I wonder why we are asked to pass this Bill at all. Surely it is, as the council says, that there are doubts about the legality of adding fluorine to piped water supplies? Surely if this was going to do all the good the Minister speaks of and none of the harm the people on the other side of the House speak of, there would be no need to come to this House to get permission to do it? I understand local authorities at the moment have permission to spend money to provide pure water or, shall I say, safe water to consumers, but it now appears that the council has some doubts about the matter. Or, is it that they have been looking further abroad than the Minister and that they find that in America some 60,000,000 people have rejected the fluoridation of water supplies? I am not sure of the precise figure but it is in the region of the number of people who voted for either of the Presidential candidates yesterday in the American election.
Committee on Finance. - Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Bill, 1959—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Mr. Ryan
A Cheann Comhairle, may I put this point to you? The House, having passed the Second Reading of the Bill, have accepted the principle that the fluoridation of water is safe. The only question at issue in the amendment is whether the local authority shall act on the mandate of the Minister or whether we are conferring only permissive authority on them to do what they wish.
I thought the Deputy was making some introductory remarks.
Mr. Ryan
After all, we discussed the managerial system——
Perhaps the Deputy will come to the main point of the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
Yes, but surely I have the right to reply to two Second Reading speeches delivered in your absence today or, does the Minister want to take advantage of your impartial chairmanship to see that the rules of the Committee Stage are now enforced? Earlier, he did not hesitate to hurl vulgar epithets at myself and other members on this side of the House in relation to what we said on the Second Stage.
I think we should confine ourselves to the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
I respectfully agree but on these amendments I say it is apparent that it is felt by the council that the law might be broken by a local authority if it did this without the sanction of this House. I also say that this House cannot override the Constitution. Even if this House for the time being seems to permit a local authority to override the Constitution, there is another place in the land where the validity of this proposal can be challenged. I would hope that the President would refer this Bill to the High Court.
That scarcely arises on this amendment.
Mr. Ryan
It arises in this way: we are here to protect the rights of individuals and we have no power to give to any local body something which conflicts with the rights of individuals. We should certainly not compel someone else to do wrong. It is bad enough to permit a body to do wrong.
As I understand the amendment, no order should be imposed until a supply of pure water is available. That is No. 3. The Minister shall make a survey; I do not understand how the Constitution arises.
Mr. Ryan
It is amendment No. 3.
A supply of pure water must be available before the order is made mandatory on the local authority. I do not see how a constitutional issue arises on that.
Mr. Ryan
But the constitutional issue is the very foundation of this. I say that it would be wrong for a local authority to do this unless this Dáil and the Seanad give them that authority. Further, I say that we cannot compel someone to do something which is against the Constitution. It is bad enough to permit them to do wrong, but it might, at least, be cheaper to assert one's rights against a local authority than it would be to assert them against the State. On that account, there is something to be said for the amendment. With respect, I think the amendment is a good deal more relevant than the provocative remarks of the Minister earlier on this section.
It was said by a number of speakers that we were just as much in error as those who originally opposed the introduction of chlorine in water supplies and those who originally opposed pasteurisation. I challenge the Minister, or anyone in this House, to quote to me any local authority, here or anywhere in the world, which voted out chlorination where it had been adopted, or pasteurisation. There are literally thousands of communities which have voted out fluoridation of water supplies. What has happened in other countries is surely an argument why we should not compel our local authorities to do something which has been rejected elsewhere. It would be infinitely preferable to let the responsibility lie on each local authority so that the people could exercise their judgment upon those responsible.
It may be said that people will have an opportunity of testing the Government on this. The Minister for Health is not so naive as to pretend that this would be the only problem before the electorate. Of course, it would not be and it would be far too bedevilled with other issues of equal importance for the people to exercise a clear judgment. But that would not be the situation if only local authorities were involved. That is why in America, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and all these countries the Minister loves so much, the local authorities promptly got the order of the boot for daring to impose fluoridation upon unwilling people. I would refer to some 76 communities in America which have rejected fluoridation, after having used it, and I trust that the Minister who tried to bowl us over with the degrees he cited will not suggest I am not being relevant.
The following communities in America have rejected fluoridation, after having used it: Stevans Point, Wisconsin, population 16,564; having used fluoridated water supplies the people there voted by a two to one majority on 14th September, 1950, against fluoridation. They voted it out.
Would that not be relevant on the Second Stage and not on this amendment?
Mr. Ryan
With respect, it is quite relevant. I want to show that throughout the world local authorities have reported against fluoridation. In relation to this particular section, it is wrong for us to try to compel local authorities to adopt it. The amendment permits local authorities to exercise a choice now, not after having used fluoride. That is the important point.
Until a supply of pure water not containing fluoride can readily be available at no extra cost. The only thing that arises is whether it is to be permissive or mandatory.
Mr. Ryan
I want to argue that if they were given permission, local authorities would not fluoridate public water supplies and I am, therefore, opposing any mandatory clause in this Bill. I want to prove my argument by giving illustrations of local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the world which have refused to avail of the permission when it was given to them. Many authorities have been quoted on both sides. If we are to have a fair assessment, each side must be entitled to quote its authorities.
In Kennerick, Washington, the authority stopped using fluoridated water supplies in August, 1951, after operating it for one year. In Mount Dora, the people voted by a three to one majority to stop fluoridation after it had been two years in operation. In Williamstown, Massachusetts, the people voted by a three to one majority to stop fluoridation after it had been two months in operation. In Westby, Wisconsin, the city council voted unanimously to stop fluoridation three and half years after it was put into operation. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, the city council by a unanimous vote, voted to stop fluoridation after it had been in operation for four months. There, the League of Women Voters petitioned for a referendum in the hope of starting fluoridation again; the people in the referendum voted to stop it by a majority of five to one.
In Knoxville, Iowa, the people voted by a majority of 868 to 356 to stop fluoridation. In Sheridan, Wyoming, the people decided by a three to one majority to stop fluoridation after it had been two years in operation. In Northampton, Massachusetts, the people voted to stop fluoridation on 11th March, 1953, after it had been two years in operation. In Elroy, Wisconsin, the people voted to stop fluoridation in April, 1957.
In Fort Belknap, Montana, the people voted to stop fluoridation; I have not got the date. I know the Minister wants to check all these figures. In Newmartinsville, Western Virginia, the city council voted to stop fluoridation after it had been two weeks in operation. In Akron, Ohio, the city council voted 9 to 4 to stop fluoridation after it had been two months in operation. In Wakeeny, Kansas, fluoridation started on 14th January, 1954, and stopped on the 27th January, 1954, because the citizens complained. It was thirteen days in operation. In Tyler, Texas, the people voted by a three to one majority to stop fluoridation after it had been two years in operation. In Hudson, Massachusetts, the people voted to stop fluoridation on 3rd January, 1954. It had started in 1952. In Delavan, Wisconsin, the people voted to stop fluoridation on 4th June, 1954, after it had only been six months in operation.
May I put it to you, Sir, that this is an abuse of the procedure of the House. It is wrong to try to read into the record a long list like this. It is admitted that a number—a comparatively small number of municipalities in the United States, whose total population is almost insignificant by comparison with the very large number which have adopted fluoridation—have decided——
Mr. Ryan
The Minister is making a speech.
Order!
Mr. Ryan
It is the Minister who is disorderly. He is making a speech.
The Deputy is reading all this into the record, and it is of no significance, as a serious argument.
It is not for me to say whether or not it is a serious argument. The question of compulsion arises and the Deputy is quoting, as far as I know, certain health authorities who have decided against fluoridation.
I am not saying that it is quite irrelevant but I think that it is altogether unnecessary. Would it not be sufficient for him to read out the total number?
That is not for me to say. I cannot rule against the Deputy.
Does it follow that the Minister is disorderly in his interruption?
That does not necessarily follow. All points of order would be disorderly in that case. Deputy Ryan.
Mr. Ryan
I have mentioned Delavan, Wisconsin.
I am afraid I do not remember what you said.
