Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2013

Vol. 794 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Food Safety Authority Inspections

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as teacht isteach sa Teach leis an cheist seo a thógáil.

The controversy surrounding the discovery of horsemeat in food labelled as beef is extremely serious and has been allowed to rumble on. Last weekend there was a grave development when horsemeat labelled as beef for export was discovered. It was expected that this would not be noticed because the product in question was destined for the Czech Republic. I put it to the Minister that it is past time we got to the bottom of this entire controversy which appears to be getting wider and wider all the time. In order to do this, an investigation that would be totally independent of the Minister and his Department should take place. Let us be honest: an increasing number of issues require clarification.

At the outset of this crisis, the Minister appeared to provide clear and unequivocal statements to the effect that this issue had nothing to do with the slaughtering of horses or the processing of horsemeat in Ireland. Now we know that it does have something to do with these. It may not be relevant in terms of the production of specific products, but it does come into play in a general context and in terms of the sourcing of product across Europe, mislabelling, etc. It is time for the Minister and his Department to stand back and allow an independent investigation to get to the bottom of the matter.

There are many issues in respect of which clarification is required, of which the first is that on which I tried to obtain clarification from the Minister via parliamentary questions. Will he now indicate the complaints made to his Department about horsemeat entering the food chain? When were these complaints made? What controls were in place in this matter? What action was taken on foot of the complaints to which I refer? What emerged from the investigations which subsequently took place? It is important to discover whether the original DNA samples were taken on foot of suspicions during a previous investigation.

Those of us who understand why the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, answers to the Minister for Health rather than the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine must ask why Deputy Simon Coveney has been the lead Minister in this matter. The FSAI answers to the Minister for Health for a very good reasons, namely, that there will not be what is termed "capture" in respect of investigations into issues relating to food quality and food safety. It is also important that there be an independent investigation into both the supervision of the importation of meat into the country and food labelling. There are many issues which must be investigated on an independent basis in order that we might discover what has gone wrong, to restore the credibility of the beef and processed food industries in this country and to ensure that whatever we put on the market is, literally, what is described on the package. This must be the case, regardless of whether it is horsemeat or processed food. Until an independent investigation is put in train, we will merely stumble from crisis to crisis.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney)

The Deputy will shortly obtain a written response to which he can refer. I agree with him in the context of the outcome he is seeking, namely, restoring credibility and confidence to an industry which has been damaged by what happened during the past six weeks.

That is the reason we are so focused on getting the answers the Deputy is looking for, and I believe we have the independence in the current inquiries to do that. That is the reason the Garda is involved, and it is independent. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, is also independent. The idea that we would stop the investigation that has been ongoing for six weeks, put some new so-called independent body in charge and start again is crazy thinking.

The Deputy asked why I have taken the lead in this. Like other Ministers in the European Union who are responsible for their food industries, I have taken on responsibility to show initiative and respond with policy changes at a domestic level, as well as to examine the use of DNA testing, which we have now done. We are working independently with the FSAI, which has put in place a new protocol with the food industry to place DNA testing on a more mainstream footing.

On the issue of equine identification and passports, we discussed this issue previously. In case there is any doubt that I have been providing answers on this issue, we spent more than four hours on questions at the committee, and the Deputy was not present for all of that time, although he was for a lot of the meeting.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I had business in the House. The Minister is aware of that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will answer any questions the Deputy has on this issue. If he wants to ask me those questions privately, I will brief him privately. If he wants to ask me those questions on the record, we will take them in the House. If he wants to ask me those questions in committee, we will do it there. We have nothing to hide. This industry must be transparent. That is the reason for the ongoing investigation, which started as a specific investigation of one company. When we received the test result from the FSAI on 15 January, we started the investigation that morning on Silvercrest. What started as a specific problem with a burger in a specific company, which we were determined to get to the bottom of, has now blown up into a Europe-wide problem.

As there is political involvement by a Minister, which is needed, Ireland took the lead in setting up a meeting initially with the Commissioner and the seven or eight states that were involved at the time, although many more states have become involved since. We got an initial response from the Commissioner on the introduction of an EU-wide DNA testing programme, initially for a month but with a later extension of two months, and of a phenylbutazone testing programme within equine abattoirs across the European Union to ensure we can establish the extent of the problem at a European level. In fact, this goes beyond the European Union, as we have seen now, with big multinationals such as Nestlé involved.

The point I am making is that the Deputy's calls for an independent inquiry do not make sense on a number of levels. First, this is already an independent inquiry.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

In the Department.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have a special investigations unit which is independent within my Department. It is working with the FSAI, which is also independent, and with the Garda, which the Deputy must accept is entirely independent.

I have to give political leadership, because not only do we need a thorough investigation of how this happened from an Irish perspective in order to contribute to the Europe-wide investigation now being led by Europol - which, again, was an initiative in which I was involved to try to establish what has happened at a European level and to ensure we can secure prosecutions - we also need a policy response as the investigation continues, to reassure consumers that we are taking actions and learning lessons from what happened. We are doing all of that, and Ireland is giving leadership at a European level, as has been acknowledged. We will continue to do so, because the food sector is more important to Ireland than it is to any other country in the European Union. In many ways it can be compared to the automobile industry in Germany. The food sector is hugely important to this State and I will protect the reputation of this industry, but I will leave no stone unturned and no reputation untarnished, if necessary, to get to the bottom of what happened and who was responsible for it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

First, as the Minister is aware, I believe that nothing should be done that will in any way interfere with An Garda Síochána in carrying out its investigation. Second, the Minister eventually took up the matter in Europe. I had to do a fair bit of prodding to get him to do it but - fair play to him - he eventually responded and raised the issue in Europe.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It was the Deputy's initiative, was it?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

As I pointed out to the Minister previously, the reason the FSAI answers to the Minister for Health is to ensure that agencies not connected with the Department investigate food safety issues. That is the reason it does not answer to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is a good, valid reason and one the Government agrees with, which is why it retained that structure.

Time and again I have asked questions that relate to the behaviour, control and supervision of the Department. The Minister said this started with one factory. When this came into the public domain, people were telling me immediately that this was a much wider issue and that an issue had arisen regarding control of the slaughter of horses in this country and what was happening to the horsemeat. I did not know whether it was true, but I knew it should have been investigated. We found out last weekend that there is a huge scandal regarding the processing of horsemeat within this State. Control of that rests with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but the Minister is telling me the Department is independently investigating its own control and supervision of meat imports, the slaughter of horses and the packaging and the export of the product.

We need somebody who is independent of the agencies that are meant to be policing this area - that is, the FSAI and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine - and of the system in general to investigate all of this and examine the controls and supervision that existed and whether there was a response to complaints. The Minister did not answer the question about the number of complaints submitted about the slaughter of horses, when they were received, what he did about it, and all the other relevant details. Despite his attempt to say it is not relevant to the issue, last weekend this became central to it.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Deputy Ó Cuív keeps saying I have not answered certain questions. I have answered that question. I have produced an information note for anybody who wants it - I will send it to the Deputy this evening - on what we have done in the past 12 months regarding equine identification, passports, linking those passports with microchips, increased supervision within equine slaughtering facilities, and taking over responsibility from local authorities in certain equine slaughtering facilities in Ireland, of which there are not that many left. We have done a lot in that area, and I will happily give the Deputy the detail on that.

Regarding the independence of the inquiry, my Department is involved in working under contract for the FSAI to ensure this country has an effective food safety system, and it is very effective. My Department takes 30,000 samples a year of meat from various places and tests them, from a food safety point of view, for everything from E. coli to chemical content, as well as all of the other standard food safety tests. We work with the FSAI to reassure people that the food they are eating is safe. What we had not done in the past and what the FSAI has done only to a limited extent - no other country has been doing this - was to use DNA testing to check that food is what it says it is, and it is because of that testing in Ireland that we uncovered this issue, which has subsequently become a huge issue across Europe and, arguably, globally.

I reject the idea that we are somehow compromised by examining and improving the way in which our food safety systems work, the testing mechanisms we use and the way we use them. I accept that we need to be scrutinised by Deputies such as Deputy Ó Cuív, and we are being scrutinised.

I refer to the idea that we are not the appropriate authority to establish if there are problem areas and to try to respond and put new systems in place, working with the sector because the primary responsibility lies with food service operators in regard to food safety. It is up to us to put the checks in place to ensure we hold them to account. We do that probably better than any other country in the European Union. For example, if one looks at the tests we do and the inspections we make in the food processing sector, we do double the number of tests the European Union requires us to do in terms of inspections. We will continue to increase the number, if necessary. We are now in the process of mainstreaming DNA testing in that system and we will be the first country in the European Union to do so.

I strongly defend how we have responded to this. It has continued to grow and new scandals have broken as part of the overall scandal. That has been frustrating for all of us but we will continue to try to get to the bottom of what has happened and build a complete picture in terms of Ireland's role in this, and we are not too far away from doing that. I look forward to being able to outline the detail of that when it is done.

Prison Accommodation Provision

Deputy Denis Naughten

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise this important issue, namely, the lack of information from the Irish Prison Service in regard to the future use of Harristown House adjoining Castlerea Prison in County Roscommon. Just over two years ago, the Dáil was informed that the Irish Prison Service was developing proposals for the utilisation of the facilities at Harristown House beside Castlerea Prison, that the proposals would entail the provision of enhanced regime opportunities for approximately 20 prisoners within a secure setting and that the proposals were being evaluated and costed with a view to submitting a business case to the Department of Justice and Equality. However, when the Irish Prison Service was recently questioned on this issue by the local community, it said there were numerous options for the use of Harristown House once the refurbishment was completed and that it could not outline the plans for the building.

