Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1979

Vol. 313 No. 9

Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

The first duty of this House to my mind is to legislate for all the people in the entire country regardless of their religion, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Dissenter. I submit that this Bill does not cover all the people in the country. It is the right of the churches in turn to make their own rules and advise their parishioners as to what they should do as far as family planning is concerned. In turn, it is the right of each person to make up his own mind, taking into consideration the advice of his or her particular Church on what a married person should do in regard to family planning. It is about time that we separated the Church from the State. As a State we must legislate for all the people. The choice in this Bill, and in other Bills that I have no doubt we shall be discussing in future years, is one that must be left to the individual. It is not the case that anybody is insisting that a married person or a single or divorced person must use contraception; if their Church tells them they should not use any form of contraception, pill or otherwise, that choice should be left to the individual and that should be made quite clear.

In this Bill we are interfering basically with human rights. The first human right is to have a choice to make up one's own mind as to what one should or should not do. I am very doubtful as to whether this Bill if taken to the Supreme Court would not be thrown out in the same way as in the McGee case. It is a humiliating thought in modern society to think that a married person must go before a doctor for the doctor to prescribe any form of family planning. Most doctors will probably be able to advise and probably some doctors will not encourage people to use any form of family planning. We must be realistic about this and I think the problem is most serious—many people are talking but they are not talking in the context of the present time—as far as a divorcee is concerned or a separated person. I hope the Minister will state how he suggests these people should secure any form of family planning. Probably he will not answer that but it is one of the questions that must be answered.

We are talking about a family planning Bill in a modern age—what happens to single people and even university students who at present are using different forms of contraception? My reading of the Bill indicates that there will be no more clinics as far as the universities are concerned. What happens to these people? I think that if a single person or a divorced person brings this legislation to the Supreme Court such a person will have a human right and we are legislation as a State.

In Northern Ireland contraception is freely available and has been all through my life and probably in my father's time, possibly since the beginning of the State in the twenties. Contraceptives are freely available there; they are sold in chemist's shop which sell whatever articles they are without requiring a doctor's prescription. I do not think anybody in southern Ireland can honestly say that morals in Northern Ireland are any worse than they are here. I would be first to admit that moral standards have been declining. This is part of modern society. I do not consider it a good thing but, life being what it is, we must accept that many single people, whether this Bill becomes an Act or not, are using and will be using contraceptives.

I understand that only a married person can be given this prescription by a doctor and that in turn a woman may go to a chemist's shop with the prescription—even though it is not a prescription—and the form of contraceptive required is handed out, whether it is the pill or any other form of contraceptive. What happens if the chemist sells contraceptives to an unmarried person? Is it intended that such a chemist will be prosecuted? If he sells contraceptives to a divorcee or separated person—I return to the fact that we have marriages breaking up at the present time—what happens as regards that chemist? What happens if the doctor prescribes contraceptives for a single person if that single person goes to the doctor after having intercourse and the doctor honestly feels this person would be better on contraceptives?

This is a Bill that has gone half way; it has certainly not gone far enough. I realise the Minister is in a dilemma in trying to satisfy everybody particularly when probably the vast majority of Deputies are the older type of Deputy and totally against legislating for any form of contraception. No doubt the time will come, and it will not be that long in coming with the number of young people we have in the country, when people will demand full human rights not only in the case of family planning but in regard to all forms of contraception. We are only hiding our heads in the sand if we think this storm will blow over. These people will demand the basic right to make up their own minds and this is only right.

There was recently reference in the media to a doctor who should know quoting the figure of over 7,000 women from southern Ireland having abortions in Britain at present. This is a dreadful fact about which we must be all very concerned, but I suggest that the connotation of this Bill, with its strict insistence that first, a person must go to a doctor and secondly must go to a pharmacist to get a simple thing handed out over a counter—which should have nothing at all to do with the doctor—is that people who want to have sexual intercourse will not bother to comply. The likely effect of this Bill is that people who wish to engage in sexual relations will not bother to use contraceptives. That would be a most regrettable situation in that it would be likely to lead to a greater number of Irish women having abortions in Britain. The present figure of 7,000 in this regard is alarming.

When the Minister is replying he might confirm whether contraceptives may be prescribed by the health boards for medical card holders. If this is to be the situation, it should be made clear so that the people concerned would be aware that contraceptives may be prescribed by the health boards and obtained free of charge.

There is a need for more family planning clinics at which young people could be educated in family planning matters. If this Bill will mean the closure of the clinics that exist in some of the universities, it is a backward step. I doubt whether anybody now a days would consider it proper that there should be families of as many as 14 or even up to 20 living in bad conditions. The fathers may be drawing the dole. In such circumstances children would not be getting the opportunities that other families would be likely to have. We must endeavour to educate the young people in matters of family planning. That is why there is a need for proper family planning clinics in all the large centres of population.

