David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I regret that my modest request has been rejected on the grounds that there is no need to review it because we are reviewing it already. It reminds me of my good friend Kieran Hickey who made a film about Joyce using the glass slides from the Lawrence collection and he was refused permission to do so by the National Library of Ireland on the grounds that it was not possible. He said: "Since it is not possible, I couldn't be doing it, so let's go ahead and do it", and they did. That kind of circular reasoning is being applied here. If we are prepared to review it, why should we be so shy of even opening the question?

I will not have time to put on record the very strong rhetoric of senior Fine Gael politicians when this matter first came up. Richie Ryan and the then leader, James Dillon, were concerned about the democratic aspect of the matter.

The author of the paper who has been referred to - I do not want to keep putting his name on the record - actually responded to all the points raised in the review and sent it by registered post to the Department, but has not received a reply.

We need to look at the toxicological data. I am putting one side because it has been so underrepresented. I do so because I believe in getting at the truth whatever it is. I recognise that I am sacrificing a significant section of my vote, but I have always been prepared to take that type of risk because it is important that we see the result.

I am concerned about what happened to the report prepared very expertly containing page after page of shortlisted references of a very high scientific level, including a number of Nobel Prize-winning scientists by Mr. John Gormley. That report, which was agreed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, was buried. That worries me because it does not sound like dialogue at all. It was never published and was rejected by the then Minister. An undertaking was given that there would be reviews and that the HSE would undertake a national study to determine the total fluoride intake of individuals. I am not aware that that has been done - I do not believe it has. If it has been done, it has not been published.

I am also concerned that of the 15 meetings of the original body charged by the Government to investigate this in the 1960s - I believe - some 14 disappeared, which is odd. There is a trail of curious things. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I certainly do not believe that fluoridation was a communist plot and referring to this did not add anything to the debate. I have scrupulously attempted to avoid any type of witch hunt or unduly alarming people. It was necessary that we had that. I compliment all my colleagues and friends on the way in which they handled this matter.

The Minister of State is correct in stating that since about 2000 this material has been sourced in Spain. However, before that it came from a Dutch industrial plant. It is not pure fluoride but hexafluorosilicic acid, which is registered as a serious toxin. Senator Barrett made an excellent contribution on which I compliment and thank him. I do not entirely agree with it. I believe he was gilding the lily somewhat when he said that one would need to ingest humanly impossible amounts of fluoride in order to do oneself any damage. If that is so, why is the maximum amount permitted 0.4 per 1 million-----