Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1979

Vol. 315 No. 2

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

Question again proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Horgan

I have been absent for the earlier part of the discussion on this section and, consequently, I am not aware whether the Minister has replied yet to one criticism that may be levelled against the section, that is, that the effect of section 5 is to prohibit the importation of contraceptives by post. If I read the situation correctly, if this section is passed in the form in which it appears now or in any form that is likely to be acceptable to the Minister, it will be illegal for anybody to import contraceptive materials by post.

The House will be aware that the original court case, which provoked not only this legislation but the legislation proposed by the Coalition, was a court case on foot of which a married woman challenged the validity of the existing legislation because it prevented her from importing by post contraceptive materials for her personal use. The Supreme Court held that the effect of this was to deprive her of reasonable access to the means of family planning. We now have a Bill which, subject to very severe penalties, effectively outlaws any exercise of the same option by an individual citizen, regardless of whether he or she is married.

No doubt it would be argued from the ministerial side that the Bill meets the desire of the Supreme Court that any married person who wishes to have access to the means of family planning will have those needs met but it is at least arguable—and this may be challenged in the Supreme Court if the Bill is passed—that it is open to any married person, and we will take the case of the married person for the purpose of the argument, to say that the provisions of this Bill are not reasonable because at the very least they involve a visit to a medical practitioner and also the payment of a prescription fee to a pharmacist. Therefore it could be argued that to that person's way of thinking reasonable access might mean access by post from a supplier either in Ireland or elsewhere.

The question of access by post from a supplier in Ireland has been dealt with presumably in the previous section, but we are talking now about a married person who wishes to import contraceptive materials for his or her own use but who may not do so legally despite the fact that that person might consider this means of obtaining contraceptives to be more reasonable because it would be substantially less expensive than the procedure envisaged by the Minister.

The question that must be asked is whether this section in its present form flouts the manifest intention of the Supreme Court in relation to reasonable access to methods of family planning. The Minister may say that it is for private individuals to take a case to the Supreme Court and that naturally the State as a whole and the administrators of the family planning services would be bound by any decision that might be taken by the Supreme Court in this area but I have come to the conclusion that, while this section is based on an expressed desire to change the legislation in order to bring it into line with the Supreme Court decision, it goes against the whole spirit of that decision. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this interpretation of the section.

Dr. Browne

As was the case in respect of most of the sections we have dealt with so far, the Minister's approach to this section has been lighthearted despite the many apparent pitfalls, weaknesses, contradictions, inconsistencies and uncertainties that have been pointed out to him during the course of the debate. To coin a phrase, the general attitude he seems to adopt is that "it will be all right on the night." This approach applies to this section in relation to the unfortunate customs official having to ask people coming into the country to declare whatever contraceptives they may have. To clarify a question raised by Deputy O'Connell, can the Minister tell us whether men coming into the country must declare whether they have condoms and whether women must declare whether they have caps, spermicides or IUD's or the pill? If this is to be the case will it be a matter then for the customs official to decide whether it is permissible for someone to bring in an IUD, a cap or spermicides. Is Deputy Dr. O'Connell correct in presuming that at the various inlets to the State there are to be notices explaining what is permissible in respect of the different kinds of contraceptives and how many are permissible? Are we to have a situation in this respect similar to that which applies to the number of bottles of whisky or the number of cigarettes one is allowed bring in? Are various types of contraceptives to be added to the list of prohibited articles so far as foreign visitors are concerned?

I am shocked to think that a customs official, a civil servant, should have to ask these appallingly impertinent questions when confronted with a visitor to our country. The possibilities arising from an official having to ask a man how many contraceptives he intends to use or to ask a woman whether any contraceptive she may have is for her own use are unlimited in terms of satirical reviews throughout Europe at our expense.

Mr. Horgan

Unlike the quantity, which will be limited.

Dr. Browne

Yes. I am unable to cope with such an outrageous proposal. The Minister is faced with this dilemma arising out of section 4 and the limits imposed in that section on our citizens. In relation to our citizens I would like the position clarified. On 15 May 1979 the Minister is reported in the Official Report, column 630, Volume 314, as saying:

I want to be clear. There must be prescriptions for all forms of artificial contraception. Agree or disagree with the Bill, that is what is in it.

Is that to be so? How is this to be enforced? An Irish citizen could be in two positions, (1) he has bought contraceptives under prescription here in accordance with section 4, (2) he leaves the country and comes back again with some of these contraceptives still in his possession. What is the situation then? Is the customs officer to ask the lady or the man, "Did you come by these things legitimately?" There are, as Deputy Horgan said, frightfully heavy penalties —crazy penalties really considering the microscopic nature of the offences—for breaking the law. If somebody goes out of the country and, having a number of condoms left over after being abroad for a week or so, comes back in again, how does he explain his bona fides to the customs officer? Does he have to show the customs official his prescription from his doctor legitimising his possession of these articles because that establishes that he bought them in Ireland—in the Republic? I have to discriminate there between the Republic and the Six Counties because, quite obviously, this is very much a two-nation State.

Further, if the person goes abroad and while abroad in the US, France, Germany, anywhere, he purchases some condoms, or she purchases an IUD, caps, spermicides or pills, what is the position about the Irish citizen coming back by Aer Lingus through Collinstown or through the boat entry points? What does he or she have to say to the customs official? Can he simply come in again with the contraceptives? Must he declare that he has these contraceptives? It is an offence to have them because, as the Minister says, there must be prescriptions for all forms of artificial contraceptives. If this man comes in through a customs post and has a number of artificial contraceptives and he has no prescription, what happens then?

Mr. Haughey

He is taken out and shot.

Dr. Browne

That would not surprise me in the slightest. The level of hysteria running through the whole of this——

Mr. Haughey

The only hysterical person around here is the Deputy.

Dr. Browne

The level of hysteria running through the whole of this Bill is outrageous. Freud says that we never joke, all our jokes are made seriously. Presumably we have had a little of the unconscious or subconscious thinking of the Minister when he gave vent to that particularly vicious comment. However, "Taken out and shot" is one proposal for the Minister for Health simply because a person attempts to come into the country with a condom and without a prescription for a condom. I must be careful and that is presumably an exaggeration.