Mr. Ryan
It will be on the record. If the Minister resents it, it is unfortunate for him but I think it is essential to let the people know that there are many people who have had experience of fluoridation and who have rejected it. In Delavan, Wisconsin, the people voted to stop fluoridation on the 4th June, 1954 after it had been six months in operation. In San Diego, California, the people voted to stop fluoridation by 46,000 to 41,000 in August 1954 after it had been in operation since 1952. In Del Mar, California, which is under the San Diego water system, fluoridation was stopped in 1954 and in La Jolla, California, and in part of Coronado, California, which are also on the San Diego water system, it was also stopped in 1954. In San Diequito and Santa Fe, California, the people voted to stop it in 1954.
In Genesco, Illinois, the people voted to stop fluoridation by 988 votes to 422 on the 9th October, 1954 after it had been in operation since March 1954. In Greensboro, North Carolina, fluoridation was stopped in February 1954 by 5,545 votes to 4,326 after it had been in operation since 1952. In Guilford College which is on the Greensboro water supply it was stopped in 1954, and in Hamilton Lakes also on the Greensboro water supply it was stopped in the same year.
Is it necessary to give the names of the health authorities for the case which the Deputy is making? Would the number not be as effective?
Mr. Ryan
The Minister endeavoured to rebut the total figure which I gave of 60,000,000 people who voted against fluoridation and I am now making my case against what he said.
It seems to me that the only point necessary is to have the number. It is not necessary to my mind for the Deputy to give the name of the health authority. If it is not part of the argument I do not see why it is necessary to give the name.
Mr. Ryan
I can appreciate that it is probably a bore but it is relevant and I want to draw attention to the widespread rejection of fluoridation throughout the length and breadth of America where it was introduced.
I should like to put this point to the Deputy. Unless the names of the health authority are part of the argument I do not see how the reading of the names adds to the potency of the argument.
They are obviously impressing the Minister.
Major de Valera
Why does the Deputy not quote his authority?
Mr. Ryan
I am quoting my authorities and I have to do that because these authorities would not be accepted unless I gave the names. I am giving the information so that the Deputy or any other Deputy may write to the appropriate local authority in America and ascertain whether or not I am telling the truth.
The Deputy must have mentioned about 40 already.
Mr. Ryan
Only about 30, Sir. There are 76 on the list. I appreciate that some people do not want this information publicised but I have a duty to give this information to the people so that they will understand that there are other people who tried fluoridation and rejected it.
Major de Valera
The Deputy's authority for this argument would make it much stronger. We have only his "say so" for it.
The Deputy apparently does not think that my argument is valid. However, I shall allow him to proceed.
Mr. Ryan
In Prairie Du Sac, Wisconsin, the people voted to stop fluoridation after it was three years in operation and in Saginaw, Michigan they voted to stop fluoridation by 12,000 votes to 11,000 after it had been two years in operation. In Beatrice, Nebraska, they voted to stop fluoridation in May, 1955. It was the first city in Nebraska to introduce fluoridation which it did in 1951. In Wichita Falls, Texas the people voted to stop fluoridation by 1,800 votes to 1,400 after it had been three years in operation.
In Martinez, California, the people voted to stop fluoridation on the 3rd March, 1955 after it started in May, 1954. In Alhambra Valley, California, which is on the Martinez water system, it stopped in 1955 and also in Mount View, California, and Pleasant Hill, California, which are also on the Martinez water system. In Rhinelander, Wisconsin, the people voted to stop fluoridation by 1,550 to 1,117 in May, 1955 after it had been five years in operation. In Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan, the people voted to stop fluoridation on the 4th April, 1955 after it had been four years in operation.
In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the people voted to stop fluoridation in 1955 after it had been in operation three years. In Greenville, South Carolina, the community voted to stop fluoridation in 1955 after one year's operation. In the same State, communities at Marietta, Mauldin, Simpsonville, Slater, Traveler's Rest, Donaldson Air Force Base, Renfrew and at Rural, all of whom adopted fluoridation in the water supplies, stopped the scheme in 1955.
At Bay Springs, Mississippi, they stopped fluoridation in January, 1955, having had it for two years. At Platteville, Wisconsin, they voted to stop fluoridation in the same year, having had it for four years. In Faribault, Minnesota, they got rid of fluoridation in March, 1955, after it had been 18 months in operation and at Franklin, Kentucky, they voted to abolish fluoridation in 1955 after three years in operation.
The people at Bangor, Maine, a community of 32,500, voted against fluoridation, also in 1955, and at Charlottesville, Victoria, the city council decided to stop fluoridation after four years. Similar action was taken in February, 1955, at Hinton, West Victoria, in respect of a scheme that had been in operation just short of a year.
The same happened in 1955 at St. Maries, Idaho. At Polson, Montana, fluoridation was stopped in 1955. The 14,600 community of Fulton, New York, voted unanimously to stop fluoridation in June, 1956, because, it was said at the City Council meeting, the meters were corroding. The Mayor said the main reason for discontinuing was that fluoridation was a violation of human rights and could be the first step towards mass medication; the scheme had started in 1953.
At Amsterdam, New York, the city council voted unanimously to stop fluoridation in 1956, members saying they were not convinced, after three years, that it was doing the job it was intended.
I wonder who was right—the Mayor who said it was a violation of human rights or the council who said the meters were corroding?
Mr. Ryan
It might have been there was a Mayor with a Fine Gael outlook in 1956 and one with a Republican outlook in 1953.
Or maybe it was rat poison——
Mr. Ryan
Arsenic is a main constituent of rat poison.
The matter does not arise on the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister thought so and I always follow his example.
The Deputy should not.
Mr. Ryan
In Rio Vista, California, the people voted to stop fluoridation in 1956. It had been in operation for five years, this being the first city in California to fluoridate water supplies. At Lewiston Orchards, Idaho, they stopped fluoridation in 1956. The scheme had been in operation since 1952. At Austin, Minnesoto, they voted against fluoridation in 1956 after five years of operation. The people of Gillett, Wisconsin, voted to stop fluoridation in 1956. The scheme had begun in 1952. At Blackstone, Victoria, the council stopped fluoridation in 1956 after several years of operation. The same occurred at Morris Town, Morris Plains, Hanover, and Morris Township, all in New Jersey. All these communities had had fluoridation for five years.
At Gastonia, North Carolina, they stopped fluoridation after 11 months in 1956. St. Petersburg, Florida, and North Andover, Massachusetts, voted against fluoridation two years ago.
Is it not quite obvious the Deputy is wasting the time of the House? I am putting it to you that the Deputy is not entitled to do that. This recital of these names does not help his argument.
Mr. Ryan
There are 2,500 authorities altogether. If the Minister wants, I shall give them but at the moment I am confining myself to a list of 76 communities.
The Deputy must now be near the end of the list.
Mr. Ryan
I am. I have only three more. If the Minister had not interrupted me improperly on three occasions the list would have been completed long ago. He confuses me when he does this so that I do not know where I am after each interruption.
The Deputy had better start all over again.
Mr. Ryan
At Frayser, in Tennessee, and at Tell City, Indiana, the city councils voted against fluoridation after several years in operation. At Claremore, Oklahoma, they got rid of fluoridation after six weeks and at Indianola, Iowa, they got rid of their scheme and sold the machinery. At Andover, in England the city council stopped fluoridation in 1958 because so many people were objecting. They adopted the scheme in 1955.
Did they sell their machinery too?
Mr. Ryan
Perhaps they are keeping it for the Minister. I have cited 76 cases in America where communities got rid of fluorine in the water but if the Minister wants any more I can give him instances of 2,424 other communities who decided to get rid of fluoridation.
We might now come to the amendment proper.
Mr. Ryan
I trust the Minister is having second thoughts on the matter, now that he realises that 60 million people in America voted against fluoridation.
Why?
Mr. Ryan
Only six per cent. of them voted in favour of having it for reasons which the Minister has asked the Chair not to go into. If the Deputy will read the speeches of other Deputies he will find ample reasons.
What reasons did they give themselves?
Mr. Ryan
I have not had the opportunity of studying the speeches made by nearly 2,500 communities in America who rejected fluoridation, but if the Minister gives me time—and the longer this Bill can be stopped from becoming law the greater will be the safety of the health of the Irish people——
On a point of order, is it not quite clear from the remark the Deputy has just made that the purpose of the long recital he has just completed was to hold up the business of the Dáil?
The recital is now over and the point of order does not arise.
