Before dealing with the legislation, I wish to congratulate the Minister and wish him well in the future in his new job. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Water Services Bill 2003. This is an important Bill because it deals with a vital commodity and national asset, namely, water. We often take this commodity for granted and, sadly, the great old song, "Only Our Rivers Run Free", is no longer true in light of massive pollution and abuse of water systems. In discussing this legislation, it is important to broaden the debate and not walk away from dealing with tough decisions regarding water and water services in general. Water is a great national resource and must be protected at all costs. Like Deputy Lynch, I have major concerns about the legislation.
The central aims of the Bill are to facilitate a more coherent expression of the law as it relates to water services by means of a single enactment which will represent a comprehensive legal framework. It will develop a modern and progressive approach in respect of the sustainable management of water services. It aims to strengthen the administrative arrangements for planning the delivery of water services at local and national level. It is also designed to introduce a new licensing system and regulatory framework for group water services schemes in order to assist in their development and address water quality problems in the sector.
The Bill also provides that what are currently sanitary authorities will become water services authorities, defined in terms of county and city councils in so far as the delivery of water services is concerned. Each water services authority will be enabled to provide water services within its functional area and, with the consent of the relevant authority, outside its functional boundaries. Such services must be in accordance with "prescribed standards", which is the key phrase. We must guard and protect those standards.
When dealing with the Bill, we must also focus on the issue of pollution and public safety. Section 30 sets out the functions of the Minister in respect of water services. It places on the Minister the duty to facilitate safe and efficient water services and associated water services infrastructure and gives him or her responsibility for the supervision of the performance by water services authorities of their functions under the Bill. It also provides for the planning and supervision of investment in water services. It is essential to place strong emphasis on the words "safe" and "efficient".
The sad reality is that many water schemes are under pressure as a result of pollution and of neglect by successive Governments. However, I welcome section 36 which requires each water services authority, every six years, or less, if necessary, to make a water services strategic plan for its functional area and submit it to the Minister for approval. This will deal with appropriate responses and protect human health.
Section 38 deals with the issue of making copies available, which again highlights the need for accountability, transparency and openness. Section 51 enables a water services provider to interrupt services for maintenance purposes or where there is a risk to human health and the environment. Interruptions will be subject to reasonable prior notice and services will be restored as soon as possible. I hope this section will work. However, the reality is a different story. I regularly witness major problems involving burst pipes and water mains, water being switched off without proper notice being given and schools being left without water. This has happened in my constituency on many occasions. These types of complaints must be dealt with in a professional manner.
Part 4 deals with waste water. Section 60 requires all water service providers to keep their waste water works in good order. We have seen the destruction of Lough Derg, which spans counties Tipperary and Clare, and the pollution of Dublin Bay. At present, Dublin City Council is attempting to clean it up. However, there are others who want to destroy and fill in the 52 acres of the bay. As a representative for Dublin North Central, I will fight this project to the end. I am standing by my commitment to the people of Clontarf to save the bay from further disruption. The tradition of Seán Dublin Bay Loftus in respect of this issue goes on in the 29th Dáil and it is particularly relevant to this debate. Saving and cleaning up Dublin Bay is important to the vast majority of the citizens of Dublin and the State and not merely those who live in Clontarf.
I pay tribute to the people of Drumcondra, Richmond Road, Clonturk Park, Gracepark Road and Fairview who suffered a horrific nightmare and damage to their homes following the Tolka River floods. It was a particularly difficult time for all of these people. Not only did they suffer damage to their homes but they also encountered major problems with insurance following the floods. We all worked hard together to resolve these issues and it is hoped that the Tolka River, after major works and investment, is now safer for all of the residents. Governments and city councils have a duty to protect and look after citizens who live adjacent to seas and water systems. That is why I have raised this issue.
As regards water services and the question of public health, it is also appropriate to raise the question of fluoridation. Water fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride to the water supply to produce a final concentration of fluoride of one part per million in an effort to prevent tooth decay. Trials first began in the US in 1945 but before any of these were complete, the practice was endorsed by the US public health service in 1950. Since then, fluoridation has been enthusiastically and universally promoted by US health officials and officials in this country as being safe and effective in fighting tooth decay. However, most countries worldwide have not succumbed to America's enthusiasm for this practice and their people's teeth are just as good as those of US or Irish citizens. I have major concerns about this matter and it is important to raise it in the context of this debate on water and water services.
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease has ever been linked to fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride. Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western European countries do not fluoridate their water and have experienced the same decline in dental health decay as the US. Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey conducted in the US of more than 39,000 people from 84 different communities by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. This was from a report by Hileman in 1989. According to the NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS, which means decayed missing and filled surfaces, in the permanent teeth of children aged from five to 17 residing in either fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas. The difference is less than one tooth surface. A child's mouth has 128 tooth surfaces. I raise this issue in a debate on water in the interest of health and safety.