There are varying opinions on all sides of the House in regard to this legislation. I am disappointed that the other Member here of the minority, Deputy Briscoe, has not let us hear his views. Perhaps he will rectify this situation and let us know how he considers the Bill will work, particularly as far as the minority are concerned. We in Fine Gael are being allowed a free vote on this occasion. We are a very independent party, especially in matters relating to human rights. However, it is not my intention to vote one way or the other. This is because I do not consider the legislation to be going far enough. If the Minister had introduced a measure that would provide for contraceptives for such people as divorcees and mature people generally, regardless of their marital status, I would have been tempted to vote with the Government. I am not voting against the Bill on the basis that the Minister has gone at least half way on this occasion. We must appreciate that this is a difficult area. There may be Members of Fianna Fáil for whom voting on the Bill will be a problem. However, I trust that they will vote on this occasion and that the fact that so many of them are missing today is not an indication that they will not be here later for the vote. On the previous occasion 27 of them did not vote. They should be here to ensure support for the Minister. It should not be necessary for the press to go so far as to indicate the manner in which people voted on this issue though I expect some of them will give this information. However, the sooner the Bill is voted on the better because it is at least a step in the right direction.

We have been debating this Bill for some weeks. It is a sad commentary on the order of priority of business that, while the country is experiencing so many strikes, while there is unparalleled discontent with the tax system and while there are oil shortages, we should be spending time discussing a measure which all of us know will be unworkable and which in essence is ridiculous. We know that the Bill is an expedient designed to placate the rural element in the Government party. I am convinced that if the Minister had his way we would have a Bill which would at least call for more support from all sides of the House. Fianna Fáil in their election manifesto undertook to ensure a positive policy of family planning that would have the widest possible acceptance. I was a member of that administration which attempted some years ago to deal with this matter. The proposals were opposed under Whip by the then Opposition. If this Bill is a product of years of preparation it is a sad indictment of the confidence of this Government. If, as we expect, the Bill will be found not to be workable, we may assume that before long it will be contested in the courts. At least some of its provisions will be contested one way or the other.

The import of the Bill in relation to the family planning clinics has been referred to by Deputy Lemass in an interesting and courageous speech. It is regrettable that during debate on a measure of this kind, which though of great importance to everybody is of the greatest immediate importance to women, there should only be a handful of women Members here to contribute. Whatever may be the outcome of any court case concerning this Bill, in its present form it will mean the end of the family planning clinics. There is one of these clinics in my constituency. They are in other parts of the city also, but wherever they are they are providing a very valuable service. Therefore, it is only fair to ask what is to be the situation for those thousands of families who avail of these services whether by calling personally at the clinics or by having supplies posted. The postal service in particular afforded privacy to families in this area, which should be private, but a big question mark hangs over the whole future of this service.

There is no provision to make training in family planning available for the doctors who have such an important role to play if this Bill is taken seriously. The training of doctors does not equip them to give advice on contraception. There is only one recognised authority on family planning, that is, the Joint Committee on Contraception of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Ideally, doctors who are to give advice on contraception should have a certificate from that body. The only recognised training centre in the country offering that certificate is the Irish Family Planning Association. The Department of Health recognise this state of affairs to the extent that they subsidise doctors taking part in these courses. If the activities of the Irish Family Planning Association are curtailed as a result of this measure, what will happen in relation to the training which they are presently giving doctors in relation to family planning? The Bill does not provide for minimum training standards in family planning. There are no restrictions in the Bill on who may give instruction in natural methods of family planning. I believe women are entitled to the best medical advice available on this matter.

The point must also be made that the service given by the clinics is relatively cheap. The Bill proposes the additional cost of a consultation fee and prescription fee. Many people will be denied contraceptive advice because their doctors and chemists may opt out of the scheme. The Bill makes no provision whereby doctors can state publicly whether they are in or out of the scheme. Therefore, information on contraception will be difficult to obtain if the measures in this Bill are actually operated.

Hanging over the entire Bill is the threat of reference to the Supreme Court which will probably put aside many of the major premises in it following the McGee case. There is the question of what happens the entire lecturing, information and education service which is presently operated by the clinics.

I know that many of these points have been referred to in what has been a long debate and I do not intend to detain the House unduly by going over ground which has been adequately covered. However, my work as a constituency representative for more than 14 years persuades me that people must have access to contraceptives, which is a basic human right. The Bill is a compromise between the rural and urban wings of the Government. If the Minister had had his way we would have a Bill which would have met the problem more honestly and accurately.

