Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I congratulate the Minister and add to the garland of good wishes he has received to date. I wish him well on his appointment. I have no doubt it was his performance at European Union level during our Presidency which caught the Taoiseach's attention.

This Bill, a 100 page volume, is welcome as it updates legislation on the delivery of water supply. Ensuring optimum water quality is a priority arising from our EU obligations. Many water service systems remain in disrepair and contribute to the low standard of water quality. My concerns regarding the one-off housing policy in rural areas, with its knock-on effect on water supply, remain. A uniform approach nationwide would be a recipe for removing the constant litany of section 4 motions in county councils. Emphasis should be placed on small, rural residential communities in which services could be provided by the local authority.

Fluoridation of water supplies was introduced in the 1960s as a definitive way to ensure clean, uncontaminated water nationwide. Regrettably, fluoride was added to water as a form of mass medication to ensure children's teeth benefited from an adequate supply of fluoride. Fluoride was often found not to have the major beneficial effect claimed, however. If we were to attempt to mass medicate by adding antibiotics to the water supply, it would cause uproar. Given that other countries have abandoned the idea of adding fluoride to water supplies, we should reconsider our approach. Although other chemicals are added to the water supply, this is done for presentation, colour, taste and other beneficial reasons.

Since the 1960s, many doubts have been raised about the fluoridation process and questions are being asked as to whether the cure is worse than the disease. Many questions have been raised as to whether the amount of fluoride added to water is excessive. In the United Kingdom the use of chemicals specified for water fluoridation is illegal under the Poisons Act 1972. One chemical, in particular, fluorosilicic acid, is a waste product from the fertiliser industry. When added to drinking water this chemical, which is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic, gives a fluoride concentration of 40 milligrams per litre, which is, as indicated by various clinical trials, approximately 100 times the respective EU limits for lead and arsenic.

The Department of Health and Children spends €44 million per annum on 360 fluoridation plants. This means that scarce public resources are being washed down the kitchen sink when they could go a long way to restoring some semblance of order and normality to our hospital services, about which the House heard a great deal earlier. Perhaps €44 million would not go far in the health sector but it would be of considerable assistance in my constituency.

Professionals in the areas of health, academia, science and consumer affairs on the forum on fluoridation pointed to the glaring example of wasteful expenditure on fluoridation. The forum posed the question as to why the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960 specified both a lower and upper limit of fluoride to be added to drinking water. Its research showed that there were no significant beneficial effects at a fluoride concentration level below 0.8 milligrammes per litre. Nevertheless, the forum contradicted itself in its first recommendation which states: "In the light of the best available scientific evidence, the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations, 1965 should be amended to redefine the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water from the present level (0.8 to 1.0 ppm) to between 0.6 and 0.8 ppm, with a target value of 0.7 ppm." As I noted, the forum also indicated, however, that there were no significant beneficial effects at a fluoride concentration below 0.8 milligrammes per litre. If this is the case, why put fluoride in water in the first instance? The forum, in other words, recommended a revised level of fluoridation which it previously recognised as having no significant effect.

According to the forum, which was established by a former Minister for Health, this amounts to a waste of money of the order of €44 million. I arrived at this figure using figures from the United Kingdom where fluoridation plants are being closed down. Each closure represents a saving of £46,000 per annum, which equates to approximately €70,000 per plant per annum here. In Ireland there are 360 such plants. The mathematics are simple. It works out at €13 million. Then add the capital cost to the economy of this no beneficial effects scheme.

The forum's report also recommends that old plants be brought up to standard since they do not currently comply with regulations on accuracy of dosing. Often it is difficult to regulate the dosage people are putting into the water; sometimes it is not as scientific as we would like it to be. Let us assume that 20% of our plants do not comply. In the upgrading of a plant in Berwick, Northumberland, in the United Kingdom, capital costs were €430,000. Simple mathematics demonstrate that the bill to upgrade this no beneficial effects tampering with drinking water will be approximately €31 million. After factoring in the massive costs incurred in the various studies and monitoring called for by the forum, the sanity of all this must be questioned.

The forum concluded that people were getting too much fluoride. The dose needs to be reduced by one third and children should be educated to use less toothpaste on their toothbrushes. The population is being forced to ingest an unknown quantity of a sub-optimal dose of a toxic waste product, the beneficial effects of which are unknown and unproven. Children are being told to use less fluoridated toothpaste when, in fact, they should be told to stop drinking fluoridated water.

The health and safety considerations for staff working at fluoridation plants in the United Kingdom were also called into question. Some plants were closed and the treatments suspended because of concerns for the safety of staff working in them. In the case of the plants closed, the €46,000 running costs were diverted into health promotion initiatives in the immediate area. Something similar should be done here if we ever decide to close plants. On a national scale, such a saving would transform the crisis ridden health service as the Minister would have an extra €44 million to spend.

It was emphatically stressed by the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that there was no intention to impose water charges. Some of the reassurances have a hollow ring and are reminiscent of what happened with waste charges in previous times. Some local authorities have privatised their waste collection services but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the provision of water services could also be assigned to public companies, as happened in the United Kingdom.

The metering of premises is also dealt with in the Bill. Just as the PAYE sector bears the brunt of income taxation, people whose premises are metered are most vulnerable to price increases. EU directives have mandated the metering system and should ensure a fairer system is applied to everyone, with farmers paying only for the water they use. Other EU directives on the quality of drinking water and wastewater treatment have been largely responsible for reshaping public attitudes to these and associated environmental issues.

Water services have been and should always remain a priority with successive Governments. Considerable investment in water schemes in Ireland has been made through the EU Cohesion Fund and the landscape has been transformed in terms of the provision of quality water supplies and the raising of wastewater standards. While I have raised fluoridation and other issues, it should be acknowledged that the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has opened a number of DBO systems in Cavan and Monaghan, projects of which we are proud. There have been moves such as the grouping of systems in the right direction which should be welcomed. There have also been positive developments.

A six year strategic plan for the upgrading, operation and management of water services infrastructure is an eminently sensible arrangement and should ensure value for money. There were problems with water quality in some group water schemes in the past year. The voluntary group schemes have made and continue to make a vital contribution to the country's water services by providing approximately 10% of the water supply. I trust the new licensing system will be a force for good in the continuing development of the group water sector.

With regard to the thorny issue of pollutants entering waterways, the provision of sufficient wastewater treatment plants is an urgent requirement to prevent raw sewage causing pollution. Human health is a major priority and it is vital that consumers receive the earliest possible warnings, preferably through local radio and the print media. Sources of contamination or pollution should be identified as early as possible in the interests of public health and the public should be notified and have its fears allayed.

The requirement for a map of works is also welcome. However, what happens if there is no map of works? Will it be possible to map out the water supply system from county to county, identifying the locations of the various mains pipes? The vast majority of engineers who worked on these schemes are long dead and this requirement could prove a veritable nightmare for the various local authorities. Account must also be taken of the water leaking from the system. In many instances, infrastructure was installed in the 1930s and 1940s and cannot be matched by the pipes manufactured now. There is probably no indicator of the volume of water being lost in the system. Some have estimated it to be as high as 40%.

The Bill's inspection provisions will help to ensure improved standards of water management. Perhaps consideration should be given to a replacement of the countrywide network of pipes, although there is probably no estimate available of the possible cost.

I welcome the Bill and trust it will make a major contribution to the continued improvement of our water services.

See this speech in context