In a reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy Ó Cuív last Thursday, the Minister confirmed that the aim of the refurbishment is to leave the property in a suitable condition for use as a low security pre-release facility for selected prisoners when it is completed at the end of March. When was the decision made on the future use of Harristown House? When was the funding approved for this? Are there any plans to consult the local community on this decision? The views expressed locally are that Harristown House should be put to use to the benefit of the local community or reopened as a rehabilitation facility, which it so successfully operated as in the past. There is strong community opposition to any form of an open prison.

People are concerned about what exactly the plans are and this is compounded by the failure of the Irish Prison Service to engage with the public on the issue. If there is nothing to be concerned about, why is there a lack of openness on the part of the Irish Prison Service? The concerns being expressed locally are around the possibility of convicted murderers living outside the prison walls. Parents are concerned about how close public amenities are to Harristown House facilities. A number of key questions need to be answered.

A low security prison was mentioned in the reply to the parliamentary question last week. There are two such prisons in this country, namely, Loughan House and Shelton Abbey. Is that the plan envisaged for Harristown House in Castlerea? Some 128 people are now at large from both of those facilities - 103 from Loughan House and 25 from Shelton Abbey. What category of prisoner will be housed in this new facility? Will prisoners convicted of murder and serving life sentences be eligible for admission to this new facility? What length of time will a prisoner stay in the facility prior to temporary release? These are all key questions to which the local community has a right to answers in advance of any decision being made. Has a decision been made? If so, when was it made? What prisoners will be facilitated in this new unit and when will the community be consulted?

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry)

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is unable to be here due to official business elsewhere and he has asked me to thank Deputy Naughten for raising this matter, in particular as it offers him the opportunity to clarity the record in regard to a number of reports which have recently appeared in both the national and local media.

At the outset, the Minister wishes to deal with the suggestion which has frequently been mentioned that only life sentenced prisoners will be housed at Harristown House. While several options remain under consideration for the optimal use of the facility, I can say that I am advised that the facility will not be restricted to housing prisoners in that category.

By way of background information, Harristown House is a 22-roomed two storey house constructed in approximately 1920. The house is located directly adjacent to Castlerea Prison in County Roscommon and until recently was used by the Probation Service to house people in its care. In that context, people usually with drug-related problems and connected issues were managed by the Probation Service at the house.

I understand the house was unoccupied and unused for approximately four years and was in a state of considerable disrepair following water damage incurred as a result of the very harsh winter of 2010-11. I am sure the Deputy will agree that in the current economic climate, it is undesirable for State-owned property to be left unoccupied and unused in circumstances where a potential or possible use for that property has been identified.

In that regard, following an examination by the Irish Prison Service, it was considered that the property was suitable for refurbishment so that it could be used as a low security accommodation unit for 15 to 18 prisoners who could be located there as part of a scheme to encourage good behaviour and trustworthiness among prisoners as part of their sentence management.

The works on Harristown House commenced in November 2012 and I am advised that those works should be completed in March 2013. Part of the works associated with the refurbishment includes the installation of CCTV equipment to monitor the house and surrounding areas, including all entrances to and exits from the house. In that regard, while no decision has yet been made as to the category of prisoner by reference to nature of offence, etc. to be housed there, I can assure the Deputy that the normal considerations in regard to risk assessment shall apply before any prisoner is transferred to the house. In the day-to-day management of the prison system, these risk assessments are made on a regular basis by officials in the Irish Prison Service in, for example, considering the suitability of the transfer of prisoners from closed prisons and institutions to open prisons and lower security facilities.

When considering the suitability of prisoners for transfer to lower security institutions, a number of factors are taken into consideration including: the safety of the public, specifically flight risk; nature and gravity of the offence; and length of sentence served and remaining. Therefore, while I cannot at this stage inform the Deputy as to the precise type of prisoner to be housed at Harristown House, I can advise that the usual stringent eligibility criteria which apply to other prisoners being moved within the prison system to lower security prisons and institutions will be taken into account, fully considered and assessed.

It is worth mentioning that open centres and lower level security settings are vital tools in the reintegration and rehabilitation of prisoners. They encourage an ethos of independent living and offer a transition between custody and community-family life. When the refurbishment works at Harristown House are completed and the house is ready for occupation, it will provide an additional and valuable resource to the Irish Prison Service in managing this transition from prison life to open living within the community. The Minister appreciates the Deputy's interest in this matter and would like to thank him again for raising it.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I am disappointed the Minister for Justice and Equality or his Aire Stáit are not here to deal with this important issue. In light of the fact the Minister is not here, can I get a commitment from the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, that I will get responses in writing to all of the questions I asked in advance of a public meeting which will take place tomorrow evening in Castlerea? From the Minister of State's response, it is quite clear life sentence prisoners will be housed in this new facility. In reply to last week's parliamentary question, the Minister stated CCTV coverage of the house and surrounding areas would be monitored from the control room, and the Minister of State referred to the CCTV coverage in his reply.

Can the Minister assure the public that the CCTV will work, unlike the situation that arose at the time of the break out from the Grove area of the prison, which is inside the 25 ft. high wall of Castlerea Prison? This facility is outside that wall.

Second, I acknowledge that we are in a difficult economic climate at present. In light of that, perhaps the Minister will explain something. Shelton Abbey has capacity for 110 prisoners, with a daily average occupancy in 2011 of 102. Loughan House has capacity for 160 prisoners, with a daily average occupancy rate in 2011 of 122. There is capacity within those two facilities for at least 46 additional prisoners. Why is there a need for another facility to be opened in Castlerea? Even though Castlerea prison might be overcrowded, it does not follow that there are enough prisoners in that facility suitable for transfer to an open facility outside the walls.

There has been a break out from inside the 25 ft. high wall. The prisoners in the Grove were considered to be relatively low risk or they would not have been put there in the first place. If they could get out over the wall, what assurance does the community have regarding the prisoners who will be outside that wall?

Deputy John Perry

I again thank the Deputy for his contribution and I am happy to address some of the issues raised. With regard to the clarification from the Minister, Deputy Shatter, I cannot do that, but the tone of the initial reply gives a fair idea of the Minister's motivation.

The Minister appreciates, as I do, that there might be security related issues of concern to the local population. His officials are very concerned about that. I have already referred to the stringent risk criteria which will attach to any prisoners under consideration for accommodation at the facility. It is very important that a massive evaluation would be carried out of any prisoner who is going on the rehabilitation process. The Deputy can be assured that the authorities will not put a high risk prisoner into that house. They have been very effective in Loughan House. I have been there and it is an open prison that is cleanly managed. Obviously, there are eight people who have left and have not returned, but by and large-----

Deputy Denis Naughten

There were 20 in the last year.

Deputy John Perry

-----it is very well managed. While the Minister has made no final decision on the type of prisoner to be located there, all the prisoners will be subject to the normal temporary release rules and conditions. If there are any infringements of those conditions, the prisoner involved will be dealt with by the governor in the normal way.

I know Castlerea and everybody is aware of the prison there. It is a welcome facility for business in Castlerea. It brings people to the region and brings a benefit to the gross domestic product of Castlerea. There would be a major outcry if it were to be closed. Harristown House is an enhancement of that facility. From the business perspective in Castlerea, while there might be concern, there is an assurance by the State that no high risk prisoner will be put in the house. Temporary releases, which are a long established practice, assist in gradually preparing suitable offenders for release. Administering short sentences is an incentive to prisoners and an important vehicle for their reintegration into society. I know Deputy Naughten would support the reintegration of prisoners. This is about reintegration into the community before the prisoners' release, which is not a bad thing to do.

Finally, the generally accepted view is that the risk to the community is reduced by planned reintegration of offenders prior to their return to the community on the completion of their full sentence. Each application for temporary release, for whatever reason, is examined on its merits. The safety of the public is paramount when decisions are made. The works on Harristown House commenced in November 2012 and should be completed in March 2013. Part of the works is the installation of CCTV equipment, which will be working, to monitor the house and the surrounding area, including all entrances. Furthermore, the prisoners will be supervised daily by an industrial supervisor and they will also be visited and monitored by other staff who will attend at the house at different times throughout the day.

When the house is ready for occupation it is envisaged that five or six prisoners will initially be involved. When it is operating to full capacity up to 15 prisoners might be located there at any one time. All of these prisoners will be subject to normal temporary release rules and conditions and if there are any infringements of those conditions, the prisoner involved will be dealt with. The maximum number of 15 in the house is not a huge number of prisoners. The Deputy should allay the concerns of the community. People do not have anything to be concerned about in any sense.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Will the Prison Service consult with them?

Deputy John Perry

Of course it will.

Water Fluoridation

Deputy Shane Ross

The Minister will be aware of the controversy that has surrounded the insertion of fluoride into our water supply, and it has been heating up recently. I draw his attention to an article in Hot Press, a magazine I am sure he is familiar with, which discusses the fluoridation of our water.

This serious issue was addressed in an interview with Declan Waugh, who is a well known scientist. He draws attention to some of the more startling facts about fluoridation of water. I do not know if the Minister or other Members are aware that Ireland is the only country in Europe that continues this activity. It started in the 1960s in an effort to increase the strength, cleanliness and health of citizens' teeth. However, the facts that have emerged in this Hot Press interview and elsewhere are quite staggering.

Fluoride is an industrial waste chemical. It is quite alarming that Ireland has one of the highest cancer rates in Europe, as well as one of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease and probably the highest rate of diabetes. Due to the obvious connection, which I will try to trace for the Minister, an independent Irish inquiry is required into whether this fluoridation is causing the high rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There is evidence not just from Mr. Declan Waugh's interview but also from many international and distinguished investigations that fluoride is the cause of these diseases in many cases.