Mr. Mitchell

The Ayatollah Haughey.

Dr. Browne

Since it is not included in the Bill I must assume simply that a customs official has to warn the person coming in that he is subject to the draconian fines of the later sections of the Bill if he has not a prescription and is in possession of these dangerous substances. It is the Minister who is creating the ridiculous situation by making these into such frightening substances. Look at the measures he is taking to prevent people being in possession of them without the permission of a doctor. There is provision for six months imprisonment, £500 fine and so on. Is the hysteria not there in these extraordinary penalties to be imposed on responsible citizens who decide that they will space their families by using artificial contraceptives?

What is the position for an Irish citizen when he has these contraceptives which he has bought in the US, Britain, France or somewhere like that? At the point of entry must he request an appointment with a doctor and must he consult with the doctor and say that he is in this difficult position where he has these things without a prescription and the Minister for Health has said in the Dáil that there must be prescriptions for all forms of artificial contraceptives? What does he do then? Are we going to lay on a medical presence at all the ports of entry so that our incoming citizens can legitimise any contraceptives that they may have in their possession when coming into the country? On the other hand, it is possible that they may not have to do this, in which case they are in possession of contraceptives without prescription and therefore, it would seem, in breach of the law.

At what stage can one say, "I brought them in last week"? If a garda approaches you and says that he is going to charge you with unlawful possession of contraceptives—a man with a condom or a lady with an IUD or a cap—will the defence be, "You need not worry about it, I got it when I was abroad last week. Therefore, this provision of necessity for prescription in respect of all contraceptives does not apply to me"? This is the decision which the Minister is going to leave to the customs official, unless it is his intention to ensure that the customs official will take on the role of the medical doctor. If that official can satisfy himself that the person has these contraceptives for bona fide family planning reasons as laid down in section 4 can he then wave him on and say, “You are acceptable”?

When you come into the Republic you are, in quotes, a black Protestant coming down from the North, and you are faced with the dilemma of declaring your contraceptives. A lady has to declare her contraceptives. That is bad enough if it only emphasises the profound, fundamental unbridgeable gap between the two nations, but what happens to such people if during their stay they run out of contraceptives? Must they go through the section 5 procedure, go to a doctor and not only say: "I want to limit my family, I live in Belfast, I want contraceptives—please give me some", but also listen to a lecture on the whole question of what Deputy Flanagan calls the natural family planning system of contraception?

If the Minister tells us that an Irish citizen can come in and with contraceptives he has bought abroad, surely we are discriminating between two kinds of citizens, the one who can afford to go out and the one who cannot. Article 40 of the Constitution lays down the inalienable rights of the citizens, of citizens being treated equally before the law. Surely, therefore, there is a defect in this section. Would the Minister be good enough to reply to this point, particularly the question of whether there must be a declaration, and what it will contain?

Mr. Mitchell

It must be clear to the Minister that this section is unworkable, to say the least. There are three major bodies of opinion on this matter, those who want very strict control, those who want little or no control and those who want reasonable control. None of them will be pleased with this section. It is clearly one that should be reconsidered by the Minister. If our parliamentary system was a little more open we would not have Ministers—I do not refer to any one Government—bringing legislation here and refusing to change a dot or a comma. If there was a proper approach to this Bill this section would have been re-written. Subsection (1) (a) states:

A person shall not import contraceptives into the State unless—

(a) they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State and their quantity is not such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use, or

Supposing a person makes a trip to England and brings back a year's supply of contraceptives, who is to say whether it is a quantity sufficient or in excess of what he needs for his own use? It is clearly nonsense. A person could go to England every day and bring back a year's supply from England where they are freely available.

Dr. Browne

He can go across the Border.

Mr. Mitchell

That is much easier.

Dr. Browne

He could go back and forth.

Mr. Mitchell

If the Minister were reasonably practical——

Mr. Haughey

What does the Deputy propose?

Mr. Mitchell

A long time ago we proposed the setting up of a Select Committee, all-party, to draft a Bill. It is not too late.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Deputy tell me what he would propose in relation to this section? Do not be dodging the issue.

Dr. Browne

Amend section 17.

Mr. Haughey

Fine Gael would not accept that.

Dr. Browne

Deputy Kelly proposed it.

Mr. Haughey

The party would not support it.

Dr. Browne

The Minister has a majority of 20—take a chance on it.

Mr. Haughey

I will not take a chance on it because I do not think it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Mitchell

Take out subsection (1) (a).

Mr. Haughey

Will the Deputy tell me what he wants me to do?

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister is not unintelligent and it must be clear to him that the subsection is unworkable and therefore should not be in the legislation.

Mr. Haughey

It is the law.

Mr. Mitchell

That law is an ass and the Minister proposes to repeat it.

Mr. Haughey

It has been the law for ten years. Would the Deputy tell me what he wants me to do?

Mr. Mitchell

I want a Select Committee.

Mr. Haughey

That is only bluff and rubbish. Would the Deputy put Deputy Oliver Flanagan on the committee?

Mr. Mitchell

And Deputy Gibbons.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with section 5, and nothing else.

Mr. Mitchell

A person could travel backwards and forwards several times a day and bring in a year's supply each time. It is absurd to say that a customs officer will be able to judge whether he has more than sufficient for his individual use.

Mr. Calleary

Is the Deputy trying to tell us that it is his intention——

Mr. Mitchell

Is the Deputy about to make his maiden speech?

Mr. Calleary

I will be making speeches a long time after the Deputy has gone.

Mr. Mitchell

Not if last week's results continue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A Deputy's maiden speech or last week's results have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell

I am getting very poor protection from the Chair. Is the Minister serious in putting forward this subsection?

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy want me to delete it?

Mr. Mitchell

I want the Minister to re-write the whole thing. Deputies Browne and O'Connell earlier asked the Minister not to make us the laughing stock of the world by putting up notices at ports of entry telling people that they can bring in only so many contraceptives. The Minister must know that is absurd, that it reduces legislation to worse than a farce. I am appealing to him to look again at the subsection. Paragraph (b) relates to a servant or agent acting for a person. It is clearly the same category as section 1 (a).