The Bill gives doctors an impossible role in that they will be forced to make moral judgments about their patients. Before prescribing contraceptives they must be satisfied that their patients are seeking contraceptives for bona fide purposes. The Minister has already assured the House that legal consequences will not follow the advice given by doctors on contraception. However, the Minister's assurances are one thing and the legal consequences are another. Sufficient assurance has not been given to the House on the matter. The Bill leaves one with a great sense of unease. It must be asked whether this section of the Bill can be reconciled with the requirements of the judgment in the McGee case. What happens in the case of victims of broken marriages and in the case of annulments granted by the Church?

It must be emphasised that the clinics will not be able to operate after the Bill becomes law. I hope that the Minister will consider this aspect of the Bill. The point has already been raised by a woman member of his own party with a constituency similar to mine. Deputy Lemass speaks from the same experience of representing a large constituency and she has referred to the valuable work of the clinics. If the clinics close as a result of the passage of this Bill, who will deal with the large number of people who visit the clinics regularly? We are not in a position to say that we have a sufficient number of adequately trained doctors to deal with the large number of people who will have nowhere to go in future. Whether doctors' surgeries can cope with the number of people looking for contraception advice is very much in doubt.

What will happen in the case of medical card holders? There is no provision for them in the Bill. At present they can only get the pill. The Bill will make it impossible for doctors to prescribe for medical card holders any other form of contraception than the pill. As we know, there is a body of opinion which suggests that the pill may not be the best form of contraception in all cases.

A melancholy comment on the way progress occurs here is that before 1935 this debate would not have been possible because we had no legislation that needed amending in this respect. There is no evidence that society was more degenerate before 1935 than it is now. Forty-four years later we are trying to deal with a situation that was brought into being in 1935. The simplest action we could take in relation to the matter would be to repeal section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935. In other words, a return to the pre-1935 situation would probably be the simplest remedy. After such a repeal this House could deal with any abuses that might arise in its wake.

The main point in relation to the Bill is that it will mean the closing of clinics which have performed a valuable service for families in Dublin and elsewhere. Another point is that doctors will be arbitrators in public morals which is not a role they would willingly take. The Minister inevitably runs the risk of his measure being described as unworkable and ridiculous. He has done his utmost in his Department and is sincerely anxious to improve health services. He suffers the disadvantage, of course, of being a member of a Cabinet whose priorities in this matter have not exactly been demonstrated, but within the constraints of his membership of the present Government the Minister has attempted to do a reasonable job. He is dedicated to improving the health services, but his most glorious hour was not in bringing this Bill before the House.

The House must remember that the courts have already spoken on this matter in the McGee case. They will probably speak again when this Bill has been passed. We assume it will be largely unamended because there have been very few voices raised in criticism on the Government side, apart from those of Deputy Lemass and Deputy Andrews. It is significant that they represent large city constituencies in which the clinics, which are threatened by the passage of this Bill, are seen to be of assistance. These Deputies know this and my chief concern is the adverse effect of the passage of the Bill on the operation of the clinics. As a public representative, I know these clinics have been of immense service in local communities.

These are the reasons why I will oppose this Bill. I would ask the Minister once more to consider the entire matter and, perhaps, proceed no further. He should appreciate that there are features of this Bill which in the years ahead will not be cited to his credit as a hardworking Minister.

There are certain points I feel I must make in relation to this Bill. This is a piece of legislation where heads will be counted. When I became a Member of this House in 1954 one could always see which way Deputies voted because it was the practice of the daily newspapers to report this. The practice has now been stopped and probably rightly so because much of the time this information was not very relevant.

The McGee case was quoted by the Minister in his opening speech and this Bill perpetuates the situation which the McGee case produced. It is legal under this Bill to take into the country contraceptives for one's own use and, as I understand it, that was the conclusion of the reserve judgment in the McGee case.

There is also the danger of not drawing an absolutely clear line between contraception and abortion. I have no doubt that abortion is murder. As a layman, I have seen photographs of the foetus and no person has the right to do away with a living being. When conception takes place another living being is extant. Being in the position of having a free vote on this Bill, I have to ask whether there can be a grey area between contraception and abortion. I fear there can. There are some things which might be described by some medical people as abortifacients and by others as contraceptives. There is a device used which may allow conception to take place but which makes it impossible for development to take place in the womb. This is an example of the grey area which is so important. I will deal later with the reasons for the Bill which, perhaps, are valid.

One finds in the interpretation section of the Bill a definition of "contraceptive", and definitions of dispensing chemists and druggists, family planning services, pharmaceutical chemists, registered medical practitioners and the word "sell", but there is no definition of the family. Section 4 (1) (b) (ii) states:

the person to whom the contraceptives are sold is named in a prescription or authorisation in writing for the contraceptives of a registered medical practitioner and is a person who, in the opinion of the practitioner formed at the time of the giving of the prescription or authorisation, sought the contraceptives for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances and the prescription or authorisation bears an indication that it is given for the purposes of this Act, or

A girl aged about 20 may go to a doctor and say she is not married but is cohabiting with her boyfriend and wants contraceptives. She may say that they constitute a family unit but that they do not want any children yet and, therefore, she seeks a prescription for contraceptives from the doctor. How does the definition apply in such a case? If she were my daughter how would I feel? What is the position in relation to doctors of different creeds and faiths. In the town I come from, which has a population of 20,000, would a doctor who had been honourably raised with a certain creed and faith take a different view from a doctor who had been honourably raised with another creed and faith? Such a situation would occur. In a town where everybody knows everybody else, would not those who want contraceptives go to the doctor whom they knew would give a prescription? In the circumstances I speak about, Newry is only three-quarters of an hour away and anybody could hitchhike there to purchase whatever he required. That does not apply to the whole of Ireland.

There is an aching void in that there is no definition of family. The Minister intends to put the onus on the unfortunate general practitioner. I do not think many people would see a consultant on this matter. The general practitioners must decide whether a request for contraceptives is based on valid family planning reasons. To me that is extremely odd. It shows a great weakness in this Bill which turns me away from voting for it, even though I have a free vote if I so wish.

What is the prima facie case for this Bill? It did not arrive in the House as the brainchild of the Minister. There were many requests for it and many lobbies. This matter should be argued from the point of view of how we all consider it and how we have assessed the situation. The prima facie case for the Bill is the non-availability of contraceptives to people in the poorer brackets in certain cases where they are direly needed.

I was in Kerry a few years ago when the previous Bill was being considered. I was speaking to a middle-aged lady who was the proprietoress of the establishment in which we were staying. She instanced a case to me and my wife of an unfortunate farm labourer's wife who had 12 children. She was living out in the back of the bog, so to speak, and her husband did not take any account of her failing health and was quite prepared for her to have another 12 children. The proprietoress of the establishment in which we were staying said she sent all the food and clothing she could to this woman and tried to do everything she could for her. She asked should she not have access to some form of contraception. My answer is: "Yes, I think she should."

If young people in Dundalk and Drogheda want to get these things, they hitchhike to Newry and buy them. There is no question of their not being available in that town. It would be far cheaper for them to drive across the Border and buy them than it will be to go to a doctor and get a prescription under this Bill. The prima facie case for the Bill is not that of the person earning a decent wage but the lady I described in Kerry who received sincere pity and help from another person of her own sex.

I agree with Deputy White that this is a half-baked Bill and that it only goes half way. The Minister should define "family" in the Bill if he wants it to be a Family Planning Bill. Otherwise he should say each citizen shall or shall not have availability. What were Fianna Fáil doing in introducing this half-baked Bill? They were trying to provide an aura of liberalisation and fair play and to get away from the insistent lobbies who were making life intolerable for them. Family Planning clinics are flourishing in Dublin since the McGee case and there is another lobby to get them closed. Fianna Fáil thought this would be a way to get out from under all this political clout. In the immortal words of the late General Seán MacEoin, they wanted to avoid a belt of a crosier.

I see the prima facie case I have mentioned. I also see the danger of abortion. As I said, abortion is murder. It does not matter whether it takes place one instant after conception or weeks or months after conception: it is murder.

Hear, hear.

No person has the right to take the life of another. The living foetus is a human person. I see the Minister's dilemma in attempting to prepare this Bill. Apart from the fact that I have bounced off him politically now and again, and he off me, he knows I have a considerable regard for him and for his abilities. I know this matter might never have been faced up to by other Ministers, but he did not face up to it fully. He did not produce something which might make his party unpopular but which would be fairer and better.

On balance I have decided what I will do. I will vote against the Bill, bearing in mind the sad case to which I referred where there is a need, also bearing in mind the non-definition of "family" and what can happen in every town in Ireland to young people who in my view would only have to tell certain doctors they were cohabiting and were therefore a family, and also bearing in mind the grey area of abortion.

