Vol. 303 No. 2
asked the Minister for Health the names of the individuals, groups or organisations he has consulted to date prior to the introduction of the proposed legislation to legalise the sale of contraceptives; and the expected date on which he hopes to have the Bill ready for presentation to the Dáil.
3.
asked the Minister for Health the number of consultations he has had regarding the implementation of a positive policy for family planning; the groups with which he has consulted; and the deadline he has set for the close of these consultations and the drafting of legislation.
4.
asked the Minister for Health the organisations and individuals he has consulted to date concerning his proposal to introduce legislation relating to family planning.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
I have had discussions with and have sought the views of the Medico-Social Research Board and the Council on the Status of Women on this question. I had a meeting with the Irish Medical Association during which they conveyed to me their views on the issues involved.
In reply to a parliamentary question on 2 October last (Dáil Debates. Volume 300, No. 3, column 162) I said that I would consult with the National Health Council, professional bodies, the Churches, other Government Departments, the health boards and family planning associations.
I have written to these bodies with a view to arranging meetings with them.
Until discussions have been concluded with the bodies concerned and I have had an opportunity of considering the views expressed, I will not be in a position to indicate when a Bill will be ready for presentation to the Dáil.
This kind of answer is simply evading the issue. Is the Minister aware that since 1974, since the McGee decision in the Supreme Court, the law has been defective, and refusing to act and correct this matter in the Dáil is simply compounding the irresponsible and cowardly decision of the previous Government? Is the Minister not acting in exactly the same way? This is an urgent and important matter and the Minister has the power to do something, so why does he not do it?
Not a speech, Deputy.
The Deputy is completely misinterpreting the situation. This Government recognise that the present state of the law and the situation generally is unsatisfactory and because it recognises that, it has firmly decided to legislate to deal with the situation. Prior to legislating I am endeavouring to get the considered views of those who are in a position to offer guidance and advice in this very sensitive, delicate area, which is a wise thing for me to do as a legislator. I must get the widest possible spectrum of views on this issue before I bring the proposals before my colleagues in Government. The Deputy cannot possibly regard that procedure as irresponsible.
The Minister has given a list of three or four names of bodies whom he has consulted and a longer list of names to whom he has just written. This means that there is no limit to the length of time during which he will continue to prevaricate on this important issue.
I reject the word prevaricate.
Surely it is the Government's responsibility to legislate. This matter has been under debate since 1974. The Government are behaving in exactly the same cowardly way as their predecessors.
I reject both the imputations cowardly and prevaricate.
It is morally cowardly. The Minister is a moral coward because he has the power to do something and is refusing to do something about it.
The Deputy will refrain from making the statements he is making.
This is a serious issue.
I want to rebut some of the very wild accusations made against me by Deputy Browne. In this matter I do not regard myself as either prevaricating or being cowardly. I regard myself as acting in a mature, responsible way in endeavouring to prepare legislation for a very delicate, sensitive and fundamentally important matter.
Is the Minister aware that health boards could undertake this task without any change in legislation? Is the Minister further aware that they could do so immediately as part of their fertility guidance work and it would not involve any new legislation?
I am convinced that legislation is necessary because the present state of the law is obscure and indefinite. The Supreme Court decided on one issue but not on another. We believe that if they had to decide on another matter they would decide in the same way as they decided on the first, but we do not know, so the law is obscure and indefinite at the moment.
It is the Government's job to clarify it.
The situation is unsatisfactory. I met the chairmen and chief executive officers of all the health boards at an early stage after I assumed office. I mentioned this problem to them and I found a considerable contradiction of views between the different chairmen and the chief executives of the health boards on the matter. It is not a simple black and white matter, it is not a simple open and shut case, and I am entitled, as responsible to this Parliament for legislation, to seek the broadest consensus of views that I can.
Has the Minister sought legal advice on the power of the health boards to undertake this work without changing the legislation at all? If they have this power would he not consider it a lot simpler and better politically for his party and his Government if the health boards would undertake this task without any changes? Would he not also consider that it might be part of the public health programme that this be undertaken without changing legislation?
There are a number of issues involved in this question which are not within the competence of the health boards either to decide or administer. With regard to the barracking from Deputy Browne, he and I probably differ in our approach. He has the totalitarian socialist approach which is, "just legislate no matter what anybody thinks", as long as it coincides with his view of things, but there are other views——
Totalitarian?
There are other views in this community besides those held by Deputy Browne and he should recognise that fact.
Internment without trial, is that not totalitarian?
Is it not a fact that all the bodies to which the Minister has written seeking their views are already on the public record for a considerable length of time in stating their views on this matter? Will the Minister not undertake now to bring before the Parliament by a certain date adequate legislation on this matter as he promised to do when in Opposition?
I fully intend to bring legislation. That is what this process is all about.
Has the Minister set a deadline?
When?
I intend to bring legislation before this Parliament at the earliest possible moment, but I also intend to ensure to the best of my ability that the legislation will be the right legislation which will be generally acceptable to the people. With regard to the suggestion by Deputy Boland that most of the views of these bodies are known and on record, that is not quite so. There are some issues on which the different bodies have not given any indication. A meeting which I had with the Irish Medical Association quite recently was very informative and instructive from my point of view and I succeeded in getting from the Irish Medical Association at the discussions clarification about their views on a number of issues.
Noel Murphy is looking for a touch kicker.
That criticism is very unfair. I can only leave it to the House to decide whether I am justified in trying to seek a genuine viewpoint from as many interested and expert bodies as possible on this issue before legislating.
And we will all be playing on the same team.
And it ill behoves anybody from the Coalition parties or supporters of the Coalition parties from time to time to criticise Fianna Fáil legislation on contraception.
It is also the duty of the Government to legislate, which the Opposition did not discharge.