Therefore it is disorderly.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister, when speaking on this amendment, presumed to reject the arguments advanced in favour of it by Deputy M.J. O'Higgins and Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. I have already pointed out that the report of the World Health Organisation which the Minister quoted is not the decision of the organisation but merely of a specialist sub-committee which considered the matter. We feel that the short period of time during which fluoridation has been in operation in other countries does not justify this House in compelling our local authorities to introduce public water supplies with fluorine in them.
The Minister has said it is not a question of 15 years' experience of fluoridation of water supplies; I think he said it had gone back to three-quarters of a century. In fact, a check of the list on page 61 of the Report quoted by the Minister says that 93 per cent. does not go back further than 1940. No reference in this report which the Minister regards as being the be-all and end-all of the matter suggests that fluoridation has gone back further than 29 years. The fact is that no local authority has added fluorine to a water supply for any longer period than 15 years. We believe it is wrong for us in this country to pass in this House a mandatory measure binding all our people in relation to the limited experience of 15 years, when reputable experts have conducted tests on mice which indicate some really damaging general medical effects upon them.
I have said earlier—if the Minister tries to suggest that I am saying otherwise, he will have to answer for it elsewhere—that I do not question for one moment the beneficial effects which a fluoridated water supply may have upon children's teeth but I assert that there are figures to prove that far from protecting the teeth into adult age, a fluoridated water supply means that once decay does set in, the tooth collapses altogether.
I referred earlier on this Bill to the city of Saint David in Arizona where 50 per cent. of the people between the ages of 15 and 41 have no teeth left in their heads.
That is Second Reading argument.
Mr. Ryan
I understood that on Committee Stage arguments which were advanced on one side in relation to an amendment could be rebutted by the other side and that is all I am doing. The Minister spoke here to-day for upwards of an hour on this matter.
Whether the Bill should be permissive or mandatory—that is purely the matter before the House—whether the order should be permissive or mandatory. Applying fluorine to a mouse by permission or mandate does not matter very much to the mouse.
Mr. Ryan
It does to the individual. The Minister apparently wants us to treat our own people as mice.
It does not affect the argument in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
The argument in favour of the amendment certainly revolves around this point that the majority of the Irish people are not aware of the dangers of fluorine and I do not believe they will be aware of the dangers, no matter how we try to expose them in this House.
Major de Valera
What are the dangers of fluorine in water in these proportions?
Mr. Ryan
The Minister objects to my putting information on the records of the House. I spent two hours on Second Reading indicating those dangers and if Deputy de Valera would only take his nose out of the Irish Press and read the Dáil Reports, he would have some information as to the dangers of a fluoridated water supply.
Major de Valera
I still have not got it from the Deputy.
I suggest that Deputy Ryan give us the arguments for and against mandatory and permissive.
Mr. Ryan
I am arguing in favour of a permissive Bill and it certainly would be relevant for me to say that we should not compel a person to do something which is a definite danger to health and I can tell Deputy de Valera of the dangers involved. You cannot compel a person to do harm to his health; you can permit him to do harm, if he wants to do it.
No, not by legislation.
Mr. Ryan
A person can get sodium fluoride at the moment and take a dessertspoonful and that is the end of him. I do not know whether the Poisons Bill which is to be introduced will control this matter. I should hope that it would. I should like to hope that the Poisons Bill might be passed into law before this Bill is enacted and that might stop the Minister from having this Bill.
Could we have something on the amendment now, after all the rambling?
Mr. Ryan
I apologise to you, Sir, that again I followed the Minister in his ramblings. The Minister has said that the reason he will not make this a permissive Bill is that he is afraid that those who are opposed to the fluoridation of water supplies will get at parochial councillors. You have ruled against my second amendment on this Bill and on the merits of that, I am not going to enter a discussion at the moment, except to say that it is apparently on the ground that my amendment is opposed to the principle of the Bill. It appears that the principle of this Bill is the principle of dictatorship, pure and simple, and nothing else.
All legislation is.
Mr. Ryan
That is why we of Fine Gael are so violently opposed to it. It is a reflection upon a local authority if the Minister thinks that they will not be able to exercise their independent judgment in a matter of this kind. If the Dublin Corporation or the Donegal County Council or the Galway Corporation or the Kerry County Council decide not to fluoridate their water supply, what right has the Minister to say: "You shall do it because I say so"? I think it is very wrong that he should do it, just as I think it would be wrong for a local authority to fluoridate the water supply so long as there is any group of people within the area who have not available to them supplies of water without fluorine in it.
If the Minister were prepared to authorise local authorities to make dual supplies of water available, one with fluorine in it and the other without fluorine, there might be something to be said for the Bill. If he were prepared to provide fluorine in tablet form to drop into water as it comes out of the tap, there would be something to be said for the Bill. Apparently he is not prepared to do that.
The Deputy's front bench have accepted the Bill.
Mr. Ryan
Deputy Booth appears to be unable to exercise his own mind. That is one of the tragedies of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Deputy says that he is speaking for Fine Gael.
Mr. Ryan
I am saying that Fine Gael's line on this is that we should spread the responsibility. When this Bill gets to the local authorities, you will find Fine Gael councillors saying: "We have no right to decide this. It should be left to the parents. It should be left to the individuals".
Ask Deputy O'Higgins what Fine Gael believes. I think he knows.
Mr. Ryan
I am quite well aware of what Fine Gael believes. That is more than I can say of the Deputy. I apologise for allowing myself to be tempted to run off at tangents. This Bill is highly objectionable because it is putting fluorine in at the source.
Deputy O'Higgins said it is not.
Mr. Ryan
We are against this compulsion on local authorities because it makes them, whether they want to do so or not, put the fluorine poison in at the source. I cannot understand why the Minister has an objection to a scheme under which the water would come pure into everybody's house and could then be fluoridated by dropping a tablet into it, if you wanted to do it. It would, according to the statistics available, cost about one-fifth of the cost of fluoridating the water supplies in the manner in which the Minister wants to do it.
Last week, I addressed a question to the Minister with regard to the cost.
Are we not getting off the amendment? Are we not becoming rather irrelevant again?
I am watching the irrelevancies. The Chair does not see how it will cost more compulsorily than permissively.
Mr. Ryan
I am arguing the general question of the decisions which a health authority may come to. They could decide not to provide fluorine. They could decide to supply it in tablet form. They could decide——
The only matter that arises—and I want the Deputy to appreciate it, mainly because the Chair will shortly have to insist that it be observed—is whether the order is to be obeyed or to be administered, whether it should be mandatory or permissive. The Deputy is not addressing himself to that.
On a point of order, surely the argument in this case is as to whether it should be a mandatory or enabling Bill? I think the Deputy is making a case that it should be enabling.
The Deputy may think that but the Chair does not.
He has to adduce arguments to that effect.
The Chair is ruling that the question is whether it is permissive or mandatory and the Deputy is not relevant to that.
Surely, with respect, he has to make argument for his case, even though his argument may be lengthy?
I have allowed the Deputy to make a long argument. Deputy Esmonde ought to be aware of that.
Mr. Ryan
In relation to a matter of this kind in which we are going to take poison for 70 years, it is ridiculous for people to be taking umbrage because I take part of the year 1960 to discuss it. I do not accept figures the Minister quoted last week.
One of the effects of obliging a health authority under this Bill to fluoridate the water supply is to increase the rates. A matter of that kind should be left to the discretion of the local council. It is not a question of saving one section of the community expense. Every occupant of a house, be it corporation-owned or privately-owned, and every owner of property, has to pay his share of the rates. The Minister said that the figures for England indicated that the cost per head per year would be between 3½d. and 7½d. per year. It cannot be disputed by members of the House that, generally speaking, communities in England are larger than they are here, so that we can expect that the costings here will be on a somewhat higher level than they are in England.
But it would be the same whether it is permissive or mandatory?
Mr. Ryan
That is not so because it might not be adopted, if it is permissive, and in that event, there would be no charge. It is most important to decide whether or not we are going to permit local authorities of their own accord to adopt fluoridation or allow them no discretion in the matter. On the figures quoted by the Minister and with some fifty per cent. of our people already getting public water supplies, it is fantastic for him to suggest that the approximate annual cost will work out at £30,000. On the figures quoted by the Minister and taking a fair average between 3½d. and 7½d. per head, the cost on the rates in Dublin alone will be 6d. per annum.