I once read of an artist who painted a picture. He wished to find out what the public thought about his talent and his painting and he placed it in the market square. Beside it he put a brush and a tin of black paint and a notice asking any member of the public who did not like any element of the picture to put a black stroke through it. Lo and behold, a day later his entire picture had been blacked out. With the teacht anair most artists have, he painted the picture again and put it in the same market place and put the same brush and tin of black paint beside it. The notice this time asked members of the general public who particularly liked some element or aspect of the painting to put a black stroke through it. Of course, the following morning again the entire painting was blacked out.

I am afraid this Bill is very much in the position of that painting. There is hardly anybody in this House, or indeed in the country, who does not dislike the legislation or some element of it for entirely different reasons. I listened with great care and attention to the whole debate and I find that the views of the different Members of the House are so varied and so different that it is utterly and totally impossible to conceive of any Bill I could bring into the House which would receive universal approval.

The House is simply reflecting the views of the community it represents. This is an issue on which an infinite variety of views are sincerely and positively held by different people. I indicated that although that was the position when I introduced the Bill—and having listened to the debate I am convinced that that is so—there are in this House Deputies who can find reason for voting against this Bill no matter what their views on contraception and family planning may be. I am not interested at this stage in scoring political debating points about the legislation——

The Minister never is.

——but as I listened to the debate I was sorely tempted from time to time to defend myself, my motives and the party in bringing in the legislation. As I listened to the debate unfolding I came to the conclusion that Deputies making contributions were motivated by a variety of different objectives. Some of them presented their views sincerely; others expressed the views that they felt they should express and that people would like to hear from them. I am afraid there were others who were quite cynical in their approach. I would like to deal briefly in substance with points which were made in the course of the debate.

The first aspect of the debate that I would like to deal with is the approach of the Fine Gael Party and the suggestion put forward by the spokesman on Health in the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Boland. He suggested that we should take the Bill away and set up now an all-party committee who would reach a consensus and on the basis of that consensus we could then bring in legislation which would be agreed unanimously. That would be an attractive proposition for me to adopt if it were even remotely feasible, but I think Deputy Boland on reflection would accept that it is not. In fact, the establishing of such a committee would mean simply that we would be postponing the whole matter until some future unspecified date and that there would be no more possibility even then of securing unanimous agreement on what we would propose. First of all, any such committee would have to be representative of the Fine Gael Party, apart from being representative of the House as a whole. I want to have a brief look at the different points of view of the Members of the Fine Gael Party which were put forward to show that any such all-party committee arriving at a consensus is not a practical proposition.

First of all, let me mention Deputy O. J. Flanagan, who put forward, with great conviction and at some length, his views. I do not want to summarise them unfairly, but his view in general is that contraception is bad, an evil thing, and therefore we should not at all legislate in any way for the legalising of contraceptives. He was followed by Deputy Clinton, a man for whom I have great respect and admiration as a very sincere man. He gave expression very concisely to his viewpoint, which was different from that of Deputy Flanagan. His viewpoint was that married persons had the right and should be entitled to have access to contraceptives if they so wish, but in order to do that—to make contraceptives available to married persons—he would have to make them universally available. He could not see any way in which they could be made available to married persons and not to the population as a whole, and therefore he was against making them available to anybody. I think that is a fair summary of his point of view. Then we had Deputy Kelly, who had a completely diametrically opposite approach.

His point of view, which was fairly simple and straightforward, was that all we needed to do on this occasion was to repeal section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935. That proposition is very simply stated, but when you look at what it means it does not disclose such a simple proposition at all. The simple repeal of that section 17 would mean that artificial contraceptives would be universally available without limitation or control to every person in our community.

I will take those three Deputies as having spoken very clearly and honestly in giving us their views on this matter. You can see within the compass of those three speeches three completely different approaches to this problem. Then Deputy White, who has just spoken, approached the matter differently again. I do not want to delay too long on this aspect of the debate, but I say that the speeches from the Fine Gael benches in particular indicate quite clearly that there is no possibility of making any progress with the sort of all-party committee which Deputy Boland has put forward.

I come back to Deputy Kelly's proposition, because examination of it is fairly basic to this whole debate. His is the simple approach of repealing the offending section in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, and throwing the floodgates wide open. I know that consistency is stated by somebody to be the hobgoblin of small minds but, even allowing for that, Deputy Kelly's approach to this legislation is completely incomprehensible. The divergence between his stance on this occasion and his total commitment at the time to the provisions of the Coalition Bill cannot be looked on as any sort of reasonable evolution or modification of a point of view, no matter how vast the range and scope of the mind and no matter how total its rejection of consistency being the hobgoblin may be. Deputy Kelly now advocates the simple repeal of section 17. Of course, as I have already pointed out, that means that contraception of all sorts without any supervision will be universally available to young and old without limitation of any sort.