A very pertinent report was produced by the National Research Council in the United States in 2006. It found that fluoride reduces the body's ability to produce insulin, which is a serious consideration with regard to diabetes. It also found that the connection between fluoride and neurological diseases was very sinister. When we compare the incidence of these diseases here with the incidence in Northern Ireland, where water is not fluoridated, we see a stark comparison. People in the Republic are 4.5 times more likely to suffer from dementia between the ages of 39 and 59 than people in Northern Ireland. We are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, and we are twice as likely to encounter incidents of Down's syndrome. Indeed, the only country in Europe that has a higher rate of cardiovascular disease is Kyrgyzstan, where fluoridation is just as rife as in the Republic of Ireland. Many studies in Harvard have also detected that neurological diseases are connected to fluoridation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must conclude. He will have two minutes later.

Deputy Shane Ross

I am concluding.

There is one Irish example which emphasises and illustrates the point. West Cork has the highest rate of cardiovascular disease in Ireland and Ireland has the highest rate in Europe. In west Cork there is very little calcium in the water. It has the lowest levels of calcium in Ireland, which means the water is soft, with the result that there is three times more fluoride in the bloodstreams of the citizens of west Cork. It is no coincidence that the highest incidence of these diseases in Europe is in west Cork.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Alex White)

I thank the Deputy for raising this serious issue which I am pleased to have the opportunity to address. I will respond to some of the specific points raised by the Deputy, but I remind the House by way of introduction that water fluoridation and the use of appropriate fluorides are major planks of public health policy in Ireland on the prevention and management of tooth decay. Fluoride at the optimal level in the water supply provides a constant repair kit for teeth, making them more resistant to decay in people of all ages.

Fluoridation began in Ireland in 1964 on foot of the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960. Local authorities act as agents for the health authorities in fluoridating the water supply. The forum on fluoridation published a report in 2002 following its major expert review of the policy of fluoridation. Its main conclusions were that the fluoridation of public piped water supplies should continue as a public health measure, that the optimal level of fluoride in water should be reduced to between 0.6 and 0.8 parts per million and that an expert body on fluorides and health should be established. The main function of the expert body on fluorides and health is to provide impartial and evidence-based advice for the Minister and evaluate ongoing research on all aspects of fluoride. I emphasise that the expert body considers only scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and approved for publication in recognised scientific journals. That is the standard approach where scientific evidence is required to underpin public policy on health. Having studied current peer reviewed scientific evidence internationally, the expert body is satisfied that water fluoridation at the optimal level does not cause ill effects and continues to be safe and effective in improving oral health in all age groups. This view is supported by reputable international agencies and valid scientific articles and reviews.

I am aware that some consumers express concerns about potential negative effects on health of drinking fluoridated water, the composition and source of fluoride and the fact that other countries do not fluoridate their water supplies. All of the evidence is that drinking fluoridated water with optimal levels of fluoride is not harmful to human health. I emphasise that the only known side effect of optimal water fluoridation is mild dental fluorosis which is not considered to be an adverse health effect. Fluoride is added to our water supplies in the form of hydrofluosilicic acid which is in compliance with the specifications for that substance set out in the 2007 regulations. The procedures to fluoridate water supplies to the prescribed standards and minimise the risk of injury or damage to plant, personnel and the environment are set out in a code of practice. Water to which fluoride is added is tested daily by the local authorities and monthly by the HSE and the Environmental Protection Agency. As an alternative to water fluoridation, other countries have chosen salt or milk fluoridation or to invest in large-scale public dental services. Surveys of child and adult oral health conducted to date show a substantial benefit through the reduction of the experience of tooth decay. Irish children and adolescents have a high frequency consumption of sweets and confectionary, as well as generally poor tooth brushing habits compared to their European counterparts. Accordingly, the use of fluoridated toothpastes alone is insufficient to prevent tooth decay.

I accept that this is a serious issue and that people are entitled to raise the matter for debate both here and in the Upper House. I am not a scientist and cannot make a scientific judgment on the basis of any knowledge that I possess. The Deputy is an expert on many things, but I do not think he is a scientist either. As legislators, we must rely on independent evidence examined by the expert body put in place to do this work. While I have no difficulty with matters of public concern being raised, the preponderance of the evidence is in favour of the continuation of this policy. The Deputy will see this, if he looks closely, as I have, at the evidence and material available from the expert body. Studies are occasionally produced which tend to push one in the other direction if one reads only these studies. However, when one has to balance the concern and responsibility for public health which we have not only in government but as Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas generally, it behoves us to examine in a reasonable, balanced way not just one study but the preponderance of the evidence and its import. I invite the Deputy or any other Member to look at the website of the expert group and examine the evidence set out on it. The evidence has been peer reviewed and is not drawn from one source or campaign. It is there for all to see and annotated. I have looked at the evidence, as has the Department, as it is required to do. It is not looked at once but is kept under constant review in the implementation of the policy. When one sits down and considers the material, it is clear where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Deputy Shane Ross

The Minister of State is correct that I am not a scientist and I had as much difficulty with some of the technical phrases as he did. I accept fully that there are differing scientific views. What I am impressed with is the fact that this is the only country in Europe that considers it is necessary to do this to our water supply. Other countries in Europe, including Finland, have decided that it is damaging. In one area of Finland fluoride was removed from the water and within three months the incidence of the diseases to which I referred fell. It is not the ultimate forensic proof for which we are looking, but the coincidence of statistics and the way they have changed when fluoride is added or removed from water make it look very much like a duck to me. To say the connection has not been proved is a little like saying cigarettes do not cause cancer. The statistics show that the incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer increases when fluoride is added to the water and goes down when it is not. This has parallels with saying that while one smokes, one can get cancer, but one has no proof that tobacco causes it. The statistics are available. I pointed to the stark example of the differences between Northern Ireland and the Republic which are worrying and significant.