On a point of order, are we not still getting on to this question of cost which has already been ruled out of order?
I did not rule because if fluoridation is not mandatory, there is a possibility that the health authority might not adopt it and there would not be any cost.
There is a possibility they would.
The Deputy is quite entitled to contradict.
Mr. Ryan
I am grateful to you for illustrating a perfectly simple matter to the Deputy. The annual cost of providing a fluoridated water supply in Dublin will mean an increase of 6d. in the £ in the rates. The Minister ought to be the last in the world to start estimating what it will cost. Not so long ago, he estimated the additional cost of the health services would be 2/6d. in the £.
Not 6d. in the £.
Mr. Ryan
It is unfortunate that it takes the Deputy so long to come round to a point. On the figures given by the Minister, there will be an increase of 6d. in the £ on the rates, just as it will cost, on the Minister's own figures, between 3½d. and 7½d. per head per person. If the Deputy will multiply the number of heads in Dublin by a mean mark between 3½d. and 7½d. he will find my figures are correct. I believe it will cost, within a very short period, at least treble the cost he mentioned in reply to my Question of 3rd November last.
It is also interesting to discover that in other countries which have introduced compulsory fluoridation of water supplies, the price of sodium fluoride sored immediately fluoridation began. Therefore, the figures quoted by the Minister, if based on the existing price of sodium fluoride in this country or in the neighbouring country, are open to some very serious doubt.
Supposing we accept the Minister's figures, should we compel local authorities to spend £30,000 per annum in the way the Minister wants it spent for the rather indifferent purpose of delaying the onset of dental caries for a couple of years? If we were spending an extra £30,000 per annum on increased publicity encouraging parents to attend to their children's teeth and encouraging them to practise proper dental hygiene, we would bring about a considerable decrease in the degree of dental caries in children's teeth. If we were to devote that £30,000 to research work into the cause of dental caries, we might prevent dental caries altogether without introducing fluoride into the water supply.
May I put this point to you, Sir? The point which Deputy Ryan is making is one which relates to the Second Reading, to the principle of the Bill and not to this point as to whether fluoridation will be compulsory or at the option and discretion of the local authority.
I have already pointed out to Deputy Ryan that the amendment before the House deals with the question whether or not the fluoridation of water should be mandatory and I would ask him to relate his remarks to the amendment as it is on the paper.
Mr. Ryan
I have complied with your request and I intend to do so. The point I am making is that the choice in these matters should rest with the local authority. If the local authority decides to spend, say, £10,000 for the good of children's teeth, it should be left to that local authority to decide whether or not to do so by fluoridating the water supply or spending the £10,000 or, say, £2,000 in providing the fluorine in tablet form for those who will benefit by it——
The Deputy has said that ten times already.
Mr. Ryan
——or in providing an apple a day for the children. We have a glut of apples on the home market this year and I would much prefer to see the local authority deciding to spend the money on apples for the good of the children's teeth than in importing a poisonous substance from abroad for the purpose of putting it into the water supply to delay the onset of dental caries for a couple of years.
This is a very important matter. It is not a question of begrudging people any expenditure to provide them with good teeth, whether they are children or adults. It is a matter of deciding what is the best way to spend the money and the Minister was rather abusive and critical of local authorities. He suggested earlier that their functions should be limited to the efficient carrying on of existing institutions. He suggested they had no right to initiate any new schemes of social improvement or anything of that kind. He said their duty was to see that existing institutions were run efficiently. Not for one moment do I accept his argument on that score but, supposing we do limit them to that alone, then the amendment is very proper to the Minister's line of thought because it seeks to impose that duty upon local authorities. In effect it is saying to them that they have a right to elect how they will spend whatever money they collect from the rates.
If the Minister wanted to make this Bill one for the good of children's health, there are different ways of doing it than the manner he proposes of making this thing mandatory on local authorities. There are very many other arguments which can be discussed on later Stages of the Bill but we must, on this Stage, rebut the effect of figures quoted by the Minister earlier in the debate and in reply to a Parliamentary Question of mine to-day. He says that 99 per cent. of our children have dental caries.
Surely that matter would not arise on the amendment?
Mr. Ryan
It does.
The Chair feels it does not arise on the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister seeks to justify making this a mandatory Bill because he says 99 per cent. of the children have dental caries.
No, Sir. That is not the argument I used. I have said the House ought to make this Bill mandatory because authoritative commissions and committees of experts, having examined the problem, have recommended that piped public water supplies should be fluoridated. That is the basis upon which I have argued on this section. I confined myself to what was strictly relevant to Committee Stage argument. The argument Deputy Ryan is using is a Second Reading argument.
Mr. Ryan
I do not accept what the Minister says and, if he wants me to do so, I shall challenge what he says regarding qualified authorities considering this matter and finding in favour of it. They have done no such thing. Again and again they have rejected it and, if the Minister does not resent it, I shall give him a list of those qualified authorities.
On a point of order, I submit that Deputy Ryan has repeated himself ad nauseam. He opened his speech with the argument he is now putting forward, and I suggest to you, Sir, that he, being repetitive, should be asked to resume his seat and allow the debate go on or that he be kept very strictly to the amendment.
The Deputy will appreciate that repetition is disorderly.
Mr. Ryan
I appreciate that, Sir, but it is most disorderly for the Minister to repeat himself. Several times he has repeated himself. He has repeatedly interrupted me, and I wish it to go on record that I am not going to allow bullying by the Minister for Health to prevent me speaking on behalf of the people I represent. He resents any argument that is quoted against him. He casts insults on the qualifications of those who are in disagreement with him and, if that is not sufficient warning to the Irish people, I do not know what could be sufficient warning for them. He has heaped vulgar abuse on technical experts——
On a point of order——
The Minister, on a point of order.
Mr. Ryan
I hope it is a point of order and I hope you, Sir, will take notice that by deliberate action the Minister is provoking me.
I submit the Deputy is not now addressing himself to the amendment but is pouring forth a string of vulgar abuse that should not be heard in this House.
The Chair understood the Deputy was criticising the Minister's remarks, and the Deputy's remarks were not made in a personal way.
He mentioned bullying and there could not be anything more personal than that. He went on to say I indulged in vulgar abuse of the experts but I have done nothing of the sort. I have spoken in the highest terms of the experts on this matter.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister has spoken in the highest terms of those who support him and in the lowest terms of those who oppose him. I am not going to follow the Minister along those lines because he has a reserve of vulgar abuse at his disposal that I cannot call upon.
How does this arise on the amendment?
I shall ask the Deputy to come to the amendment.
Mr. Ryan
I have been on the amendment all the time except when the Minister deliberately provoked me to depart from it. It is most appropriate that I should say there are experts on both sides and I am not going to hurl abuse at them in the way the Minister has.
We are back to Second Reading again.
Mr. Ryan
Let it come to this. Is the Minister prepared to admit that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of the argument and, that being so, surely it is wrong for this House to say that though there is a great deal to be said against doing this, it must be done, that every local authority and every village that has a communal pond must put fluorine in its water supply even though 60,000,000 people in the United States have voted against it, though the Swedish Parliament has voted against it, and though 2,500 communities in America have voted against it? What the Minister is saying is that it must be done and that is what we, in Fine Gael, are opposing. We say that it should be the responsibility of the local authorities and, if that were the case, we might find at the end of it that not one local authority would add fluorine to its public water supply. The Minister says they should be made do it. We say they should get the chance of deciding for themselves and that is where the difference lies.
Major de Valera
In answer to Deputy Ryan, I would point out that the question of the fluoridation of water is a public health matter. I should like to say from my own point of view I regard it as such a technical one that I would in all responsibility feel constrained to rely on my colleagues here who are medical doctors and who can properly express an expert opinion, and in particular to rely on responsible bodies charged to examine this and report on it in a responsible way. It is to the credit of the Minister's predecessor that it was approached in that responsible way. In the first instance, apparently every effort was made, continuing up to the present moment, to get an accurate appraisal of the situation in regard to this question.