That is in stark contrast with Deputy Kelly's activities on the last occasion that this matter was before the House. On that occasion not alone did he vote for the Coalition proposals, which are quite stringent, restrictive and limited, but he actually worked hard and assiduously to have them passed. I and many others in the House remember his dedicated efforts to whip up support for the Bill among the Coalition parties. I remember seeing him physically practically compel the unfortunate Deputy Joan Burke into voting for the Coalition Bill. The unfortunate Deputy voted against it thinking she was doing the right thing by her party. But she did it because she was practically compelled, certainly persuaded to do so, by Deputy John Kelly. I cannot for the life of me see how he can reconcile his activities as Chief Whip for the Coalition with his condemnation of this Bill and his now apparent advocacy of total, unlimited, universal availability of contraceptives.

How can the Minister reconcile his statement with his assertion that he was not going to make political points?

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Nor I the Minister when he was starting.

Another aspect, raised by Deputy Browne in particular, was the accusation that this is a sectarian measure. I want to reject that. I think Deputy Browne does not understand the views of the majority of the churches in this country when he says that—the implication is in what he says, and indeed the implication was in some other contributions—the restrictive provisions in this Bill were inserted to meet the wishes of the majority.

I have to be careful in what I say because I do not want to disclose to any extent views given to me in great confidence, in a very responsible manner, but I can assure the House that what is in this Bill is far more in keeping with the views of the majority of the churches in this country than the approach of Deputy Browne. I know from my own certain, personal knowledge that the majority of churches in this country turn away from making contraceptives generally available without any restriction whatsoever. I think I would be right in saying that the majority of the churches, as churches, and that the vast, overwhelming majority of church-going people would favour the making available of contraceptives to married persons under very strict limitation and control. I say that, not again I hope in any political sense but just disclosing to this House the situation as I have found it. I want to make this plan—and I do not want to make it in any spirit of arrogance or self opinion—that by now I think I am better informed on this issue than any other individual Member in this House. I think I now have a better understanding, a better knowledge of what the vast majority of people in this country think about contraception and indeed what is the greatest majority of responsible opinion on this issue because——

Is the Minister dealing with the natural as opposed to the unnatural method?

I will come to that. I make that claim because, no matter what anybody may say about this Bill, they must admit that I have been patient and assiduous in endeavouring to listen to people's views. I went through a long process of listening, consulting and getting advice. I have also listened to this debate very carefully. In this House I have heard what every Deputy had to say. Most Deputies who have spoken have not listened to what other Deputies have had to say. But by now I have a fairly comprehensive picture of what the view is.

Again I want to reassure the House that in my view the proposals in this Bill —vote them how you will—represent something which is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of responsible people in the community. I want to give it as my view that the overwhelming majority of people in this country——

The thirty-two counties.

——think that contraceptives should be made available under control and with certain restrictions. I think there would be no majority at all for a view which said that contraceptives should not be made available under any circumstances. I think quite a large majority of people believe that contraceptives should be made available for genuine family planning purposes. Also I am certain—and I know this—there is no majority whatsoever for a viewpoint which would suggest that contraceptives should be made universally available to all sections of the community without any control or limitation. They are the two things of which I am certain, having listened carefully for a long time to a great variety of views. Once one accepts that contraceptives should be made available, must be made available for whatever reason, once one accepts that there should be control, limitation and restriction, then inevitably one is driven to the proposals in this Bill or something like them.

I think also that Deputies who are interested should give the Government credit for placing this matter firmly in the context of family planning because I think that is what the majority of ordinary men and women think about this; they think that it is legitimate, right and lawful to make contraceptives available for genuine family planning purposes. If there is to be control, restriction or limitation, as I believe the people want, then one has got to vest that control, restriction and limitation somewhere and ask oneself: where is one going to vest it? In whom is one going to vest it—in the Garda, or to what other body of persons would one entrust the administration of the limitations and restrictions which the vast majority of people want? Surely if there has to be some control and some limitation the sensible approach is to ask the medical profession to take on the role and responsibility of family planning and, in that context, to be the people who will control and limit the availability of contraceptives.

The arguments are overwhelming for that approach. Once one comes to look at this situation, in any sort of depth and with any sense of responsibility, inevitably one is led, step by step, to what is in this Bill. First of all, whether it is the Supreme Court case or whether it is a social need makes one decide, there is a necessity to make contraceptives available. The second stage in one's line of thought must be that they cannot be made universally available. Nobody wants a slot machine, huckster shop situation in so far as contraceptives are concerned. We have to have some limitation and restriction. Therefore the next step in one's line of thinking is—if they have to be made available and if there has to be some limitation—is not the right thing to do to make them available only in a family planning context and are not the right people to handle family planning and deal with family planning the family doctors?

