The Party to which I belong gave careful consideration to the subject matter of this Bill. They took into consideration what happened in other countries when a solution to a similar problem as that before this House was investigated, and they noted that a great deal of controversy and much discussion had taken place amongst the public on the reasons for and against adoption of the solution to the problem. It is only natural that in dealing with a subject such as dental decay and the causes thereof, and in seeking prevention of it, the ordinary public have to depend to a great extent on the advice and experience of specialists in that field.
They have to seek, and possibly accept, the views of scientists, doctors and dentists. To add to the confusion, on reading through the mass of evidence and information relating to the problem in other countries, we find that not even the experts were all quite agreed between themselves. Some took one view and others the opposite side. When one adds to that the fact that a great number of individuals and many societies and organisations disputed the right of the various Governments to carry out fluoridation of water on ethical grounds, it is not surprising that the members of my Party found great difficulty in coming to a unanimous decision on the rights and wrongs of this Bill.
Having discussed it carefully, as I stated at the outset, they have decided that each individual Deputy comprising the Party is entitled by right to assess for himself, having read the information and evidence that is available to him, what he believes is in the best interests of his constituency and of the country in general. Therefore, any views I express are purely personal. They relate to my own belief and are not binding on any other member of my Party.
I was interested to hear Deputy T. F. O'Higgins, the former Minister for Health, agree last night with the present Minister that he believed from the evidence available that treatment of water supplies would be beneficial to the arrest of dental decay. The only point of difference between himself and the Minister, at least as I understood it, arose on the grounds that he thought that the legislation going through this House now should be an enabling Bill that would give to local authorities, if they so decided, the right to treat the water supplies in their respective jurisdictions.
I would think that the very same reason as caused the Labour Party to decide to give to each individual member his right to consider this problem for himself, does away with the suggestion of leaving to individual local authorities the right as to whether or not to introduce this desirable treatment of water. I have a very great respect for local authorities and for the fact that they quite rightly represent public opinion in their areas. I think it is always desirable that their views on what is best for the areas in which they operate should be carefully considered, but I do believe, taking all things together, that it would be an impossible situation to expect members of local authorities to delve through and assess the value of the various decisions of commissions and evidence relating to this problem that is to be examined.
I feel that when it would come to the final issue, the major factor on which local county councillors or members of local authorities would base their judgment would be that all-important one of the question of how much it was likely to cost, and how much it was likely to put on the local rates. That being so, I think it desirable for the Minister to legislate direct and, if believing as he does that the evidence is such as to satisfy him that it is in the national interests, he should do as he has done in introducing legislation making it compulsory on local authorities to operate this measure.
Perhaps I approach this problem from an unusual point of view. I have no fixation about the question of how ethical it is for a Government to introduce legislation, compelling people to do something in their own interests. For far too long in this country we have given to Governments the right to legislate only in a negative manner. I believe that not only should the Government restrain people from doing things that are injurious to themselves or others, but they should take positive action and, if necessary, use a certain degree of compulsion to make people carry out projects or avail themselves of schemes which, in the opinion of the Government, would tend to improve the health and physique of the people in general.
In this country we accept quite calmly legislation of restraint in matters relating to morals, for instance, censorship of plays, films, books and of the various other media by which thought and ideas are conveyed. We accept without question restraint in relation to public order, a police force, legislation that deals with traffic control and various other things. I cannot understand why we hesitate when it comes to a matter that is of the greatest importance to the health of the community in general.
On reading through the reports of the various commissions that have dealt with this problem, both here and abroad, one cannot but be struck by the fact that advocates on one side claim enormous benefits for fluoridation of water and opponents claim that there is great danger in such treatment of water.
In his opening speech the Minister dealt at length and very clearly with the benefits that he believes can be secured from the fluoridation of our public water supplies. He dealt, perhaps, mildly or lightly with the claims made by opponents of fluoridation as to the dangers that might arise.