Secondly, a report was furnished by the Consultative Council. I do not think Deputy Ryan has done any great service to his own Party. What he has succeeded in doing is to create the impression that Fine Gael will accept no responsibility in a matter like this. "Pass it on—let somebody else decide it," is their attitude.
Mr. Ryan
I say let the parents decide.
Major de Valera
Pass it on; evade responsibility; indulge in soap box speeches here and elsewhere quoting figures and lists without any bit of authority behind them. That kind of irresponsible treatment is then capped by statements in Dáil Éireann designed to disturb public confidence, saying that delaying this Bill would safeguard the health of the people. There is a most serious matter involved in this and it should not be treated in that childlike—I am using a charitable word—way, because I can only characterise Deputy Ryan's treatment of this as very childish indeed.
What is the actual position here? As I say, the Minister's predecessor had this matter investigated as it should be investigated. We have had a very responsible committee of experts, the best people that could be found in the country, to examine the matter and they have reported upon it. We have also other authorities. I shall not quote a long list but I want to give my authorities.
I have here the report of an expert committee on water fluoridation, the report of the first World Health Organisation. Deputy Ryan tried to make a point out of the note on page one. However, I note that the Authority authorised the publication of this report, and that is a responsible authority. There is also the report of the United Kingdom mission on the fluoridation of domestic water supplies. Here is another responsible document. As I wish to keep within the rules of order, I shall not quote the recommendations in detail. However, I would point out that the conclusions of this mission support the Minister in his stand here. I have here also a document from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare on fluoridation and a statement by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of America. Perhaps I might be allowed to give a short quotation:
Although controlled fluoridation has been proved over and over again to be an inexpensive and completely safe means of preventing 65 per cent. of dental decay, only one out of every four people in the country to-day has this protection.
He goes on and this might be the answer to some of that long list—I am sorry; I was giving the wrong quotation.
The Minister must not have marked the brief properly for you.
Major de Valera
The brief is marked all right. I am glad to have a brief from which I can quote and authorities upon which I can rely. I am not putting Deputy O'Higgins in the same boat as Deputy Ryan.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, Sir.
Deputy Ryan, on a point of order.
Mr. Ryan
The quotations Deputy de Valera is now giving have already been given twice to this House by the Minister who is now putting it on the records for the third time.
I want to say that statement is false. I hope, having stigmatised it as false, Deputy Ryan will withdraw it.
Mr. Ryan
I return the compliment to the Minister, Sir.
If the compliments have ceased, perhaps Deputy de Valera will be allowed to continue?
Major de Valera
The point I wanted to make is that a lot of the charges in the United States were due to the organisation of interests, in many cases completely irresponsible. Remember, there are a variety of reasons and Deputy Ryan has not attempted to sort these reasons. There are always objections from people who do not like mass action and there may have been objections on grounds of costs. Deputy Ryan mentioned the corrosion of valves or something like that. Surely in any scientific investigation or discussion of a matter like that, such factors should be properly analysed?
The net point I want to make is that here you had the best experts that could be found and here you had the precedents set by other authorities who had the same responsibility in this matter, and on the evidence there is every case for following these precedents.
We come now to the compulsion or mandatory end of it which is the subject of this amendment. Here we are up against something one is up against in all public health questions. Is Deputy Ryan aware that today a large number of water supplies are chlorinated?
In order to purify them.
Major de Valera
Exactly.
Not in order to medicate them.
Major de Valera
I merely want to make this point. Chlorine is a vicious poison and was one of the first poisons used in the first World War. However, when used in small and proper quantities, it is a great help in public health and is a method of safeguarding the population from typhoid and all sorts of other diseases. The chlorination of water supplies has been going on for a long time and has done no damage. In fact, it has been highly beneficial.
Would Deputy de Valera just deal with the point when he is at it? Does he not see a distinction between purification and medication?
Major de Valera
The Deputy is quite right—I do. The point I am answering here is this silly talk about poison in the water supply which we had from Deputy Ryan. Chlorine is just as poisonous in big quantities. I want to scotch that dangerous and disturbing suggestion of poisoning the population just because the element fluorine in some form or other can be poisonous in certain quantities. Chlorine, its brother element, can also be very poisonous but beneficial in proper quantities.
Having disposed of Deputy Ryan's irresponsible suggestion that there is danger in this, I hope the weight of authority will have effect and that we can come very fairly to what should be the subject of this amendment: should the Minister make this compulsory or not? I cannot help thinking of campaigns to have compulsory measures taken in the past. One instance that jumps to mind is the case of vaccination for smallpox. The success of smallpox vaccination is such that today it is a disease so rare as to cause a panic if there is any suggestion that there is a case of it here; but before vaccination was general, it was a very serious disease in this part of the world. Before the formation of the State, when compulsory vaccination was introduced, these very same arguments would have come up. Was it right to interfere with the liberty of the individual? There were many people who refused to have their children vaccinated. Many were prosecuted and went to gaol over it. I want simply to ask Deputy O'Higgins this question. In the light of our experience, was it right or wrong to have that measure in our public health law?
Does the Deputy want me to answer that?
Major de Valera
If the Deputy wants to, yes.
I was simply going to point out to the Deputy that smallpox is a communicable disease which can be passed from one person to another and therefore creates a social problem, if not dealt with. Dental caries is not a communicable disease. One person cannot pass it to another. Here you are dealing with individuals and you have not the same kind of social problems.
Major de Valera
We can get into very fine points on this, but there is something more than communicable disease involved in public health. I think it is the function of an enlightened health authority in modern time not only to safeguard the health both of the individual and the community but to do everything it can to raise the standard of good health in the community.
Taking it on that basis, I must ask myself this question: if we provide a certain proportion of fluorine in water, will that help significantly to raise the standard of dental health in the community? That question must be answered. As far as I can ascertain— and I must rely on the experts—the answer to that question is a rather definite ‘yes'. I then ask: if I take this step to raise the average standard of dental health, are there any dangers or objections from a health point of view that would outweigh the advantage I hope to gain? That is a most important question. As far as I could gather from the experts—by experts, I do not mean bodies like those that have been mentioned who get together in America for obstructive reasons but responsible people charged with examining this problem and making reports on which action will be taken, like the reports that have been quoted here—the answer to the second question is that there is no danger likely to arise.
One phrase in the report here says: "The evidence of harmlessness is so strong as to be almost conclusive." If that is the position, we have here an opportunity of raising the general standard of health of the people and, at the same time, not doing any damage. I can understand the urging of the principle that if I want to have water without fluorine, I should have it. That, in simple terms, would seem to be what Deputies on the other side who oppose this are saying.
Why not put it the other way? If I do not want to take fluorine, why should I be forced to do so?
Major de Valera
Very well, but vaccination is something which you are forced to have. We could apply the same argument to chlorine. I could demand that I get water au naturelle without any drug irrespective of typhoid and so on, but if I press that argument too far, I should demand the right to drink poison.
No opposition to that.
Major de Valera
This is a serious matter and it is to the credit of the Minister's predecessor as well as to that of the Minister that this proposal has been so carefully examined. We must therefore face the issue of whether or not we are to have it. The idea of leaving it optional to the local authority is the worst solution. We should make up our minds either to have nothing to do with it or we should do it. If we make it optional, we shall have some authorities doing it and others not doing it. We shall have some of them going into reverse later, like some of the American cities, on the question of cost or under local pressure. In the case of matters like this, you always get groups of people who, for one reason or another, club together in strong opposition. You had it in regard to vaccination. I do not want to apply any epithets to people or groups like that but the fact is that such groups will be found. The worst position would be to leave it permissive or a free-for-all.
This is so serious a matter that it admits of only two decisions: either we stand firmly and say we do it or stand equally firmly and say we do not do it. We cannot evade it and we should be doing a very bad service to the community by evading issues here. It is like a free vote of the House; that kind of thing tends to be an evasion of responsibility. That is what it would be in this case. I am no expert on this subject, although I might perhaps claim to know a little more about it than some of those who pontificated about details, and I think it is a matter for medical and dental people, in particular for these commissions composed of all the experts and properly qualified people who have examined it as thoroughly as they have. On that basis and taking the recommendations as I have found them, I would come down in favour of fluoridation and I say we should do it.
I can understand the other principle and that other people might not agree, but, above all, let us not have this optional position which is simply an evasion of responsibility. Let us make up our minds whether we are for it or against it. This is not a case where one can have it both ways.