The Minister is proposing to give himself authority to make conditions for the issuing of licences. Is it wise that the Minister should have such unfettered authority? Perhaps such a condition should be subject to a regulation which would be open to annulment by the House. In my view section 5 is farcical and unworkable. It is clearly deemed to give the impression that there will be control. We are forcing ourselves to put up farcical notices at our ports of entry which will make us a laughing stock. I appeal to the Minister to completely review the section.

Mr. Haughey

One of my problems in this debate is to know exactly where Fine Gael stand. They want to try to procure all the possible political parliamentary advantage they can from opposing this measure but at the same time they do not have the political courage to say what they want me to do. At least I know what Deputy Browne wants, he wants completely limitless availability of artificial contraceptives. However, Fine Gael on every section oppose it, ridicule it and resort to the argument of reductio ad absurdum, but at the same time have not put forward any single proposal which they want adopted and incorporated in the Bill. The suggestion of an all-party Committee is farcical and Members putting forward that suggestion know it is farcical. There is no way one can devise any all-party Committee of the House which would represent Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Dr. Browne and the bulk of opinion in Fianna Fáil. I would be grateful if Deputies would stop being hypocritical about that and forget about it. It is not a serious proposal.

I should like to apologise for, perhaps, irascible interventions on my part. I want to deal with the arguments put forward by Deputies as sensibly as I can and if I occasionally give way to impatient outbursts I hope the House will forgive me for doing so and understand that that is not the way I want this Bill approached or dealt with. The principle of the Bill is clear and I must mention it again for the purpose of explaining why section 5 is included. The simple principle on which the Bill is founded is that because of a decision of the Supreme Court we must make artificial contraceptives reasonably available to married couples. I accept that constitutional obligation which was placed upon us.

I believe I represent the majority of sensible and mature thinking people when I say that in making artificial contraceptives available for family planning purposes we do not wish to make them universally available without let or hindrance to anybody who wants them under any circumstances, whether they are young, old or single. The Bill is founded on the principle of making artificial contraceptives reasonably accessible for family planning purposes to families. The provisions of section 5 are in pursuance of that objective. We have decided that the availability that is necessary and must be provided is an availability through pharmacies on doctors' prescription. That principle has been accepted by the House as the founding principle of the Bill and, therefore, we must have section 5 to ensure that artificial contraceptives are made available only through licensed channels to pharmacists who would supply them on prescription.

It is no good railing about that or trying to ridicule it because that principle has been accepted by the House. Section 5 is simply a mechanism for giving effect to that principle. I am surprised that Deputies who purport to be liberal in their approach object to subsection (1) and try to defeat it by ridicule. I would have thought that they might have adopted the following attitude about that: "We do not like the Bill because we think it is unduly restrictive, it is illiberal but at least there is one part of it with which we agree, the provision whereby a person can bring in artificial contraceptives for their own use." I would have thought that they would have regarded that as an acceptable concession. The attitude of those Members seems to be totally illogical.

If I did not have such a provision in the Bill Members should consider the ridicule that would then be heaped on the legislation. Pictures would be painted for me of tourists who would be prevented from bringing in artificial contraceptives for their own use. I do not particularly like the provision but it is something that, in all reasonableness, should be made. It is possible to take practically any provision in any legislation and ridicule it by inventing all sorts of hypothetical situations, but that is not the way legislation works. Legislation is put forward on as practical and sensible a basis as possible and on the implicit understanding that it will be administered and implemented in a sensible and practical sort of way. All the things that Deputies Browne, Horgan and Mitchell are saying about this provision could mutatis mutandis be applied to literally hundreds of other provisions in the customs legislation. There are all sorts of ludicrous and ridiculous situations one can invent about practically any aspect of the customs regulations.

One can visualise all sorts of impossible situations if one wants to. However, as I said earlier today, we have a trained, skilled, honest, impartial, conscientious customs service. Very often we may not like what they do and occasionally they will come in conflict with the travelling public, but I am satisfied to leave this provision to their commonsense, practical implementation. All the ludicrous and ridiculous situations that Deputies are inventing for the sake of argument are not going to arise. They have not arisen for the last ten years. Since the Supreme Court decision the law here is that a person, individual, visitor, citizen or anybody else may bring in artificial contraceptives for their own use, but they may not bring in artificial contraceptives for sale. That is the situation that applies at the moment and that situation is being continued in this section. At present it does not give rise to all the catastrophically ludicrous, laughable situations which Deputies——

Dr. Browne

Under the new situation the Minister is creating an Irish citizen must have a prescription.

Mr. Haughey

No. If any words I uttered can be twisted into that meaning, I withdraw them.

Dr. Browne

The Minister said there must be a prescription for all forms of artificial contraception.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy knows perfectly well that, if I said that in the course of discussions across the floor of the House, what I meant was that that was applicable to the sale of artificial contraceptives inside the country. We are talking about section 5 which is as clear cut as can be.

Dr. Browne

It is deliberate intervention——

Mr. Haughey

A person can bring in artificial contraceptives for sale if he has a licence to do so, but may bring in a limited quantity for personal use. That is a reasonable, sensible, practical approach to this situation. If anybody wants to put forward another way of dealing with this situation I will consider it, but I will not consider the situation which Deputy Browne wishes to bring about where there will be no control or limit on the importation of contraceptives.

Dr. Browne

Like Belfast.

Mr. Haughey

This is not Belfast.

Dr. Browne

The Minister has a point there.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Browne in the course of this debate——

Dr. Browne

They are fellow Irishmen.

Mr. Haughey

——has attempted to make this sort of distinction. I claim now—and I did it before—without any hesitation that I know the people of Northern Ireland infinitely better than Deputy Browne ever did or ever will because, as I pointed out on another occasion, I have 52 first cousins living in the North——

Dr. Browne

Completely irrelevant.

