Dear Public Health England,

Williamsgate WTW is due to come on line in 2022 and will provide West Cumbria with water extracted from Lake Thirlmere.

It is predicted that Public Health England and Cumbria County Council will automatically assume that Williamsgate WTW or a downstream service reservoir/pumping station will supply artificially fluoridated water to the population of West Cumbria, thus continuing fluoridation of residents.

Please provide a legal citation which your organisation will use to justify fluoridating water treated by Williamsgate WTW.

Yours faithfully,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply but your reply is incomplete. A legal citation is normally more than just the name of an Act. Where in the Act (WIA !991) is the clause which permits Williamsgate to provide fluoridated water.

To make things absolutely clear, Williamsgate is a new Water Treatment Works in a different geographical location to Ennerdale, a different name, a different asset number and a new source of raw water (Thirlmere). Therefore, water fluoridation at Williamsgate cannot begin without the public being consulted because it would be a new fluoridation scheme.

The current contract between PHE/DHSC is for the current Water Treatment Works (Ennerdale) which will close when Williamsgate opens. Williamsgate would not be restarting fluoridation but starting fluoridation. Thus a new contract has to be entered into. A new contract cannot be entered into without there being a public consultation.

Note: telling me that you are allowed to fluoridate West Cumbria from Williamsberg WTW because fluoridation will cease for technical reasons will not wash. Both Cornhow and Ennerdale resumed fluoridation a few years ago without the public being consulted because the fluoridation equipment had become unsafe to use. Thus fluoridation resumed from the same WTWs because of technical difficulties with the old equipment. The same cannot apply to Williamsgate which is being constructed as part of UU's strategic plans and which is deemed necessary because the abstraction licence for Ennerdale Lake is being revoked for environmental reasons and not for technical reasons.

You are required to legally justify Water Fluoridation being started from Williamsgate when it opens without there being a public consultation. Thus the full citation is necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI,

I hope that you haven't started a new FoI Request and I also hope that you are not asking me to wait 20 working days for a reply.

I originally asked for a Citation which would justify starting WF from Williamsgate. Providing the name of the Water Act 1991 is not sufficient, simply because the Water Act 1991 contains many sections which deal with issues other than Water Fluoridation.

If you have deliberately misunderstood my original request because you are having difficulties identifying the relevant clauses in the legislation, then say so.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI

Thank you for your reply. Can you please be more specific? You have already referred to the Water Industry Act 1991 and I have asked you to quote the exact section and clause which would justify PHE instructing a contractor to instal fluoridation equipment in a new Water Treatment Works with a different name, a different asset number, a different geographical location and a different source of water to Ennerdale WTW which Williamsgate WTW is replacing due to environmental considerations.

However, you state " I can confirm that PHE does not hold the information you have specified." That really is not good enough. PHE is the agency which is responsible for controlling Water Fluoridation programmes on behalf of local authorities. As such you need to be able to specify which particular part of the law is being invoked when recommending to the Secretary of State a particular action in relation to a variation in a WF programme. When you do this you surely have to let the SoS know under which part of the WIA 1991 or other dependent legislation you consider your recommendation to instal equipment at Williamsgate is, in your eyes, justified. Surely this is part of a scoping exercise. PHE cannot simply go ahead and order the fluoridation equipment without being able to justify the expenditure without there being some form of authority.

I require you to provide this authority.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren

Dear Public Health England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Public Health England's handling of my FOI request regarding the future of Williamsgate Water Treatment Works, Cumbria and its Water Fluoridation status.

When a new water treatment works comes on line, it is the duty of Public Health England and the water company to ensure that a request to fluoridate is legally justified. I have asked PHE for this legal authority and have not been sent any legal authority which justifies the commissioning of fluoridation equipment. Please ensure that I am sent this legal authority. I have stated that Williamsgate is a new water tretment works with a new asset number and which is in a different geographical locality to Ennerdale WTW which it wil be replacing and will be using a different source of water. Surely, Williamsgate cannot legally be allowed to add fluoride to treated water without a public consultation taking place. Please provide your justification for allowing this fluoridation to take place.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Joy Warren

Dear Public Health England,

I requested an internal review on 15th July. Please acknowledge my 15th July request.

Yours faithfully,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI,

I find it strange that you think that I haven't already requested an internal review. Let me be quite clear: I have already requested an internal review. I requested an internal review in my last letter because it was obvious that information is being witheld regarding the exact clauses used to justify PHE's request for Williamsgate to become a fluoridating water treatment works. And now you compound the inability to provide the detailed information by denying that any decision has been made about the fluoridation status of Williamsgate. This denial is patently a false denial because the contractor's plans clearly show the position of future fluoridation equipment.

https://planning.allerdale.gov.uk/portal...

Someone in your organisation instructed the contractors to include fluoridation equipment in their planning application. The person who conducts the internal review is requested to ask the person who instructed the contractors to include fluoridation equipment in their plans which particular part of the WIA 1991 and regs. were used to justify that request. It is not enough to quote the overarching legislation.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI,

Our ref: request-571660-37fc4613@ whatdotheyknow.com
Your ref: 27/04/fb/098 23 May 2019
Re: Legal citation for WTW [Williamsgate and installation of fluoridation equipment.]

I require you to start an internal enquiry because:
The sparse information that you have provided has not been at the level of detail requested.
The person (a job title will suffice) who told the intended contractors to include fluoridation equipment in the plans did not investigate the relevant legislation. Had that been done, I would by now have been informed of which particular clause/s in the WIA 1991 and regulations were used to justify the instruction to the contractors.
The FoI officer stated that no instruction had been given to instal fluoridation equipment when, had he or she looked at the plans, he or she would have clearly seen that the instruction had been given.

If the exact legal clause/s can't be cited, any attempt to instal fluoridation equipment at Williamsgate would appear to be incompatible with the law.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren

Dear FOI,

Your ref 27/04/fb/098

Why am I being told that I have to wait a further 20 working days for the results of an internal review? This FoI request was made on 27th April 2019. I was made to wait 20 days before I received an indeterminate reply in late May. Since then there has been a dragging of feet by PHE. I am now most concerned that PHE is unable to answer my original question since by replying definitively, PHE would have to admit that there is no legal justification for instructing the contractor/s to install fluoridation equipment at Williamsgate Water Treatment Works.

By law, under all circumstances, PHE should have responded by now with a definitive reply to my reasonable request : I require the exact legal citation (Section, sub-section and clause) which has been used to justify PHE's instruction to the building contractor to incorporate Water Fluoridation equipment at the new Williamsgate Water Treatment Works.

Yours sincerely,

Joy Warren