I hope to be very brief. Deputy de Valera finally depends on the advice of experts. He stressed the fact that he is not an expert and the Minister on the Second Stage also admitted that he was depending on the advice of experts when referring to the contribution of Deputy Manley. He said both Deputy Manley and he were lay people, depending on the advice of experts. If that is so, will Deputy de Valera not understand that there is as much justification for one member as there is for another taking sides on this issue, not alone in accordance with the views of the expert but also in accordance with his own common sense. Perhaps if we brought a little more common sense into this argument, we might make more progress and reach more satisfactory results sooner than by dealing with all the reports of all the experts.
The difficulty is that the Minister insists on compulsion. If fluoridation is the remedy for dental caries, may I pose one question? Why is it that in America, Britain, and elsewhere, where a large percentage of experts believe this is the remedy, the Governments have not insisted on compulsion? In my opinion that is a fundamental point upon which we are entitled to question the Minister as to the ultimate, wonderful results he believes will accrue from the introduction of fluorides into water. Had it been compulsory in these countries, we might have a complete answer. The Minister intends, with the solid support of those Deputies who have been interrupting here this evening, to make fluoridation compulsory on local authorities. The Minister does not intend to give to local authorities the right to decide for themselves.
What is wrong with those Deputies on my right who are members of local authorities? Are they afraid they will not be able to carry their arguments to a successful conclusion in their own local authorities? Are they afraid that a majority may say they are in favour of the reports of the experts who hold no definite conclusion has been reached which would prove completely satisfactory results, the completely satisfactory results that are being claimed under this Bill?
Compulsion may be a good thing when it is proved conclusively that the end justifies the means. But that has not been proved here and the last person in the world who can prove it is the Minister. He admitted on the Second Stage that he is a layman dependent on the views of experts. If he is, then why does he find it so suitable to scoff at the miserable minorities, according to him, in other countries which, having tried out this scheme, decided to revert? Minorities also have their rights. If it were permissible, rather than compulsory, and Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council decided to introduce fluorides into piped water, what would be the effect of that decision on smaller counties? If Carlow or Louth decided not to implement this scheme, would the Minister think it right to scoff at their decision merely because they are a minority? The rights of minorities must be safeguarded provided they do not cut across any fundamental issues affecting the wellbeing of the nation as a whole.
The Minister has made no attempt to justify his position other than to say that he is standing over the experts by whom he has been advised. Simultaneously he tries to denigrate the experts who advise a waiting policy because nothing has been conclusively proved yet. I have tried to approach this from a common sense point of view. The Minister made no attempt on the Second Stage to sustain the position he has taken up other than to hand out reports from other people who follow his line of thought. There are many members of local authorities who are also members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I know a great many of them. I know that they are decent, well-meaning people. Why not give them an opportunity of deciding whether or not to implement this scheme? Remember, nothing has been proved, despite anything the Minister may say.
There is a later amendment to this Bill which the Minister will move. That amendment will completely cut across the Minister's own arguments so far. Those who have been so anxious to interrupt should question the Minister more closely in these amendments and his own amendment later. It will be interesting to discover whether or not they are for or against the introduction of fluoridation of their own volition, or whether their attitude is that they wish to be able to say, on their respective local authorities: "We cannot help it. It is an Act of Parliament. We must accept it."
I should like to support the view of my Party. We think this ought not to be mandatory. We think it should be purely enabling. All the arguments that have been adduced on the other side have simply been arguments to the effect that, if it is not made mandatory, one is shirking one's responsibility. Some Deputies on the Government benches talked about vaccination and other preventive measures being mandatory and endeavoured to justify, on that analogy, the fluoridation of water supplies. It is absolutely essential that we should have a clear perspective.
Fluoridation is not essential to human life. Chlorine is essential to human life because it destroys bacteria in water. If water were not impregnated with chlorine, one could have serious and dangerous epidemic disease which might easily cause death. Nobody can claim that, if water is not fluoridated, anybody will die because of that. I never yet heard of anybody dying from a bad tooth. He may suffer considerable discomfort and misery. There may be a certain amount of deterioration in physical health, but a bad tooth is not of itself deleterious to human life. Why, then, should we make this a mandatory provision?
I have no doubt the Minister introduced this as a mandatory provision originally because he was sold on this idea by someone else. I am sure he is quite genuine in his belief that he is doing something for the good of the country as a whole. It does seem, however, that there is a volume of opinion against him. It is not only the Fine Gael Party; the Minister has had representations from a number of different societies. There is a very strong force in Dublin known as Pure Water Association who are strongly opposed to this. They have studied the matter. They can be considered as experts in their own line just as much as the members of this distinguished committee whose report the Minister has quoted here.
With regard to the report, I do not think they have disposed of one of the strongest arguments against fluoridation. I refer to the ethical argument. Is the State entitled to impose mass medication on the people? Are parents to be forced to accept mass medication of their children? The only voice parents have is that of public representatives. When this goes to a division, there is no doubt about the issue. The Government have a sizable majority. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that they got that majority some years ago, and, if there is a growing volume of opinion against this particular type of mass medication, the Minister would be well advised to take cognisance of it. People are not protesting against fluoridation for nothing. We are not speaking here against fluoridation for nothing. We are speaking against it from conviction. We are speaking against it in the light of the advice we have had from experts just as the Minister is trying to impose fluoridation because he is acting on certain advice.
He says that he is acting on the advice of a Commission set up by his predecessor. I do not think that this Commission has absolutely, positively and categorically stated in the report that fluoridation is immediately desirable. They have said that some form of legislation is necessary to enable local authorities, —they use advisedly, the word "enable,"—to medicate the water. It is natural that if that is to be done it would be necessary for the local authority to have the legal authority to do so but it is a different thing to make it mandatory on them to do it. That is where I join issue with the Minister.
I join issue with the Minister on the ethical question. I am totally opposed to the State having the right to impose anything upon people if they do not themselves desire it. I do not think that this Commission dealt sufficiently with that point. They said that there was opposition on ethical grounds but that they did not think there was anything in that. The major objection to this whole measure is on ethical grounds. There are many other grounds of objection but the major argument, to my mind, is whether the individual or the parent has the right to decide what his children should take or whether the State have the right. That is the core of our argument.
I have always stood for the preservation of the right of the individual and the parent to decide what medication his children should take. If we get away from that we get away from the fundamental freedom and right of the parent to decide what is best for his own children. Has the parent the right to decide that? In free, democratic, sovereign States the parent has that right and that is why we should always stand up in defence of it. For that reason I ask the Minister, on the ethical grounds alone, to accept the amendment. He will not be losing any face in doing so or confronting any great wave of public opinion on the matter.
I have not met anyone who wants the Bill. In my constituency so few of us have piped water supplies that the proposal does not interest us, but, from speaking to people in Dublin and in towns which have a piped-water supply I have no doubt that if the Minister took a free vote on the proposal, or left it to a referendum, there would be an overwhelming vote against it.
There may be some dentists in favour of it but it is true that there are a great many against it. I have discussed it with them and the only argument in favour of it is that fluoridation in some cases, not in all, causes dental decay in the early years —in the years from six to eleven— and that it is easier to deal with children of the higher age group because they have a better understanding of what is going on around them and are better able to cooperate with the dentist. That is the only argument that I have heard in favour of the proposal. Some dentists do not agree. Some dentists say that they do not know that it has been tried out long enough to give conclusive results.
There was some strong feeling in the House when Deputy Ryan read out certain reports from America showing that there were votes by the local authorities, only small communities, wiping out the fluoridation that existed in their area. There was some point in doing that. It showed that although fluoridation is in existence only over the past twenty years or so, States in America and other parts of the world that once accepted it have freely voted against it.
I cannot accept the suggestion that it is shirking the issue to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authorities. On the Second Reading of the Bill I stated that the local authorities are probably the most widely representative people of the whole community. There are far more local authority representatives than other representatives and many of them are elected entirely free of politics—housewives, ratepayers representatives and so on. They would be people who would really take an interest in a question of this kind. It could be actively discussed at local authority level. If the Minister indicates to the local authority that he considers it necessary, they would discuss it and every aspect would be taken into consideration.