Mr. Haughey

——and I spent a great many holidays in the North when I was young. I know the people there better than most Deputies except the Northern Deputies. I know that what I am proposing in this Bill will be far more acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people in the North, Catholic, Protestant or Presbyterian, than Deputy Browne's idea on this matter.

Dr. Browne

They have no restrictions at present.

Mr. Haughey

I know that but what they have at present is forced upon them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mr. Haughey

We are spending a lot of time on this Bill and I deplore the time it is taking. I apologise to my colleagues in the party for the time it is taking to get this legislation through the House.

Dr. Browne

Apologise to the Opposition for bringing it in.

Mr. Haughey

No, I will deal with the Opposition in a moment. There is a great deal of other legislation in the pipeline which I would like to bring in, some of which Deputy Browne is as anxious to have put through this House as I am, particularly the major legislation on the treatment of mental illness. The longer I am delayed here by these repetitive arguments, the more the important legislation in the health field will be delayed.

Mr. Horgan

Give it priority.

Mr. Haughey

I am asking Deputy Browne and Deputy Horgan and those who profess the liberal faith in this House, if they do not like the Bill and would like it to be much more expansive and liberal than it is, to acknowledge that for the first time, it makes artificial contraceptives available legally for family planning purposes here. Even if it does not go as far as they want, is it not worthwhile putting some legislation on the Statute Book at long last and getting on to other matters?

Mr. Horgan

The Labour Party have been trying for eight years now——

Mr. Haughey

The Labour Party do not have support from the people for a lot of their ideas.

Mr. Mitchell

Neither do Fianna Fáil at the moment.

Mr. Haughey

Are the Deputies on the other side who are democrats not prepared to accept that what is in this Bill commends itself to the overwhelming majority of our people as a reasonable arrangement to deal with a difficult problem? Can they accept that? It may not be what they want but it is—and I know this as well as I know anything in political life because I have studied it carefully, listened to and consulted many people——

Mr. Mitchell

This is like a Second Stage speech.

Mr. Haughey

I know that what is proposed here is, generally speaking, acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. While Deputy Flanagan would have no legislation at all, and Deputy Browne would have a completely different situation, is it not possible for us to agree that what is proposed here satisfies the majority of the people, meets the constitutional requirements and is a reasonable satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. Horgan

It does not satisfy the Knights of Saint Columbanus.

Mr. Haughey

We are about to hear from them now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Knights of anything have nothing to do with this section.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We are dealing only with section 5.

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister made a Second Stage speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister broadened the debate a bit but he had good reasons because of the speeches made.

Mr. Horgan

We will not go outside the guidelines established by the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

I apologise, but when Deputies put questions to me I am entitled to reply to them.

Mr. Mitchell

We are not complaining.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister is wasting his time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan is in possession.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If there is one aspect of this legislation which needles me it is when Deputies and the Minister in the past few minutes, in reply to a provocative word from a Labour Deputy, introduced the people of Northern Ireland. There is nothing more offensive to the people of the Six Counties than to be continually associated with contraception, divorce and abortion. The majority of the people there look upon legislation on divorce, contraception and abortion with disgust and contempt. If you want to drive these people away you will do so by associating them with filth and propaganda of this kind. I have too much respect for the people of Northern Ireland than to hold them up as an example of a society which concentrates on nothing but contraception, divorce and abortion.

Mr. Horgan.

Homosexuality and a few other things.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Exactly. That is what certain Members of this House associate with the people of Northern Ireland. The greatest part of the population of Northern Ireland—not only the entire Catholic population but the vast majority of the decent, honest Protestant population—do not want to have their names dragged down in the mud in this Parliament or any other institution in this State by being held us as a reason for glorifying contraception, divorce and the other topics which the liberal section of our community delight in discussing and in advancing the interests of. The sooner we get the idea that there is a greater resentment to the terms of this legislation and everything connected with what is morally wrong the better. What is morally wrong in the Republic is morally wrong in the Six Counties. But there are liberal members in this House and perhaps there are some on both sides who do not like to hear the facts which cannot be denied and which none or them have attempted to deny. Every aspect of contraception is morally wrong and no amount of talking they can do in this House can make right what is morally wrong.

In regard to section 5 reference has been made to the customs officers and customs officials. I have the greatest admiration and respect for the customs officials who must undertake a difficult job; they are highly trained, they are specialised in their work and they are all people of the highest integrity. Otherwise they would not have been selected and hand picked by the Revenue Commissioners for this task. I do not think that there is the slightest danger of contraceptives coming into this country unless they are being brought in for the personal use of the carrier or his agent. According to the Minister the laws of this land enable them to do such. There will be no question whatever of contraceptives coming in in quantities for sale except under licence as the Minister has clearly indicated.

I want to make it clear, as I have endeavoured to do in many other speeches I have made in this House, that the terms of this Bill are too liberal for my taste. I do not believe in it and there are many other Members in this House who do not believe in it either. That is why I am sorry that this legislation has not left it to the individual conscience of each Deputy to decide in relation to this section on the importation of contraceptives.

What is wrong with a foreigner coming into this country having to seek the medical advice that would be necessary? If facilities are going to be granted for family planning I must say that the importation of contraceptives for any use is wrong. What we should do is advance and develop the natural methods of family planning and then this whole question would not arise.

Section 5 deals with the control of importation of contraceptives. The first paragraph of subsection (1) is of paramount importance. It says that a person shall not import contraceptives into the State unless they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State and their quantity is not such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use. I want to put this to the Minister. Because of our close proximity to Northern Ireland and our convenient situation in relation to the United Kingdom, it is very easy for people to import contraceptives. I will give the example of a person living in Dundalk who visits Newry once a week or once a fortnight. He could bring back one dozen condoms as part of his personal luggage—just sufficient to last until the next visit. On the other hand a Cork or Kerry cattle dealer who makes monthly sailings to Cardiff or Swansea could no doubt import two and a half dozen without the risk of seizure by the Revenue Commissioners. How can this section hope to cope with the residents in any part of County Monaghan or County Louth or the people in Lifford who can import contraceptives from Strabane. What is to stop frequent visits and ample supplies of contraceptives coming in in that manner? Also in regard to the people making frequent journeys to Cardiff or Swansea in connection with the cattle business or any other business I do not think there would be any great risk of seizure by the Revenue Commissioners.