And the Customs officials.

Deputy Browne can be smart aleck if he likes, but I do not think he need try to be a smart aleck about this; I do not think it is necessary. Deputy Barry Desmond made an amusing speech about Customs officers being embarrased, going through people's luggage and so on. I do not think that gets us anywhere. I am trying to explain to the House my reasoning for this legislation and the inevitable logical steps which led me to propose what is before the House.

Many Deputies rightly spoke about the need for training and education. I accept that fully. It is perhaps the most important aspect of this matter. The availability of contraceptives is a relatively minor matter in so far as family planning is concerned. What we need, more than anything else, is a corps of skilled trained people to help couples plan their families and to approach the planning of their families in a sensible and responsible way. I am accepting that responsibility. I accept that once this legislation is passed it will be my responsibility to set up a suitable and adequate family planning service. Deputies also pointed out, correctly, that we must begin with the family doctor, many of whom already provide a first class family planning service.

One of the best pieces of encouragement I got in this whole laborious and unrewarding process of introducing this legislation was from a woman family doctor who has a large general practice in rural Ireland. She welcomed the Bill and indicated to me that it was exactly what she, as a professional person, had been waiting for. She did not anticipate any problems in administering it. That was a great endorsement for me of the proposals in the Bill.

We are all aware that the ordinary GP is hard-pressed and that it takes him all his time to keep up with the pressures of his practice and look after his patients to the best of his ability. We must have facilities for such doctors to enable them to provide a family planning service for their patients. A start is being made, as Deputy O'Leary mentioned, by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners by establishing a joint committee to formulate a training programme for Irish doctors. That is a beginning but there is a need for a great programme in this area. I accept that the Minister for Health, and the Department, will have earnestly and actively to engage in the provision of a family plan ning service for the community as a natural follow-up to the Bill.

Deputy Browne asked me to speak about natural and unnatural family planning services. However, the Bill does not mention anything about unnatural family planning and I would not recognise such a term.

It does, by implication.

What is unnatural family planning?

Abstention.

We must recognise that a large number of married people in our community wish to have family planning available to them but abhor artificial contraceptives. For those people natural family planning methods—family planning which does not involve the use of artificial contraceptives—offer a solution to this dilemma. It is no good dismissing them as obscurantist or uneducated or by any perjorative word of that type. A large number of married people in our community wish to limit the size of their families, space the births, but do not wish to have recourse to artificial contraceptives. The Bill is right when it directs attention to the need for a natural family planning service and places an obligation on the Minister to meet the wishes and needs of that section of our community.

What about the other sections?

I will deal with them in a moment. Before I leave the question of natural family planning I should like to state that there has been some controversy recently about the effectiveness or otherwise of different natural family planning methods. I have planned to hold in Dublin later this year an international seminar, of a highly scientific quality and in co-operation with the World Health Organisation, on natural family planning so that we can hear the latest position from the greatest international authorities available on natural family planning and natural family planning methods.

Deputy Browne asked me about family planning which involves artificial contraceptives. I propose to make instruction and education available in that area also. A number of people have criticised the fact that the Bill provides that money be made available for research for natural family planning and asked why funds cannot be provided for research into family planning which involves artificial contraceptives. The reason is that I do not need to. I am assured that the different research bodies have complete authority, jurisdiction and facilities to carry out any research needed into methods other than natural family planning methods. It was because there might be some doubt as to whether natural family planning could be described as medical research—some people might say it is not—that I deemed it prudent to put in this special provision governing the making available of funds for natural family planning research. There is nothing more sinister in it than that.

I reject the suggestion put forward that the Bill is being introduced to meet the political needs of the Fianna Fáil Party. I should like to assure the House that that is not so. As part of our election programme we undertook to legislate for this area. In our election manifesto we undertook to seek the broadest spectrum of views to try to get the widest possible consensus and, on the basis of that consensus, to legislate. The argument that we have to legislate is unanswerable. Whether or not we approach it from the point of view of the Supreme Court decision which has created a very unsatisfactory situation or whether we approach the issue from the point of view of the social needs of the community the case for some legislation by the Oireachtas is unanswerable. I have no time for the people who put their heads in the sand and say that they do not want legislation under any circumstances. That is not a mature or responsible position to adopt. The one argument I have no time at all for, one which is hideously self-denigatory, is the idea that by legislating for this we are making a laughing stock of ourselves in the eyes of the outside world. The outside world has plenty of problems of its own and I do not believe for one moment that the people in France, Germany, Britain, America or anywhere else are watching Ireland day by day to see if by attempting to deal with our problems in our own way we are doing something which they regard as hilariously funny. Any sophisticated people in any country can look at particular things in other countries, their life styles, habits and attitudes and find them funny. We should not pay the slightest attention to this argument that people outside this country are watching us and finding what we do amusing and, therefore, we should not attempt to deal with things as we see them in case we might attract some outside amusement. Other countries have plenty of problems of their own and it takes them all their time to deal with them. Our obligation is to look at our community, our beliefs, our traditions, our sense of values and try to deal with out problems in the light of our concepts.