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has decreased. There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities, for example, Boston and New York, which have been fluoridated for more than 20 years. There appears to be a far greater relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels. Modern research, particularly reports from 1986 and 1998, shows that decay rates were declining before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximised. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases.
Despite being prescribed by doctors for more than 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration has never approved any fluoride supplement designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water. The US fluoridation program has spectacularly failed to achieve one of its key objectives, that is, to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis, a condition known to be caused by fluoride.
The level of fluoride put into water of one part per million is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk, which contains between 0.005 and 0.01 ppm. There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age. Fluoride is a poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, glands and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase and with it the likelihood of harm. Fluoride is very biologically active, even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding and inhibits numerous enzymes. Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions which include metals like calcium and magnesium which are needed in the body and metals like lead and aluminium which are toxic to the body. I raise these issues in the interest of public health. Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminium fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminium in the brain and the formation of deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. I am not scaremongering; I am just pointing out these matters. These data are based on international research.
Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behaviour in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent. Rats dosed pre-natally demonstrated hyperactive behaviour. More recent animal experiments by Wang in 1997 have reported that fluoride can damage the brain. Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with strong fluoride exposure. These are issues we must address.
The only US Government-sanctioned animal study to investigate whether fluoride causes cancer found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ, that is, the bone, of the fluoride-treated male rats. The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers. However, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded, with a questionable rationale. A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated areas. This information comes from the Hoover report of 1991. While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas.
A smaller study from New Jersey, the Cohn report of 1992, found bone cancer rates to be up to six times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated areas. These serious matters must be investigated from an environmental and health point of view. Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system. It damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species. This information is again based on international research.
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with their findings. In the past, political pressures have led US Government agencies — I am concerned about our Government — to drag their feet on regulating materials such as asbestos and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a 50-year delay in dealing with the matter. Unfortunately, because Government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation and because of the significant liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. However they must do so, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm but also to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science, not political expediency. They have a tool, the precautionary principle, with which to do this. Simply put, this says: "If in doubt, leave it out."
While we constantly get lectures from Ministers about what other EU countries are doing, most European countries do not fluoridate their water and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified in my speech today to override a benefit which, when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface out of 128 in a child's mouth? Some will call for further studies and I would be quite happy to see those carried out. I respect the dedication of researchers, particularly in the dental and medical field. However, we should take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies we want. This folly must end without further delay. I raise these issues in the context of the discussion of water services as addressed by the Bill.
Section 70 of the Bill places a duty of care on occupiers and owners to ensure that waste water from their premises does not cause nuisance or risk to human health or the environment. It also prohibits discharge of anything to a drainage system which would block or damage it or adversely affect a waste water treatment process. Discharge of any polluting matter to a sewer providing solely for storm water is prohibited. I welcome this section. However, I emphasise the need for caution when dealing with waste water. We have seen the untold damage to our rivers streams and communities and to people's health. We need further research on this matter. The jury is out on the causes of many modern diseases and water must be closely monitored. As someone who was elected on a health and disability ticket, I regard these matters as quite relevant to this debate on water.
The section of the explanatory memorandum dealing with staffing and financial implications states:
It is not possible at this stage to estimate the overall cost of implementing this Bill. The Bill itself is in large measure a consolidation and update of existing legislative provisions, and therefore, is not expected to have significant additional cost implications.
Much of the inflationary pressure on water services costs arises from the knock-on effect of the investment in new infrastructure under the National Development Plan, to meet EU regulatory requirements. While the Bill provides for the necessary powers and duties to underpin this investment, the resultant increase in expenditure is unavoidable, and would arise in any event.
That is the reality, but I would like to see more figures and more costing. The explanatory memorandum continues:
Similarly, the Bill itself is not expected to have any significant staffing implications for the Minister's Department. Such future increase in demand as may occur will derive from more stringent EU regulatory requirements for monitoring and supervision, and is intended to be met from rationalisation of existing resources in the first instance.
When I hear the word "rationalisation", I worry about staff, services and the quality of services. I hope it does not lead to cuts. The explanatory section of the legislation also states:
Certain additional costs will accrue to water services authorities from the implementation of licensing requirements under the Bill. However, it is not possible at this stage to quantify these, as such an exercise must await the preparation of detailed regulations to give effect to the system, and resulting consultation with water services authorities.
The memorandum is somewhat open and windy. It is essential that we be given some indication of the cost of providing water services. The people demand accountability, efficiency and honesty from those involved in water services infrastructure projects. We need to know the approximate cost of providing water services.
A number of Deputies have asked if this Bill is opening the door for water charges. Are their fears justified or are they engaging in scaremongering?