There is nothing in this section to curtail greater importation of contraceptives and I would like to hear from the Minister as to how he or the Irish Medical Association or anyone who has a comment to make on it would hope to deal with this situation when we see that in other sections of this Bill registered medical doctors have to provide prescriptions in order that contraceptives may be obtained, but there is no question whatever of a medical prescription having to be made available to the people who frequently travel in and out of the State. How does the Minister propose to deal with circumstances of this kind? Furthermore, what steps would he take if evidence were presented to him that certain people who are travelling in and out of Northern Ireland and travelling to and from Britain were having a nice hand over by bringing in even small quantities of contraceptives illegally? Does he propose to circularise special regulations to the Revenue Commissioners and to the Customs officers in order to prevent such from happening? For the life of me I cannot see how this section is going to be effective. For that reason I cannot subscribe to it as a workable section.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister when he says that the alternative to this section is the free availability of contraceptives for all who require them. Such legislation would be disastrous to the future of our society. So long as I am in this House I hope I will be a voice to be raised strongly against it. Such would not improve the quality of our society.

As I know from experience, every section of every Bill is discussed in detail between the Minister and the officers in his Department in advance of it coming into this House. Can the Minister tell us what was the advice given to him by his officers in relation to the smuggling of contraceptives in and out of the State from the Six Counties or from Britain? As the section is framed, it is unworkable in the circumstances I have outlined. I do not know how it will be put into effect regionally.

I am all for the complete restriction and prohibition of contraceptives because I believe in the divine law and in the natural law. I should like to hear from the Minister on this in order to clear up one or two aspects of the section with which I have dealt.

Mr. Horgan

It goes against the grain but I am almost beginning to sympathise with the Minister in his predicament. He is plainly in a difficult situation and has admitted as much this afternoon. He threw it back across the floor of the House in his last interjection and said that he might expect the liberals on these benches, as he termed people without identifying them too closely, while disagreeing with the Bill in general, to say that at least for the first time we are to have a statutory recognition of the availability of contraceptives in our society. This is the second time. The first time was the Supreme Court decision in 1973.

In relation to this section the Minister took exception to the ridicule as he classified it by Deputy Browne, myself and others and made a reasonable case that if this section had not been in, even greater ridicule would have been heaped upon him because of the difficulties experienced by tourists and others coming into the country whose modest supplies of contraceptives might be seized at the ports of entry because there is no statutory mechanism under which they would be admitted under any circumstances. The fundamental problem is not whether the situaton of this section is more reasonable than the one the Minister described but whether it is reasonable enough, which it plainly is not.

In giving vent to his impatience with the time it has taken to process this legislation, the Minister has invited us to consider the effects of this delay. He pointed out that there is legislation on mental illness which he, Deputies Browne, O'Connell, Boland and myself would be anxious to see passed. It is plain that the fundamental genesis of this legislation is twofold. It is not just the Supreme Court decision. It is also the evident discomfiture of the Coalition Government at the defeat of their Bill a few years ago. It was this discomfort and the subsequent promise in the Fianna Fáil manifesto to bring in adequate legislation which is responsible for the present situation. When I said I sympathised with the Minister it is because I recognise that this Bill and this section are the best the Fianna Fáil Party can produce in the circumstances. It is better than anything the Fine Gael Party could produce in the circumstances. It is not better than anything the Coalition Government produced in the circumstances. It is not an improvement on the present situation, bad and all as that is. Emphatically it is not any better than the Labour Party Bill on this subject which is on the Order Paper of Seanad Éireann at present.

The Minister said he did not like this section. As we go through the Bill the number of sections the Minister does not like seems to be added to day by day. I can see why. It is that the Minister is expressing the collective decision of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to this Bill and he must stand over it, distasteful and all as that may be to him. The Minister defends this section in relation to what he describes as the basic principle of the Bill, that the means of family planning should be reasonably accessible to married couples. If we accept, for the purposes of argument, this as being the basic principle of the Bill, the Labour Party would want to go further than that. If we accept it, we must ask ourselves if section 5 meets this. Does it guarantee reasonable access to the means of contraception to married couples for the purposes of planning their family? Even on the Minister's own criterion it does not. I will not go into any hypothetical examples in an attempt to prove so because any exact scrutiny of the actual living conditions of many people in our towns and cities today will show that this section is unreasonable in relation to their needs. For example—this is not a hypothetical situation—a post office worker on strike with a wife and two children has a family income from social welfare of about £21 per week. His wife may have medical contra-indications to the use of the pill which is the only form of contraceptive she will be allowed to have on the medical card, which presumably she would have on that level of income. If either he or she opts in favour of a mechanical method of contraception, condoms, spermicides or whatever, on an income of £21 per week with four mouths to feed, how does anybody expect that family to spend £4 or £5 for a doctor, plus a prescription fee on top of the actual cost of a condom or a spermicide?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair may be wrong but it strikes me that the section is only dealing with importation of contraceptives.

Mr. Horgan

What I am saying is entirely relevant to the section and I am not trying to step outside the bounds of order as my next few sentences will make clear. In present circumstances this family can go to a family planning clinic. Effectively family planning clinics are to be closed down or penally fined under this legislation. If this section is passed in its present form, that family have no option but to spend 25 per cent of their weekly income at a minimum on the purchase of family planning requisites. If this section is not passed, if they are allowed to continue to import contraceptives by post, the difference to that family is the difference between £5, which is 25 per cent of their income, and 10p, which is the cost of a stamp. Of course, they still have to pay the cost of the contraceptive on top of that. If we ban effectively the import of contraceptives by private individuals for their own family planning purposes the Minister's decision in this section flogs the principle of the Bill which he himself has prepared.

Mr. Haughey

I was not following the Deputy's argument. Where does the £5 come in?