But that is not the aim of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to say to the local authority that it is mandatory on them to fluoridate the water. Of course there will be opposition to that and it is going to lead to any amount of trouble. I am not a member of a local authority myself but my knowledge of local authorities is that their function is to discuss the matter and then to provide the money for it. The question of cost must come into this matter. It will cost something to fluoridate the water and whether or not it costs sixpence in the pound in the rates in Dublin, as Deputy Ryan said, the fact is that the money will have to be produced.
It has already been said that one local authority has objected to fluoridation. Deputy Loughman has said that there is objection to it in South Tipperary. If the local authorities object to it, surely it will lead to a lot of trouble, if we impose a mandatory Bill on them? They will probably refuse to vote the money if they feel very strongly about it. From what I know the pressure is already strong against it. I would ask the Minister to remember that when you are in Government you do not always get the strong criticism which the Opposition gets. The Opposition has a far greater opportunity of knowing the minds of the people than the members of the Government who are sheltering in Dublin and are dependent on advice.
There is definitely opposition to this Bill. The opposition is on two grounds—the ethical ground and the ground as to whether this should be an enabling Bill or a mandatory Bill. You cannot separate the two. If you force this Bill on the people, you are taking away their ethical right to decide what medication their children should have. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter and see if he cannot meet the views of the Opposition, which are reasonably sound.
One of the grounds on which Deputy Ryan argued that this question might be left to the discretion of the local authority was that the Bill would be expensive, that it would impose a rate of sixpence in the £ on the City of Dublin. Deputy Esmonde indicated that he shared this view. If the Deputy has a pencil and paper perhaps I could give him some figures which he could work out and check for himself. I hope that then we will not have an endless repetition of that argument on this amendment.
The population of Dublin is 539,476. It has been estimated from experience elsewhere that to fluoridate the water for that population may cost sixpence per head per year. If the Deputy will divide 539,476 by 40 he will find that the annual cost of fluoridating the water of the city of Dublin is £13,500 per year.
That was the figure which was taken into consideration when I gave the House an estimate of the cost on Second Reading. I hope I shall not be charged with being abusive when I come here to the House and try to correct the misapprehensions which Deputy Richard Ryan apparently created in the mind of a Deputy for whom I have a great deal of respect and personal regard.
The next ground upon which it is urged that the Bill should not be made mandatory is that in some way the addition of one part fluorine to a million parts of water is unethical. Deputy Esmonde stated that his strongest objection to the purpose of this measure was on that ground. He said that the process was unethical because it was an interference with parental rights. This question of the ethics of the proposal was very carefully considered by the Consultative Council. Deputy Esmonde and other Deputies, having read this report some time ago, may have forgotten what the council had to say on that point. I think I read it earlier before the debate was interrupted by the long, tedious and repetitive speech of Deputy Ryan.
The Minister is going to be repetitive now and repeat it all over again.
Yes, for the benefit of those members of the House who may have heard Deputy Esmonde's arguments. The Council in paragraph 37 of the report says that it received representations to the effect that the fluoridation of public water supplies was unethical, the main ground being that it was mass medication—a phrase which was used several times by Deputy Esmonde—that it was a usurpation of parental rights—Deputy Esmonde used an expression to the same effect—and an interference by the public authority with the integrity of the human body.
This is what the Council has to say to these grounds on which objection was taken: "These objections were carefully considered and advice was sought and received."
I am perfectly certain that when Deputy Esmonde comes to consider what the Council stated there, he will realise that though the statement is concise and does not waste words, it carries the full weight of the Authority behind it. The council goes on: "The Council is satisfied there is no ethical objection than the margin of safety recommended in this Report." I hope, therefore, that we have disposed once and for all of the objection which has been taken to this proposal on ethical grounds.
Deputy Ryan occupied, quite unnecessarily, a great deal of the time of this House by reciting a list of municipalities at the other side of the world which he alleged had at one time adopted the procedure of fluoridating public water supplies but had then abandoned it after some time.
Of course, one listening to Deputy Ryan is at a disadvantage. It is quite obvious to most people who listen to him that he does not talk with any sincerity, that his whole effort was a performance to impress the uninformed and the gullible people he hopes will support him. We in this House who have been able to check his statements know how unreliable they are. I shall give one instance. In the course of the Second Reading debate, Deputy Ryan said, and I am quoting from column 175 of the report of the debate on 26th October:—
I want to return to Washington, to the first citizen of that great city... He is under medical orders not to drink the fluoridated water supply...
That is what Deputy Ryan said on 26th October. That particular statement happens to be a stock argument used by those who have opposed the fluoridation of the public water supply and therefore it was quite easy to check it.
On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily but the Minister was most meticulous in suggesting to the Chair earlier, when other speakers were contributing, that this amendment had to deal with the mandatory and permissive character of the Bill and surely it is not relevant to that that the Minister should go back over Second Reading speeches in order to rebut points that were made. If the Minister wants to have this discussion on the amendment, let us have it on the amendment—I am quite prepared for that—but if the Minister wants to go back over the Second Reading speeches, I am——
The Chair understands that the Minister was replying to some statements made by Deputy Ryan.
Of course——
Will the Deputy please sit down? Having made his point of order, I am entitled now——
I am still on a point of order because I want to get a ruling from the Chair and normal courtesy should dictate that the Minister should allow me to get that.
I have ruled on the point of order. The Chair understood the Minister to be replying to points raised by Deputy Ryan on this amendment.
He said that he was replying to points made on Second Reading.
I did not say that. I protest.
He quoted the Dáil Debates for October 26th.
Deputy O'Higgins is misquoting in a most shameless way. He is misrepresenting what I did say in a most shameless manner.
We can look at the records.
I am on the issue of credibility of Deputy Ryan.
That is what I thought. It is not on the amendment.
Deputy Ryan, in the course of this debate, alleged there were a great number of cities in the United States which, having adopted fluoridation, had then abandoned it and he read out a long list. Deputy de Valera asked Deputy Ryan to cite his authorities for the statements he was making and Deputy Ryan refused to do that. I, Sir, am now warning the House that anything that Deputy Ryan may say in relation to this matter must be taken with the greatest caution and regarded with the greatest suspicion and in order that I may be——
Major de Valera
With a grain of sodium chloride.
——that I may be able to justify that statement to the House, I have taken one instance of such a misrepresentation, a statement made by Deputy Richie Ryan in this House, and I propose to show that this statement of his was utterly without foundation. Beyond that I do not want to go. I want to convict Deputy Richard Ryan—here before his colleagues in Dáil Éireann—of being guilty of travestying the truth in an utterly shameless way. As I said, this statement of Deputy Ryan was easily checked.
When was the statement made?
It was easily checked. I am going on later to some other statements.
To what statement is the Minister referring?
And he said——
I would ask the Minister to say from what column of the Dáil Debates he is quoting.
Major de Valera
The Minister did give the reference.
The Minister has accused me of misrepresenting him and I am saying that he is quoting from the Dáil Debates on Second Reading. If the Minister is going to quote, he should give us the source.
I quoted from the Dáil Debates.
What was the date?
It does not matter.
It does matter.
The point which I am discussing deals only with this one point, that Deputy Ryan is completely unreliable in regard to this or any other matter.
If the Minister purports to quote, am I not entitled to ask him for the source, Sir?
It is usual in the case of quotations to give the source.
I have done so.
I understand the Minister has done so.
Does the Chair also understand that the Minister condemned me when I suggested that the quotation was from the Second Reading discussion of this Bill?
I have given the source and let me go on to say that what Deputy O'Higgins quite obviously wants to conceal from the public——
I simply want the facts.
——is how completely and utterly unreliable Deputy Ryan and those who support him are; and how utterly reckless they are in the statements they make about this very serious problem. It happened that on March 7th the President of the United States made this statement, and I am quoting from the Chicago Daily News. He was asked did he drink bottled water and he said: “Yes; I drank bottled water when I was travelling”. And he went on from that to say this:
I do drink tap water here at home, but that is just because I figure it is just as good as bottled water.
Then this question was put to him:
Well, some people in the District have quit drinking the District water because they don't approve of fluoridation. You know, there is a chemical added to the water and the advocates contend that it slows down tooth decay for children. But the opponents of this idea insist that it may pollute the water, may make it unsafe for drinking.
