asked the Minister for Health whether any expenditure other than that already charged against Vote 18 (Law Charges) arose in his Department by reason of the unsuccessful proceedings brought in the High Court by Mrs. Gladys Ryan to have the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act, 1960 declared to be repugnant to the Constitution; and, if such expenditure has arisen, if he will state the amount thereof.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - High Court Fluoridation Case Costs.
6.
The expenditure by my Department, in addition to the expenditure of £20,000 approximately charged against Vote 18 (Law Charges), in connection with the unsuccessful proceedings in the High Court, brought by Mrs. Gladys Ryan to have the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act, 1960, declared to be repugnant to the Constitution is estimated at approximately £8,000. The learned Judge, having held that the fluoridation of public water supplies, as provided for under the Act, does not infringe any of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, dismissed the action and awarded costs covering 64 days hearings, out of a total of 66 days, against the plaintiff. Details of the expenditure incurred by my Department are being furnished to the Chief State Solicitor for inclusion in the bill of costs to be recovered in accordance with the judge's order.
I understand that these proceedings are appealed to the Supreme Court and are therefore technically still sub judice. Is it in accordance with our practice that the proceedings before our courts should become the subject of discussion in our House?
I shall endeavour to prevent anything that is sub judice from being discussed in the House.
Is it in order, in accordance with our procedure, that a matter which is sub judice in our courts should become the subject of discussion in our House?
There is no discussion here. I am merely giving the facts as to the costs of these proceedings to the State so far.
I have allowed this question after very careful consideration, on the ground that it does not infringe on our procedure with regard to discussion of matters that are sub judice.
The Minister is answering his own question.
Might I ask the Minister if he is aware that the State may be involved in another £20,000 from costs arising from new proceedings in the Supreme Court?
I cannot allow that question to be asked. The courts are open to every member of the public to take a case.
I merely want to emphasise——
The Deputy will have to emphasise it in another way. I cannot allow the matter to be discussed.
A dirty device of a planted question to denigrate the courts.
I want to make this representation to the Minister——
The Deputy will have to make his representation elsewhere.
He is going to discuss it in spite of you. This is a dirty device of a question planted by the Minister for Health to denigrate the courts.