Mr. Horgan

For example, suppose this family wanted to purchase a couple of packets of contraceptives, under the legislation generally, and under this section if this Bill is passed, they would be unable to import contraceptives by post. The only way they would be able to get contraceptives other than the pill would be to go through the mechanism suggested in the Bill, which is to go to their doctor to get the prescription or authorisation for a non-medical kind of contraceptive and to pay the prescription charge levied by him.

Mr. Haughey

There is no prescription charge if they have a medical card. Their visit to the doctor would still be free under the GMS.

Mr. Horgan

If the case is as the Minister for Health has outlined, they would still have to pay for the contraceptive.

Mr. Haughey

If they were importing them they would still have to pay. Either way there would be no difference.

Mr. Horgan

They would have to pay substantially more to get them from a pharmacist than they would have to pay if they imported them from relatively cheap outlets in the UK. Even if the situation is as the Minister has described, he is creating a further anomaly in that we are going to have medical card holders who will not be charged for a visit to the doctor, who will not be charged the prescription charge, but who will be charged for the item being prescribed for them free of charge which a pharmacist is due to supply to them free of charge.

Another anomaly which the Minister is creating under this section is that he is giving rise to a major simple form of discrimination. In his earlier answer he referred to the travelling public. We are making a major difference here between the travelling public and the non-travelling public. We all know what the major source of difference is between the travelling public and the non-travelling public. The major difference between the two is that one has enough money to travel and the other has not. Here we are creating a distinction between people based on grounds of means which is totally abhorrent to us in the Labour Party and should be abhorrent to a Minister who wants to create and develop a genuine family planning service.

Section 5 (2) (b) of the Bill states:

The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this section to a person who has been convicted of an offence under this Act or of another offence of such a character that, in the opinion of the Minister, it would be inappropriate that he should hold such a licence.

This gives the Minister an extraordinary wide discretion. Even if one accepted that the Minister would have the right to refuse a licence to somebody who had committed an offence under this Bill, unsatisfactory as it is, why should we give a Minister an absolutely blanket permission to refuse licences to people who may have been convicted of other offences? Let the Minister be straight with us. Is he going to refuse a licence to import contraceptives to somebody who has been found guilty of smuggling pigs, butter or any other substance across the Border?

Mr. Haughey

Probably. I have not thought about it, but a person convicted of smuggling should not get any sort of import licence.

Mr. Horgan

The Minister is adding fuel to the flames now because he is suggesting what his mind may be on this issue. Outside the scope of this Bill he is giving himself far too blanket a power which may be misused.

Section 5 (6) reads:

Contraceptives, the importation of which is not authorised under this section, shall be deemed to be included among ...

certain goods. If my reading of the section, and in particular of section 5 (2) (a), is correct, contraceptives will not be allowed to be imported under section 5 (6) in either of two situations, firstly, if they are of a different kind than are specified in subsection (2) (a) and, secondly, if they are in a different quantity from the quantity specified in subsection (2) (a). At this point we must ask the Minister whether he has it in mind to ban the importation of any particular kind of contraceptive. This section gives him the right to ban the importation of specified contraceptives by exclusion. In other words, if he declines to give a licence for the importation of a particular kind of contraceptive he is effectively going to ban it. Is he going to ban the IUD? This is a very real question. Is he going to ban one kind of IUD by refusing to grant the licences for its importation? If so, which kinds is he going to let in? The Minister is opening up a hornets' nest for himself. He will have to look at the situation again in more detail.

One of the ironies of subsection (6) is that people who import contraceptives above the number specified in subsection (2) (a) would also be liable to all the draconian penalties enumerated in the penalties section. Therefore, you have a consignment of articles part of which will be legal and part illegal. The articles are absolutely totally similar in design, manufacture, shape and use, yet some of them will be untouchable and some will be OK.

The problem in this section, which springs from the way that the Bill has been drafted is that the section lends itself to a large amount of anomalies even without going into the area of the fantastical that the Minister objects to. Under subsection (6) contraceptives either of a kind or of a number which have been specified under subsection (2) (a) are now going to be added to the table of prohibitions and restrictions inwards contained in section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. We are using an Act over a century old to control the importation of contraceptives. Of course, that of itself is not necessarily ludicrous. I am not personally in possession of all the amendments and up-to-date versions of the Customs Consolidation Act, but the 1876 version which I have in front of me gives an indication of what the Government at the time had in mind in relation to customs.

For example, under this Schedule, which may or may not have been amended, extracts, essences, or other concentrations of malt may not be imported. Indecent or obscene prints, photographs, books, cards or obscene articles may not be imported. I am surprised that, given the stress being put on contraceptives in this Bill, they have not been deemed to be included under that Schedule. The importation of infected cattle, sheep or other animals, or the carcases thereof, hides, skins, horns, or any other part of cattle or other animals "which the Privy Council may by order prohibit in order to prevent the dissemination of any contagious distemper" were forbidden to be imported.

The Minister is giving himself an extraordinarily unwieldly and old-fashioned instrument and, taking his earlier remark made in sudden irrascibility about taking people out and shooting them, I am surprised he did not add section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, which prohibits the importation of arms, ammunition, gunpowder or any other goods.

This section can be attacked not just on the grounds of ridicule but of ordinary common sense. We in the Labour Party have attacked it on the basis of our Bill, down for discussion in the Seanad. In his Second Reading speech the Minister made play of the fact that he would not ask any officer in his Department to take part in the drafting of this legislation if he had any conscientious objection to doing so. I now ask him if he has thought, for example, of customs officers who may share the views of Deputy Flanagan about the desirability of the use of contraceptives at any time. Will they be assigned to a job that will force them to allow the importation of items or articles which they believe should not be used in any circumstances? Will he extend to them a conscientious gratuity, or has he even begun to consider the administrative absurdities that would arise from this situation?

Dr. Browne

If we look at the penal provisions referred to by Deputy Horgan, the £500 and six months imprisonment, and then £5,000 for further breeches of the law, we would be completely irresponsible if we did not try to find out what is in the Minister's mind about the implementation in detail of this legislation. It would not matter if it was a trivial fine, like the £5 for interfering with a train or for throwing rubbish into a street, or for failing to have a TV licence. In this Bill the penalties provided are for desperately serious offences. The outrageous part about it is that such a perfectly normal and perfectly natural practice by an adult individual should be subject to these fearful penalties.