To the exclusion of the Six Counties.

I do not exclude the Six Counties. I probably know as much if not a great deal more, about the feeling of ordinary men and women in the Six Counties as Deputy Browne or any other Deputy in the House. My roots are in the Six Counties. At one time I had 52 first cousins living in the Six Counties. I have a fair idea of what the ordinary men and women in the Six Counties believe in. If it were left to them as ordinary residents of the Six Counties I believe that what is proposed in this Bill would be fairly acceptable to them. Of course, they are not left to decide for themselves and have to accept what others ordain they should accept.

I have tried to deal with this problem as honestly as I can. I knew I would attract a great deal of personal animosity and attack. That is inevitible in the case of anybody who seeks to legislate in this sensitive, emotional area, this area in which so many different views are so passionately and sincerely held by so many people. I have endeavoured to ascertain what is acceptable as reasonable to the overwhelming majority of the people in the country. I believe I have succeeded in doing that.

I want to deal with one argument which I omitted to deal with earlier on, that is the people who say: "Forget about the McGee case, do not legislate; have a constitutional referendum." That is an impossible proposition. The people who put forward that proposition do not realise that the judgment in the McGee case flows straight from the family Articles in the Constitution. The McGee court decision is based on the provisions which our Constitution makes for the family. It is because of those family provisions that the Supreme Court decided that artificial contraceptives should be made reasonably available for the purpose of the family. It is in line with that decision that the proposals I am putting before the House are framed in the way they are.

I do not believe that there is any proposal that we could put to the people by a constitutional referendum which, if it were to meet the wishes of those who say we should not legislate, would not detract from the value of the family provisions in the Constitution. I am leaving aside the question of whether or not any constitutional referendum along the lines those people suggest would be passed. I doubt that it would from my assessment of public opinion in this matter. If we set out to frame a proposal for a constitutional referendum to put to the people to modify the family provisions of the Constitution I do not believe we could possibly do so without seriously detracting from the protection which those Articles of the Constitution afford to the family. I do not believe that the people who have that outlook would really want to do that if they went into the matter carefully enough. I believe that the suggestion that we could deal with this problem by way of some constitutional referendum is not a possibility.

I believe, no matter how one examines this issue and goes into it from any point of view one likes and no matter where one starts, that, if one wants to deal with it in a responsible and mature way which meets the needs of the situation and at the same time does not offend the views of the overwhelming majority of the people in the country, then one comes up with some sort of proposals of the type we have here.

I know that Deputy Browne takes a very personal interest in those matters and that he would be totally dissatisfied with those proposals because he would wish to have a much more liberal approach and have artificial contraceptives universally available. I ask him to accept that that is not acceptable, no matter how desirable he might think it might be. No matter how committed to that viewpoint he or any other Deputy in the House might be, that is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people in the country.

In this part of the country.

Unfortunately I can only legislate for this part of the country. I would like to be legislating for all the 32 counties but even allowing for that I believe that what is proposed here would be by and large acceptable to them as a reasonable solution to this emotive, difficult and sensitive problem.

The Minister said he would be prepared to answer questions. Does he propose to charge medical card holders for contraceptive appliances under this Bill?

And visits to the doctor.

Visits to the doctor by medical card holders will not attract any fee. That will be part of the general medical services. In so far as a doctor prescribes a contraceptive for the purposes of this Bill the person will have to pay for that contraceptive but if the doctor prescribes it for medical reasons then it comes under the ordinary general medical services and it is free.

That is retrograde.

Can the Minister give any indication whether or not he intends to modify the Bill in regard to the provisions relating to the clinics which operate at present?

If the Deputy puts down an amendment we will consider it.

I asked——

I put forward a Bill and I have no amendment in view except——

These matters can be raised on Committee Stage.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 49.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South- Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Donoghue, Martin.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Browne, Noël.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John F.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Lipper, Mick.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Where are the 84 seats now?

Order, please.

People do not vote like that.

Where are the 84 seats now?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8 May 1979.
Top
Share