more informationas he did not feel he was informedenough to make his vote at thetime!!! It was quite an informativemeeting and we were led throughthe workings of the Link and in-troduced to the Steering Group.
North West SHA puts Fluoridation on hold
Following the successful request for a judicial review of the South Central SHA decision on fluoridation allproposals for schemes in the North West have been put on hold. In a paper to the SHA Board on 3rdSeptember the chief executive, Mike Farrar, has advised the North West SHA Board that
“It would be irre-
sponsible for NHS North West to commit further resources to water fluoridation until the outcome of the Judicial 
Review is known and this has significant consequences. “ 
His report also goes on to say that any result from a
 judicial review will not be known until February 2010 and even if the SHA‟s decision is upheld it would not
be possible to move forward on a consultation process in the North West until after the next generalelection. In addition he also highlights the increasing costs of the proposed scheme in the North West
 — 
 now put at some £200 million with running costs of £5.78 million a year and well in excess of original esti-mates.
 
Julian Lewis MP House of Commons Speech
PAGE 3
On the last day of Parliament Julian Lewis the local MP forNew Forest East raised thetopic of fluoridation. Each eve-ning the House of Commonshas an adjournment debatewhen back bench MPs can raisetopics. On 21st July Julian Lewischose to raise water fluorida-tion
 — 
the following is the textof his speech
“In the time available to me to-
night, I want to touch on a prin-ciple, a policy and a tribute. Theprinciple is that the fluoridationof water should not be carriedout without the general consentof the people affected by it. Inan unusual, and quite positive,cross-party alliance, the LiberalDemocrat councillor, Council-lor David Harrison, who repre-sents Totton in my constituency,and I, as the Conservative MP,have been working together totry to involve the ombudsman inexposing the corruption of aflawed consultation process thatcompletely ignored the fact that72 per cent. of the people whoresponded to it were against thatkind of mass medication.I will say no more about the spe-cifics of that case, however, be-cause the matter is now subjectto judicial review and I do notwish to trespass on that terri-tory. That is why I shall talk onlyabout the principle. The problemwas first highlighted in March2005, when the Water Fluorida-tion (Consultation) (England)Regulations 2005 were being de-bated in the upper House. EarlHowe, the shadow Health Minis-ter, drew the House's attentionto regulation 5, which was passedinto law. It states:"
 A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that fallswithin section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and thecogency of the arguments advanced,the Authority are satisfied that thehealth arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal 
outweigh
all arguments against proceeding 
."The noble Earl Howe asked whatthis was supposed to mean, andpointed out: that when we de-bated Section 58 of the 2003 Act,the Minister emphasised that:
'nonew fluoridation scheme would goahead without the support of themajority of the local population de-termined by local consultations con-ducted by strategic health authori-ties in England and the National  Assembly in Wales'.
"Earl Howe emphasised the words"
majority of the local population
"and went on to observe: "
I seenothing in the order which fulfilsthat undertaking.
"
 — 
[ Hansard,House of Lords, 8 March 2005;Vol. 670, c. 709.]Neither do I. However, even if 72 per cent.
 — 
or 100 per cent.
 — 
of the people oppose mass fluori-dation of a water supply, as longas the strategic health authoritycan satisfy itself that the healtharguments outweigh the opinionsof the people affected, their opin-ions can be ignored. Only thecourts and the ombudsman cando something about this; MPsevidently have no influence, andwe must await the results of the
case to which I have alluded.”
 There has been much discussion in the pages of the Echo about holding a referendum on waterfluoridation. HAF objects to water fluoridation for two main reasons. The first is that there is in-sufficient evidence to claim that water fluoridation is safe and effective. In fact there is growing evi-dence that fluoridation gives rise to a wide range of health problems. Secondly we do not believethat it is ethical to medicate individuals without their consent. In addition we would want to ensureany debate was on a level playing field. Local NHS organizations have spent £100,000s promotingwater fluoridation and it would seem fair to ensure that those opposing water fluoridation werealso given access to similar resources
 — 
which is very unlikely. Thus HAF cannot support the idea of a referendum.
Referendum: HAF’s View
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...