Mr. Haughey

They are maximum penalties; they will be interpreted by the court.

Dr. Browne

I would draw the Minister's attention to a fact which I have found very disturbing since the debate began—I suppose it started 30 years ago, but let us agree that it began with the McGee case in the Supreme Court in which I was involved on the medical side. What most impressed me has been the vindictive and venomous nature of the opposition from what could be described as the natural family planning Catholic social teaching, the lobby in relation to family planning, the intolerance, the authoritarian tenor which runs through it all: "This is what we believe and this is what is right."

One gets from it echoes of the old Inquisition, the terrible imposition of a point of view irrespective of what the opposition may think. I have to draw the attention of Deputy Flanagan to the fact that contraception is immoral only for Roman Catholics. It is not immoral for Presbyterians who nearly ten years ago made a clear categorical statement that the question of having children was a matter for responsible parents. Similarly with the Church of Ireland. The Jewish faith have come down in exactly the same way and have advised,"Legislate for all people".

Down through the years I have been trying to establish what I believe to be a truly republican state, a secular state, a pluralist state and this Bill seems to me to represent a fundamental conflict within our society. Article 40 of the Constitution lays down that all citizens shall as human persons be held equal before the law. We can see from Mr. Justice Walshe's magnificent comment in the McGee case the essential pluralist nature of this society. We simply ask that we provide for each religious group to let them act within their own moral teachings. Nobody is asking anybody to behave other than in accordance with their own social and moral teachings, but that each person must have the right to pursue his own social or moral objectives within our pluralist society.

As we have debated during the years here, Deputy Haughey and many of his colleagues have talked about pieces of legislation being discussed, including this one, as examples of what sensible mature people here believe. The general implication where I am concerned is that I am not a sensible person, that I am an immature person and that I do not do very much thinking. I have to draw the Minister's attention to the reality that there are at least a million Protestants in this country who accept the teachings of their different churches.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy know of the Church of Ireland document on this?

Dr. Browne

I have it here, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might get very angry——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have given all Deputies a lot of latitude but we are getting away completely from the section. At the risk of being censured again this evening, I must ask the Deputy to get back to the section.

Dr. Browne

I have been resisting the temptation offered by the Minister to digress——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has allowed all Deputies to digress to a degree, but we must now get back to the section, and it deals with the importation of contraceptives.

Dr. Browne

On the point of being a sensible, mature and thinking person, I have to remind the Minister that in the Republic, this relatively small part of the total land mass of Europe, I am one who would be considered to be sensible and mature and thinking on this issue. It is not very sensible legislation. It is immature, and it is legislation of essentially rather frightened people who are afraid of the world and of allowing adults to take up whatever position they like in the light of the informed conscience of the different sects which make up our society.

It is not right of the Minister to say that what I want is unlimited availability of contraceptives. That creates the impression that I am an irresponsible person simply interested in creating a sort of society in which there is unlimited licence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe most people understand that my only consideration in all kinds of legislation down the years has been its effect on the human condition in our society. I should like to digress to say to all Members who tend to dismiss this legislation as not being important that there is more important legislation that should be considered. For 50 per cent of our population, the female sector, there is no more important piece of legislation than that which we are considering. No more important legislation affecting women has been or could be introduced in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has allowed enough of digression on this section. We must get back to the section.

Dr. Browne

I insist that this is not an unimportant piece of legislation and the Minister should not say it is or that it should be put aside in order to deal with other matters, including the legislation which will deal with mental treatment. In my view that legislation is not as important as the Bill we are considering.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We should get back to the section.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is replying to things I did not say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must insist that the House deal with the section under discussion. The Chair has been in trouble all day on this matter because the Chair has been too lenient. The Deputy is entitled to deal with the section line by line but he is not entitled to go through the principles of the Bill and everything else.

Dr. Browne

I have a note of a phrase used by the Minister, "limitless availability", and I am entitled to reply to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has replied to that and he should now get back to the section.

Dr. Browne

I have not referred to anything which did not arise out of statements made by Deputies Flanagan or Horgan or the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have given all Deputies a great deal of latitude and as we have got rid of all those matters we should return to the section.

Dr. Browne

We are discussing the question of the importation of contraceptives.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Dr. Browne

As far as thinking is concerned on this issue, apart from being immature and irresponsible, as far as Europe and the greater part of the civilised world is concerned it is my view which is the orthodox view, and it is the Minister and his colleagues who hold the heterodox view. We have made terribly miniscule progress throughout the debate but it is important that we have got to the stage where the Minister has contradicted a statement which I referred to. It is permissible for an Irish citizen to have in his possession contraceptives without the need to have a prescription for them. At least we have advanced on that position, as we have with a couple of other matters. The fact that it is permissible for an Irish citizen to import contraceptives for his own use creates a position of discrimination but at least it makes the position slightly less horrendous than it was under the Bill. I want the same provisions which operate in Belfast, London, Paris, Munich or New York to prevail in respect of the importation of contraceptives here. Of course, the Minister is the prisoner of the absurd provisions in section 4 under which a prescription must be made available before contraceptives can be bought in a chemist shop. I cannot be blamed for that.

Mr. Mitchell

The more one thinks about this section the more one comes to the conclusion that it is an absurd provision. It is window dressing; it is a sop to the people who believe that there should be controls. It gives the impression that there will be controls while in fact there will not. That might be acceptable to that body of opinion who want little or no control but for the fact that it makes a laughing stock of us.

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order I have to put Deputies on notice that, if this continual repetitive debate is going to continue, reluctant as I am, I will have no option but to impose the guillotine at this stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle is leaving the Chair. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is now taking the Chair. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle cannot take such a motion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What did the Minister say? Would he repeat what he said?