The Hot Press interview is based on multiple independent inquiries in the United States of America, statistics from Europe and the decisions of countries on the back of their own experiences of water fluoridation. I am worried that whereas it may have been important in the 1960s to prevent tooth decay to introduce water fluoridation, its harmful effects were not then known. The beneficial effects are not in dispute. There is increasingly, however, a case being made for reducing and eliminating fluoride from the water supply. It may be strange for me to point out the following to the Minister of State, but that is what happens when people move to being in government and others in opposition. There are people who are making a great deal of money in adding fluoride to water. There is a strong lobby group in favour of this and one must be aware that these forces are moving.

Just like the tobacco industry, which is a big and strong lobby, the chemical industry is a big and strong lobby and it is in the interests of the chemical industry to keep putting fluoride in the water. Neither the tobacco industry nor the chemical industry is particularly sensitive to people's health. Indeed they are damaging it.

Deputy Alex White

Neither Deputy Ross nor I is a scientist but one thing I remember from the study of mathematics many years ago is the concept of "spurious correlation", which I am sure Deputy Ross will understand. There might be a particular incidence or pattern, for example, a high incidence of diabetes or cardiovascular condition in this or that county or country and fluoridation in the water but there is no causal link demonstrated between the two. Deputy Ross calls it a parallel. That is what I mean by spurious correlation.

All EU states have fluoride in one form or another at the centre of their public policy. For some European countries water fluoridation is impracticable due to the large number of separate water sources. Many of them choose salt or milk fluoridation. Major fluoridating countries include the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Israel, Singapore, Hong Kong, Colombia and Chile. Fluoridation coverage in the USA increased by approximately 24 million people between 2002 and 2012. Population coverage in Australia also increased in 2012. Almost 5.8 million people in the UK have fluoride added to their water, another 330,000 have naturally fluoridated water. Approximately 10% of the population of Spain has fluoridated water. Salt fluoridation is practised in many South and Central American countries and also in the EU, notably in France, Germany and other central European states. We are not an outlier in this respect.

Disability Support Services Provision

Deputy Billy Kelleher

I raise this very serious matter because it has been described as a bolt out of the blue by various representatives of people with disabilities. I am very concerned at the direction the Department of Health is taking in the area of disability. There has been a recent history of direct attack on funding of disability services and supports for people with disability. Last year the Minister for Health blamed the troika for taking €10 million out of the budget and reducing the number of personal assistants and home helps. While we accept that there is a difficulty because the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant do not comply with the equal status legislation we cannot accept its arbitrary removal with nothing to replace it.

There were no consultations or discussions with representatives of the disability groups and no contact with the individuals in receipt of the mobility allowance or applicants for the motorised transport grant. This is having a devastating impact on people and their quality of life. These people normally live on disability benefit or allowance of approximately €190 per week. The mobility allowance, means-tested, at a maximum €208 a month meant that these people had some independence. They could get out and about and go to dental or doctors' appointments and live a reasonably independent life. This will stop them dead in their tracks. Is there no way of carrying out the review as was committed to and promised? We do not know where that particular review is but we do know that the grants have been scrapped and they will have a huge impact on the quality of life of individuals who depend on this mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant.

The Government talks about ring-fencing but this issue was known for some time. The Ombudsman formally notified the Department in April 2011 that it was in breach of the Equality Act and that certain measures had to be taken to change and bring it into compliance. Even in the Ombudsman's press release yesterday she states that it is "most regrettable" that the Department of Health failed to find a solution to address the problem surrounding the mobility allowance scheme and the motorised transport grant scheme and that the Government has now chosen to discontinue them. The Ombudsman says it is "most regrettable" but I can assure the Minister of State that people who depend on the mobility grants find it very regrettable because this is a direct attack on people with disabilities. The grants enabled them to live independent lives in their communities and function and play a meaningful role in society.

This decision must be reversed, a scheme must be put in place that complies with the Equal Status Act but at the same time does not discriminate and does not mean that people with disabilities will find it harder to have independence and a good quality of life. This is a shameful decision. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, agonised over it. She said she did but the people who will agonise most will be those who find that in four months' time the mobility allowance is gone completely and those who apply for it or for the motorised transport grant will find that they have been discontinued. This decision must be reversed and some method of review brought about to ensure that these schemes comply with the equal status legislation.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

People with disabilities can be forgiven for asking what is it about this Government and its absolute disregard for the needs of people with disability. It was under this Government that disabled people had to camp outside Government Buildings in order to stop the cuts to support for personal assistants. One might think that a lesson would be learned from that experience but no, in the most crass and ham-fisted way the Government has ended the mobility allowance scheme and the motorised transport grant. This is a very cruel cut. No other word applies. The Government can talk all it likes about the money being ring-fenced but that is no good to the person who has the mobility allowance now and will not have it in four months' time. People affected by this cut have been in contact with my office today, as I expect is the case across the board.

One of my constituents who called me is a double amputee. I have met him on several occasions. He said these are not easy schemes to qualify for in any event. He put it starkly, "I ended up having to lose two legs before I qualified". In addition to that severe disability this man is also visually impaired. His home help hours have already been cut from nine and a half hours to eight and a half hours per week. He requires 11 items of medication and his monthly prescription charge has risen from €5.50 to €16.50. All of these cuts were imposed by this Government, not by its predecessors.

The Department of Health has known since at least 2008 that the schemes as applied were discriminatory and the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, has pointed out that they were in breach of the Equal Status Act since 2000. The Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government failed to act. That is acknowledged. What of the so-called democratic revolution that this Government has spoken about and heralded since the general election of February 2011? Lo and behold Fine Gael and Labour have acted no differently from their predecessors. They have neither extended nor replaced these schemes. This is a cruel cut for people with disabilities, especially those who reside in rural Ireland who cannot avail of public transport because in vast swathes of rural Ireland, including the two counties that I represent there is no public transport. The Government has axed these schemes and not replaced them and tells us that there is a review. Why not continue the payments as they are until the review concludes and a fair replacement scheme is decided upon? The Government has winged it this far.

By failing to take this logical course of action the Government leads us to only one conclusion, that this is another cutback by another name. I will quote from the programme for Government just to remind the Minister of State that it stated:

We will ensure that the quality of life for people with disabilities is enhanced and that resources allocated reach the people who need them... We will also facilitate people with disabilities in achieving a greater level of participation in employment, training and education.

Where is the evidence for this?

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch)

As this is an important issue, I hope the Acting Chairman will indulge us by giving us some extra time to debate it.

I am pleased to take the opportunity to outline the Government's position on the matter raised by Deputies Billy Kelleher and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, namely, the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant. The Government is very conscious of the needs of people with a disability who require transport supports from the State. Up to 4,700 people receive a mobility allowance, while 300 people a year receive a motorised transport grant. The Government is also conscious of the position of the Ombudsman that the schemes are illegal in the context of the Equal Status Acts.

Following detailed consideration of issues surrounding the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant, the Government has decided it is no longer possible to allow the two schemes to continue as they currently operate and to devise an alternative solution or solutions which will meet people's needs. Independently chaired, a review group will seek an alternative method for ensuring the needs of persons affected can be provided for in a manner that does not run counter to the Equal Status Acts. It is important to note the Government's decision is in no way intended to save costs. The funding involved in the two schemes, €10.6 million, remains committed to meeting the priority transport and mobility needs of people with a disability. It is also important to note that, despite the fact that the Government's decision ends both schemes to new applicants with immediate effect, the payment of the mobility allowance to those currently in receipt of it will continue for another four months.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Department of Health revise both schemes to make them compliant with the Equal Status Acts by removing the age limit and using a broader definition of disability in respect of eligibility for both schemes. It has proved extremely difficult to resolve this matter. Several policy options have been considered in detail. These have raised significant issues, including the feasibility of extending eligibility under the schemes. However, the cost of such an extension could be as much as €100 million per annum in the case of mobility allowance and €200 million over a three year period in the case of the motorised transport grant. Another issue that emerged was if the eligibility criteria were expanded and the current budget of €10.6 million was retained, the resultant payments to the people eligible would be so reduced as to make them almost meaningless. Any additional cost incurred by an expansion of the schemes would have to be met from current expenditure and result in a reduction of front-line specialist disability, older people and mental health services for people who need them.

The Government has come to the conclusion that an extension of either scheme would create serious financial pressure on the health budget in the current climate and be unsustainable. A project group has been established to examine both schemes and will recommend a solution or solutions which will address priority mobility and transport needs of those who require supports. The terms of reference are being finalised and agreed with the group. However, it has been agreed that the group will work in a number of stages, commencing as a priority with a review of the issues around the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant. The group will continue its work once this first phase is over and examine wider issues around transport for persons with disabilities. As part of the review, the Health Service Executive will examine the circumstances of all those currently benefiting from the schemes to ensure the identified solutions will encompass their priority mobility needs. In addition, the Minister for Health has instructed the HSE to contact each individual in receipt of the payments to notify them of this decision.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

When I hear the Department of Health stating it will ring-fence money, it strikes fear into me. Last year we were given a commitment that mental health funding would be ring-fenced, but it was not. Instead, it was snaffled and included in the overall health budget. The €15 million set aside for the roll-out of free general practitioner care services for those participating in the long-term illness scheme was also snaffled and included in the overall budget. Accordingly, I do not have much confidence in the Department claiming that it has ring-fenced this funding.

