David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White. I thank Senator Norris for tabling this Private Members' motion today to allow us review the position on fluoridation of water in the State.

It is an interesting issue and it has provoked continual debate not only in this country, but around the world. One could argue that there are many issues that we could be discussing here today which, on a scale or hierarchy, would be more important that this issue but that does not mean that we should not be having this debate. Private Members' time is an opportunity for us to have these kind of discussions, both in the Lower House and in this House as well. These are matters of public concern which are being discussed outside of this House. It is important for Senator Norris to bring forward this motion so that the House can be part of that debate because while this debate is happening in the scientific sphere, it is important it happens in the political sphere as well. I commend Senator Norris.

The point has been made already that there are many different opinions on this issue. For every report, either nationally or internationally, that the fluoridation of water is good, there are counter reports which say something else. We then must make up our minds and make judgments. There are many different points of view on this issue among health care professionals. That is obvious given the many different reports.

An important point made by Senator Norris which needs to be taken on board was that this process was put in place at a time when even the industrialised world had very poor dental health mechanisms.

The sole reason for its introduction was the danger of tooth decay and cavities. We must acknowledge we have come a long way on the journey of ensuring we have very good dental health and oral hygiene in the State and in most industrialised countries. Given the massive improvements in this area it is timely to review the process. It is also important to ensure we continue to put in place resources so young children in particular have access to dentists and proper treatment, and that they have the appropriate level of dental health care to avoid the incidence of tooth decay.

The question we are asked to discuss in the motion is whether the fluoridation of water is appropriate or necessary for the oral health of citizens. This is the fundamental question. In particular, it is generally believed that although water fluoridation can cause dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of developing teeth, the extent of this can vary. People have very clear concerns and not only in Ireland but throughout the world. Only this week the Australian city of Cairns ceased to fluoridise its water on the basis it constitutes the mandatory medication of its citizens. According to a spokesperson for Cairns council, if people want to have access to fluoride they should take it up with their dentist and that the decision has been made that it should not be forced on people without consent. I broadly share this view. I do not think it should be a mandatory process but a matter of choice. I agree with Senator Norris on this issue.

The issue of cost is not the only issue. If I felt this genuinely benefitted citizens and ensured a reduction in decay it would be worth it. According to a response to a parliamentary question from the former Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall, it costs approximately ¤4.78 million a year. This was the amount spent in 2010. Of this, ¤1.36 million was spent on the acid or chemical used as part of the process. At the time, the then Minister of State said the Government had no plans to discontinue the policy. I assume this is still the position of the Government.

It is a matter of choice and we must reflect on the wealth of reports and knowledge and information we have on the issue. Ultimately it is a matter for the Government, the Minister for Health and the Cabinet to reflect on it and decide whether they believe continuing the policy is best for citizens. It is worthwhile to table a motion such as this to give us an opportunity as public representatives to reflect the fact that even though many important issues exist people are interested in this issue and have very strong views on it. I was very surprised that I was lobbied and received many e-mails about this debate. Many of the e-mails were very technical and scientific and contained very well thought out and well argued points of view on both sides.

To summarise the views of those against, it is not so much an issue of cost but of choice and the potential dangers they feel are associated with the process. Even if such dangers are mild, and some clinicians and dentists have the view it can cause problems but they recognise these problems are mild, it is still an issue for the citizens who believe they should have a choice in the matter. For me this is at the heart of the issue. I thank Senator Norris for tabling the motion. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister.