The number one IT priority in dentistry is to give all dental practices access to the world wide web and NHS net, says the British Dental Association.

And including patients' NHS numbers on their records as an unique identifier - allowing practitioners to access information through the electronic patient record (EPR) - will lead to "better patient care".

The BDA is currently working with the IT&C Steering Group to ensure that a framework that is "useful both to dentists and improve patient care".

The IT&C Steering Group was set-up in response to a recommendation made in a report by the Information Technology Task Group of the Dentistry Modernisation Steering Group.

An Information Technology Strategy for NHS Dentistry in the 21st Century, published by the Department of Health in October last year, also expressed concern about the fact that dentists are not required to make use of patients' NHS numbers either on records or on communication. "Widespread use of the NHS number in dental systems is essential if dentistry is to integrate with mainstream NHS IT," the report says.

Sally Dawson

This language and imagery is nothing short of scandalous. Like the 136 other MPs who have signed my Commons motion, I support water fluoridation only for the health benefits it can bring - better teeth and a better quality of life for millions of children in this country.

If anyone doubts that they need only compare the children's dental health figures for Birmingham and Manchester - two cities with a comparable social profile. Five year-olds in Birmingham have on average less than one missing, filled or decayed tooth. In Manchester the average is three.

It's not surprising, therefore, that people in my part of the country want the same benefits as Birmingham. Last week I visited the Manchester Dental School and witnessed under-10s having teeth withdrawn under general anaesthetic. They do 1,500 such operations every year.

One three year-old had 10 teeth removed. It was upsetting and shocking. And when I was told by the consultant that such sessions are not happening in Birmingham on the same scale, it makes me feel even angrier at the vocal, letter-writing minority blocking these progressive changes.

It is morally wrong to allow children to go through this pain and trauma when we know of a proven and safe public health measure that can alleviate it.

Fluoridation is back on the agenda because the Water Bill comes to the Commons in a few weeks time. I have said I will table amendments to it to clear up the legislative mess where water companies can turn down democratic requests for fluoridation.

If the reports are true, it seems likely that the government will bring forward its own amendments and give the House a free vote. That is great news - as most reasonable people, when presented with the facts, will come to the view that the law should be changed forthwith.

According to the British Dental Association: "There is no scientific basis whatsoever to claims that fluoride in water is unsafe. All robust scientific research shows that fluoridation is still considered safe and effective." In the US - simultaneously the most health-conscious and litigious country on earth - 47 out of the 50 biggest cities have fluoridated water, and Los Angeles is about to come on stream.

If the health risks were real, why are the communities of Britain that have fluoridated water - parts of the West Midlands for 40 years - not calling for it to be removed?

In my view the claimed health risks are used as a smokescreen by anti-fluoride campaigners for their real objection: the "enforced medication" argument. They know that the civil liberties argument is not strong enough to stand on its own two feet against the overpowering evidence of benefits so toss around spurious health risks to muddy the waters.

If the price of improving children's lives is everyone taking in a negligible amount of fluoride in water - when we know it does no harm - most reasonable people will conclude it is well worth doing.

I hope my colleagues in Parliament will set aside the hype and the scare stories and see this issue for what it is - a simple issue of health inequalities.

Tooth decay is a class issue. Eighty per cent of dental disease can be found in only 20 per cent of the population. That 20 per cent is, of course, the poorest 20 per cent. Unlike other disease, it is of course almost entirely preventable.

In 1998, Sir Donald Acheson's report of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health acknowledged that whilst overall dental health has improved, inequalities in dental health are still wide. He recommended water fluoridation to reduce them.

I don't favour blanket fluoridation. It should be targeted where dental disease is worst and where communities want it. Experts predict that increasing this to 30 per cent by fluoridating some of our main conurbations - Greater Manchester, Leeds/Bradford, Merseyside, Glasgow and Inner London - would make a massive difference to dental disease.

If this issue causes controversy, it should be because of the utter scandal that we know of the inequalities in children's dental health, and of a proven means to narrow them, and yet fail to use it.

Most people support fluoridation. And for the tiny minority of the population who oppose it very much, they are generally well-off enough to afford Evian.

It's high time to stop a vocal, letter-writing minority standing in the way of a progressive change that will benefit millions of people in Britain.