The Ministers and the Department spent two years examining the difficulties these two schemes had encountered in complying with the Equal Status Acts. The schemes are now scrapped and we are setting up an independent review group. While the best brains in the Department could not come up with a solution in two years, the Minister is now asking an independent review group to come up with one in four months. What should have happened was that the schemes should have been allowed to continue for the time being while an independent review group was established to come up with solutions to the problems. This would, at least, allow those in receipt of the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant to continue drawing them down. However, the Government has arbitrarily cut these grants. It is a heartless cut. The Minister knows this will have a devastating impact on the quality of life of those individuals who rely on these allowances, as well as on the independence to which they are entitled and deserve.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

In her response the Minister of State stated the Government had decided to devise an alternative solution or solutions. Has it taken it two years to make this judgment? She also stated, “A review group will seek an alternative method for ensuring the needs of persons affected can be provided for in a manner that does not run counter to the Equal Status Acts.” She knew this was an issue before taking office. I do not understand why, two years after taking office, the Government has decided to cut off these grants for new applicants and tell those in receipt of them that they will cease in four months. Why does it not wait until the completion of the review before ending these schemes? Surely, that would be the reasonable approach to take. Why were the schemes neither extended nor replaced in the past two years?

I am a Deputy who represents a rural constituency that is ill-served by public transport. Many disabled people in counties Cavan and Monaghan cannot avail of free public transport because there is no public transport network in their areas. This is no exaggeration but a fact. There is no solace for them whatsoever with the shutting down of the schemes.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

Deputy Billy Kelleher asked what should have happened. The matter should have been dealt with long ago. This would have given us a degree of space in dealing with the issue.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

The Government was officially notified last week.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

The Deputies opposite had 13 years in government in which to fix it.

Deputy Robert Troy

What has the Government done in the two years it has had to deal with it?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

No interruptions, please.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

In the 18 months we have been examining the matter we have come up with every possible configuration. For instance, we examined how we could allow the 4,700 in receipt of the allowance to retain the moneys and cut off the scheme for new entrants. We were informed that that would be illegal. We asked if the scheme could be redesigned to make it fit for purpose for the individual to meet his or her needs. Again, we were told it would be illegal for the simple reason that the definition of “disability” was very broad in the Disability Act. One could not possibly state only one category of people could receive the allowance, while others who would qualify for payments under the scheme under the Disability Act could not.

This is not an action the Government wanted to take. If we could have found a solution to this problem, we would have found it. It is not for the want of trying that we have not come to a solution. We came up with every possible configuration, but it was not possible to implement any of them. We are aware of the hardship and concerns the shutting down of the schemes will bring. That is why we are determined to come up with a solution. We are not just putting the review group in place. It has been in place for the past two weeks. Two weeks ago at the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions we laid out exactly what our difficulties were in this regard. This has not come as a bolt out of the blue for anyone.

There is a difficulty for us if we are to comply with the Equal Status Act. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who would suggest that we should change the Equal Status Act, because that would bring about unintended consequences. Equally, I do not imagine there is anyone in the House who would wish or expect us to narrow the terms of the Disability Act. However, the difficulty is the broadness of the definition of "disability" in the Disability Act. Further, under the Equal Status Act, if we were to allow everyone who would qualify under the new terms into the scheme, it would cost between €170 million and €300 million, and we simply do not have that type of money. How do we find that type of money? I understand the argument questioning why we cannot find the money, but we have a particular budget and we must ensure the services we are obliged to deliver in health, including those to people with disabilities, are protected as well. We are examining the matter; it is not something we have given up on. We will find a solution to this.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Has the Minister of State set a timeframe for the review group's work?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

The review group is a rather wide-ranging group which includes people with a specific interest in transport for people with disabilities. There is a difficulty if we limit it to that. If we were to devise a transport scheme for people with disabilities and we defined a disability, then we would be asked about the rest of the people and then the Equal Status Act would come into play. It is rather complex. The people on the committee have a particular interest in transport for people with disabilities. They are as convinced as we are that we need to devise a transport scheme for all and rural transport to the fore in our minds.

I do not go along with the cliché to the effect that we should take this as an opportunity. However, the only way we can address this is to devise a transport scheme that will serve us better in the future. That does not take away from the difficulty. I am mindful of the fact that there are people who depend on this allowance, and providing a transport scheme will not alleviate the impending hardship.

We are considering all aspects of the issue. If it were possible to find a solution to the issue, we would have found it. This is not something the Government wanted to do. As Deputy Kelleher correctly stated, we have agonised over this, but we will continue to be completely engaged to ensure we find a solution. We have asked the review committee to come back within three months. We are not starting from a blank page.

The difficulty is that we do not map anything. Let us suppose we were to map what is available in terms of transport in this country, including the school transport scheme, rural transport - limited as it is - and organisations such as the Irish Wheelchair Association, which has a transport fleet, and Vantastic. If we were to map all of these services we should be able to provide a transport service for everyone. That does not take away from the hardship that will be imposed on people in terms of income, and we are mindful of that.