Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

No, but as risks to health are being raised, I refer to the progress that has been made in Ireland in respect of health and well-being. Progress has been made and the average life expectancy is now 80.5 years in real terms.
The constitutional issues are interesting and I have downloaded a copy of the case of Gladys Ryan v. the Attorney General. It was dealt with by Mr. Justice Kenny and then by the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Richie Ryan, who subsequently became Minister for Finance, acted as a solicitor for Gladys Ryan although he was not related to her. He assembled a quite strong legal team to deal with the matter in the High Court and Supreme Court. He had, as senior counsel, Seán MacBride, T.J. Connolly and Seamus Egan, that is, a strong legal team to fight this question concerning the constitutional provisions. It dealt with the Constitution under Articles 40.3, 41 and 42. The matter of the constitutional issues was clearly argued in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. I read an article containing an interview with Richie Ryan some years ago in which he raised the issue as to whether all the information was made available to the courts at the time. While he raises serious concerns from that point of view, this is the case law we now have.
A number of steps have been taken since 1963 and 1964, when the case was dealt with in the courts. There have been a number of reviews on the issue and a number of recommendations were produced in a report in 2002. Interestingly, the motion's proposer raised the issue of fluoride and the danger to children. It is an important issue because one recommendation in the 2002 report pertained to infant formula and perhaps it is also a question of disseminating more information. The fifth recommendation of the aforementioned report stated that infant formula should continue to be reconstituted with boiled tap water in accordance with manufacturers' instructions or that, alternatively, ready-to-feed formula could be used. The other part of the recommendation was that the use of bottled water to reconstitute infant formula was not recommended unless the labelling indicated its suitability for such use. I believe that report contained a total of 33 recommendations and the question is whether all of them were implemented fully and whether people are aware of them. I believe this certainly is an issue that should be revisited. If Members wish to consider this issue because other matters must be examined of which people must be made more aware, they certainly should do this. They should make people aware, in the public domain, as to what are the concerns.
The Irish Dental Association appears to be strongly in favour of fluoridation. In a statement it issued it noted that it:

strongly endorses water fluoridation as the most practical, cost effective and safe, public health measure to control the occurrence of tooth decay in Ireland. Community water fluoridation is endorsed by the World Health Organization ... as the first choice method of providing fluoride to communities. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... and the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environment Risks ... have also endorsed water fluoridation. The US Surgeon General described water fluoridation as one of the top ten greatest public health measures of the twentieth century.

I am quoting from the Irish Dental Association statement and while I do not suggest this is gospel, I note that association clearly is strongly in support of the current policy with regard to water fluoridation.
If I may, I will revert to the constitutional issue, as the Gladys Ryan v. the Attorney General case established a strong position with regard to bodily integrity. However, one aspect of Mr. Justice Kenny's decision in the High Court held that there is no contractual right to a piped water supply. It stated:

The plaintiff has no legal right to a supply of piped water and the Act of 1960 does not impose any obligation on her or on the members of her family to drink or use the water coming through the piped water supply ... the plaintiff probably has a right of access to a supply of water, but this does not give her a right to a supply of water which has not been fluoridated through the piped water supply ... I am satisfied that the plaintiff ... can, by the expenditure of a few pounds, remove all or almost all the fluoride ions from the water coming through the piped water supply.

Members must deal with this debate in that context. I believe the constitutional issues have been dealt with. Members certainly must review and keep in mind constantly any developments that have occurred in recent years and make the public aware of them but I strongly support the amendment to this motion and ask my colleagues for their support on the matter.