In normal circumstances, were this Bill coming before the House without there being all the evidence that is now available, I would be suggesting to the Minister that the matter was of such importance that before asking the House to take any action in the matter or before he took any action, he should consider establishing an independent commission to investigate and report back to him. That is not necessary in present circumstances. In 1947, a former Minister for Health set up a commission which after their investigations and, I am sure, careful consideration of all the evidence that they could secure both at home and abroad, came to the conclusion that it was desirable and was in the interest of public health as a prevention against further dental decay, particularly in young people, that public water supplies should be treated with fluorine in the proportion of one gallon to one million gallons.
There is but a small number of points to be considered by a Deputy when endeavouring to make up his mind as to the correct way to view the problem before us. One is, to ask himself whether or not there is urgent need for fluoridation of water. In his opening speech the Minister made fairly clear the havoc that dental caries is causing. I do not think that anyone interested in the subject will need any assertion by the Minister as to the widespread decay that there is in the teeth of the people of this country. Unfortunately, those of us who are fathers of families have witnessed in our children that dental decay starts at a very early age and that it is usual for them when they reach the stage of manhood or womanhood, to require dentures.
In speaking of the condition of the teeth of the people the Minister referred to the fact that, according to the nutritional survey taken a number of years ago, the dietary intake of the people of Ireland compared favourably with that in the United States of America, where it is the highest in the world. I do not wish to imply that that is not correct but I would point out that in that survey stress was laid on the fact that the vast majority of our people existed mainly on bread and "spread". Whether that is true or not, I think it can be accepted that the diet of the ordinary public does not appear to have any great bearing on dental decay, apart from the fact that certain matters such as powdered sugar of various kinds, white bread and other foods may to some extent advance dental decay. That being so, it is reasonable to assume that the cause of early dental decay lies in the lack of some element in the water supplies rather than in something contained in the food the people eat. It must be clear that whatever the remedy is, it is urgently needed.
The second point is whether this treated water would prove a remedy. All the evidence available before the various commissions and all the evidence from the experts who dealt with this matter indicate to me that the vast majority are completely satisfied that water suitably treated with fluorine can prove not a cure but a prevention of dental decay. In many countries over a period of 12 years or so, experiments have been carried out and records taken and the result definitely suggests that, to say the least of it, this solution to the problem deserves a trial.
The third question I would suggest a Deputy should ask himself is: could the treatment be carried out effectively? All I would say on that point is that those who are against this method of treatment have not suggested any other treatment that would be even half as effective. It is true they suggested that each individual should be equipped with the necessary methods of treating either the water he drank or his dentures. However, as the Minister indicated in his opening statement and as the evidence of the various commissions indicates, this has the weakness that it depends on the individual to carry out that treatment and would defeat itself
Piped water, while not serving the whole country will cover an ever-increasing area within the next few years. It is the easiest and the cheapest method of making available to the public the benefits of fluoridated water. I would impress upon the Minister the great need of connecting schools compulsorily to whatever water supply is available for them. Unfortunately, in the past due to one reason and another long delays have elapsed between the time when water supplies were available to schools and the time when those supplies were connected. The dangers of the continued use of untreated water justify the Minister in paying special attention to that fact.
There is one matter with which I regret the Minister did not deal as clearly as he might and that is the question of cost. The Commission that dealt with the matter estimate the cost at something between 3½d. and 7d. per head a year. I mention this because in the Bill the Minister has seen fit to make this a compulsory measure with which, as I have said, I am in complete agreement. However, paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill says:
A sanitary authority's expenditure on fluoridation (including loan charges on money borrowed to provide equipment) will be recouped by the health authority.
It goes on to say:
The health authorities' expenditure will, in turn, be recoupable to the extent of one half of the Health Services Grant, subject to the usual rule for the exclusion of capital expenditure and loan charges.
As this is a compulsory measure and as the local authorities are not to be permitted to decide whether they should enforce it or not, it is only reasonable that any capital outlay should be recoupable in the same way as the expenses in respect of the health services are recouped each year. I am aware that the Minister is guided by the fact that the local authorities will in time save on dental charges what they will probably lose in administering this scheme and in providing the machinery to carry it out. However, I still think it would be desirable in order to secure the cooperation, the good will and the support of local authorities if the Minister made it as cheap as possible on the local authorities.
It is not only my belief in the advantages of this Bill that has caused me to speak here this evening but also the belief that it is my public duty to support the Bill in its entirety.