And the answer was:
I know that.
Then the question was put "As to whether they..." and the President of the United States interrupted the interviewer to say this:
Well, I'll tell you; in the White House I drink it often, very often.
And Deputy Ryan told us that the President's medical advisers had forbidden him to drink the public water supply in Washington because that water had been fluoridated.
We have just got a long statement in this House of places which he alleges dropped fluoridation and he asks us to take his word for it that he is telling the truth. In order to nail that misstatement once and for all, there follows this letter which was written from the White House. It is headed: "An official statement on fluoridation". It is in the form of a letter from President Eisenhower's personal physician, the doctor whom Deputy Richie Ryan alleged had forbidden President Eisenhower to drink the water from the Washington public water supply because it was flouridated.
If this continues, I am prepared to put a motion to have the question put. I think I am entitled to do that if the Minister is determined to continue——
The Minister is in order, since he is replying to a statement made by Deputy Ryan in the course of the debate on this amendment.
On a point of order, he is doing no such thing, as I have pointed out twice already to the Chair. For the third time, he is replying to a statement made, according to the Minister, by Deputy Ryan on Second Reading discussions on this Bill.
Major de Valera
To prove his unreliability——
To prove his unreliability.
Major de Valera
——and to prove the creditability of others.
What is at issue is whether the legislation should be permissive or mandatory.
Deputy O'Higgins has stated that he is prepared to move that this question be put——
Yes.
Is the Deputy prepared to do that?
I am.
If the Deputy is prepared to do that, I shall give way for that purpose only.
Certainly.
If the Deputy puts that question, I shall accept it.
I put the proposition that the question be put.
I shall accept that proposition because it shows that Deputy O'Higgins is afraid of having the truth told about the matter.
This is a motion that must be put without discussion.
I can put the question on the amendment now, if everyone is agreeable.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Casey, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Norton, William.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8 were discussed and the decision in respect of these amendments stands.
It was decided that, if necessary, there would be separate decisions. We accept the decision of the House on amendment No. 3 as governing the others.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 4:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:—
"( ) A health authority shall not be required to add fluorine to a water supply unless and until a supply of pure water not containing fluorine shall be readily available at no extra cost to all persons residing in the area supplied with water to which it is proposed to add fluorine."
The object of this amendment is to preserve something we have at present, that is, a water supply which, in 50 per cent. of the country, at any rate, is free of fluorine. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce into the water supply, which at present is regarded as as safe and pure as mankind can make it, a substance known to be dangerous and toxic and to which some people may be allergic.
In countries which have introduced the fluoridation of water supplies, some manufacturers of foodstuffs have had to install defluoridation equipment to remove the fluorine from the water supply. That has happened in areas where the water naturally contains fluorine and also in several areas where the water supplies are artificially fluoridated.
I have tabled some Questions to the Minister for answer next week. If he has the information at his disposal, he might like to disclose it on the discussion on the amendment. I have asked for particulars concerning the number of factories processing foodstuffs in this country which might be affected by the fluoridation of water supplies. On Second Reading, the Minister said the only way to get fluorine into a cauliflower is to boil it in water containing that substance.
Certain foodstuffs, while being processed, will absorb all the fluorine the water contains. Jam manufacturers, jelly manufacturers, manufacturers of any foodstuff in which water is used substantially, fear that the fluoridation of our water supplies will compel them to install very expensive defluoridation equipment. There has been incorrect reference by several Deputies to chlorination and an endeavour to draw a comparison between the chlorination and the fluoridation of water supplies. There is this vital difference; you can get rid of chlorine by boiling the water—it goes up in steam—but you cannot get rid of fluorine because it remains behind like salt. In this country, we have several food manufacturers in respect of whom I am not at all certain we have any standards regarding the fluorine content of the processed foodstuffs they make and which many of them export. I do know that in other countries, particularly in America, there are very rigid standards in that respect.
Accordingly, some of our manufacturers who have foreign markets at the moment will stand in great danger of losing their export trade, unless they have available to them a supply of water without fluorine, or equipment to de-fluoridate water which has got fluorine in it at the same cost as pure water. In this Bill, there is no provision for a supply of water without fluorine to these manufacturers. I think on that account if we are to have forced upon us a general fluoridation of water supplies, we should have some provision to give assistance to such manufacturers.
Many beers or soft drinks, which are now manufactured with water which does not contain fluorine, through the operation of this Bill, will have a substance in them they do not now possess and it may well be that certain breweries in this country may have an advantage over others by reason of the fact that they take their water from some source which does not contain fluorine. I do not think it is fair that that advantage should be given to a brewery which has a natural supply of water.
I trust the Minister has now got over the heat and the malicious deportment of the earlier stages and that he may be able to deal with these technical problems calmly and reasonably. We can now come down to the individual in many parts of Ireland, whether he has a piped water supply or lives in an area which has no piped water. At the moment he has water with no fluorine. Now we take it upon ourselves to deprive him of that, although it is conceded even by the experts quoted by the Minister that the intake of fluorine is of no advantage to persons who have gone past their teens. Yet we compel people to take water with a substance which is of no apparent use to them whatever.
It has been proved by certain tests that in fact water with fluorine in it may have very dangerous effects on some people. I say it is unfair to take from our people the supply of pure water which they have at the moment. I trust that I shall be understood when I make use of the word "pure" in this context. I use it to mean water without fluorine. People have water without fluorine at the moment and if they want to continue using it, I think it unfair to impose upon them the extra cost of de-fluoridating their supplies. Under the provisions of this measure if they want water without fluorine, they will have to buy it, and in other countries, a very profitable market has been set up for pure water in similar circumstances.
How would Dublin Corporation feel if people living within the area of their jurisdiction started sinking wells in their gardens or, maybe, in the streets? It might be very well for people with land, but people in flats will not have a supply of water without fluorine and they will be put to the big expense of de-fluoridating the supplies, if they want to drink pure water. They have at the moment something which is very valuable and we should not take it from them.
This amendment is, on its face, completely impractical. In order to give effect to it, it would be necessary to provide two separate water supplies for the whole area of Dublin city and county—one with fluorine to the extent of one part to every million parts of water and the other with any fluorine that might be there in the natural supply extracted from it.
Deputy Ryan has told the House that when he speaks of pure water, he means water without fluorine. It is possible that the Dublin water supply contains even a more minute trace of fluorine than is contemplated by the Bill. Therefore, in order to give effect to Deputy Ryan's proposal, and at the same time, to the principle of the Bill and the principle which I stood for when amendments Nos. 3 and 5 were debated by the House, we would have to provide, first of all, a fully fluoridated water supply for the city and county of Dublin and then another supply completely devoid of fluorine. Accordingly, is it not quite clear that this amendment was not seriously intended?
Mr. Ryan
Is the Minister saying that possibly the water supply in Dublin at the moment contains fluorine?
It may contain a minute quantity, even more minute than is contemplated in the Bill.
Mr. Ryan
Is the Minister stating that as a fact?
I said "may".
Mr. Ryan
Are we to understand that the Minister is introducing a Bill not knowing the quality of the supply of water used by 1,750,000 people?
If the Deputy cares to read what I said on Second Reading——
Mr. Ryan
Then it appears from the Minister's remarks that he is introducing a Bill not knowing the extent of the problems with which he has to deal—whether or not we have to introduce one part of fluorine in a million parts of water or one per cent. of one part fluorine. He has given certain costings to the House and now it appears these costings are not based upon any technical data already collected.
The Minister has not dealt with the responsibilities a local authority has to provide pure water. One of the difficulties in the supply of fluoridated water is that is extremely difficult to control the fluorine content. It has been put on record here that fluoridated water is all right, so long as the fluorine content is controlled. But some pipes may corrode. It has been found that where you have a fluoridated supply, you will have different qualities of fluorine at different points in the supply, since the fluorine will be disturbed at different densities throughout the system.
I agree with the Minister it would be very costly to provide both pure and fluoridated water supplies, but the Minister is here taking away something that has been provided already at great cost—even if it is a supply of water containing far less fluorine than this Bill proposes to put in it. I do not agree that it is right to do that, nor do I think it is justified by any arguments we have heard in support of this measure.