Mr. Haughey

I said that, unless this constantly repetitive——

Dr. Browne

Blackmail. It is criticism of the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. Haughey

——debate is brought to an end, I will have no option but to use the guillotine. I have never yet moved the guillotine on a piece of legislation. The debate has gone over and over again in the same repetitive way, with no new material, or points, or arguments.

Dr. Browne

You have no answers.

Mr. Haughey

I have spent a long time answering Deputy Browne on every point put forward by him and have been criticised by him for going outside the scope of section 5 in reply to him, so I cannot win. If I am courteous enough to reply to every point the Deputy makes I am accused of going outside the scope of the section. I appeal to the House that we really must get somewhere with this legislation and I shall have no option but to move the guillotine very shortly.

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister is appealing to the House, but the House is appealing to the Minister to withdraw, or to amend, this section. I am referring particularly to subsection (1) (a). The Minister asked earlier what to put in in its place. For instance, the Bill presented to the Seanad by Senator Robinson and others had a section which was clearer; it would have been much simpler if the Minister had the grace to accept section 2 of Senator Robinson's Bill which says—and I quote, if I may be permitted to do so:

Section 2.—(1). A person shall not import for sale, sell, offer for sale or invite offers to purchase contraceptives unless he is the holder of a licence to sell granted under this section, and shall import for sale, sell, offer for sale or invite offers to purchase only such contraceptives as he is permitted to sell by such licence.

This is a much clearer section, much less ambiguous that what is now proposed by the Minister. For political reasons, and for political reasons only, the Fianna Fáil Party, when in opposition, totally opposed any measures coming before this or the other House. They promised to have a whipped vote on a Bill, which was clearly a very bad promise to make. It had no regard whatever to conscience. Now the Minister is hoist by his own petard, or the petard of his own party. Not only that, but when they were in government they refused——

An Ceann Comhairle

Are we discussing section 5 now?

Mr. Mitchell

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 5 is what is before the House.

Mr. Mitchell

The Minister asked what would be put in its place. He has been making please all day, and has asked the House to say no more about this section, let it go through with all its faults. We have been making pleas to the Minister to change the legislation and he has asked earlier what to do about it. I am not saying that section 2 of Senator Robinson's Bill is perfect either, but it is a great deal better than section 5 of the Minister's Bill. The Minister is hoist with his own petard. For political reasons only he has constantly opposed everybody else's Bill on this matter. We are dealing specifically with section 5 and I appeal to the Minister to show that he is open to convincing, even at this stage. Let him show that he is prepared to consider improvements, or changes.

Mr. Haughey

Why does the Deputy not put down the section as an amendment?

Mr. Mitchell

Why does the Minister not put it down?

Mr. Haughey

Because this is the section I want—the one in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell

The inference is that, if I put it down, he will accept it. Why does not the Minister put it down?

Mr. Haughey

I will not put it down.

Mr. Mitchell

This is a better section, for a start, than the one the Minister has. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is much better than the Minister's. Another point that has occurred to me, as I said earlier, is that there is no way you can control—it is only a sham to pretend you can control the personal importation of contraceptives. You cannot put any control on the number of times people leave this State, whether to cross the Border, or to cross the sea. There can be no control, therefore, of the supply that can be reached for their own use. There is nothing in this section to prevent people from giving away what they have brought in for their own use—nothing, not that I am saying that should be the case. The point I am making is that to make the pretence of control is to make us the laughing stock of the world, leaving people coming here open to the possibility of being charged, if this legislation is passed.

The section refers to a person. It does not refer to a mature person, or a married person. Subsection (5) is absolutely empty; I must say it is one of the worst subsections I have ever seen in my two years in the House. That is in no way an exaggeration. It is the most open, loose, meaningless and false piece of legislation I have seen in any Bill that has come before this House since I became a Deputy, and a long time before that, when I was reading Bills that came before the House. I am asking the Minister at least to consider this whole section, even if it meant substituting section 2 of Senator Robinson's Family Planning Bill, 1978, introduced in the Seanad.

Mr. Horgan

I do not propose to engage in lengthy discussion. I have asked a few specific questions which the Minister has not answered and I would like specific answers. I must preface my remarks by saying that I accept, up to a point at any rate, the correction from the Minister in relation to costs, on the argument I was making earlier on accessibility under this particular section. The point he made is to a certain extent a reasonable one. However, if he is talking about reasonable access, I have to ask whether or not he accepts that convenience is an index of reasonableness; if it is reasonable access if a married person in order to acquire mechanical contraceptives has to go, first of all, to a doctor, and, secondly, to——

An Ceann Comhairle

That relates to the previous section 4. We are dealing with the section in regard to importation, Deputy.

Mr. Horgan

I am genuinely not trying to protract the business of the House. If it is reasonable for a person under section 4 to acquire contraceptives within the State by a process which involves identifying herself or himself to two other individuals and involves several journeys and the payment of money, why is it unreasonable under this section for the same person to put a 10p stamp on a letter to the United Kingdom and get contraceptives through the post? If one is reasonable, why is this unreasonable? Why is the same person, who is allowed to buy them under certain conditions within the State under section 4, subjected to the draconian penalties under the penalty section if he or she wants to import them by post? That is the first question I ask.

The second question I have put which the Minister has not replied to is: does he accept the logical situation I outlined in relation to customs officials, that there may be customs officials who share Deputy Flanagan's point of view, who may have a conscientious objection to the use of contraceptives under any circumstances? Will the Minister or the Minister for Finance make any provision for this kind of situation? If the Minister is genuinely concerned about other health legislation which he has on the books he has a short cut which does not involve the guillotine but involves withdrawing this Bill, shelving it indefinitely and bringing in the legislation which he wants to bring in.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Deputy agree to finish this section at 6 o'clock? Is that a reasonable proposition?

Mr. Horgan

We might finish it earlier if we get satisfactory answers to simple questions. I am not trying to delay the Bill. I am quite happy to have the vote on it any time.

Mr. Haughey

I will try to answer every question.

Dr. O'Connell

I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. If new contraceptives become available abroad can a person write away for them and import them? If those contraceptives are not available in Ireland what will be the option open to that person? I asked the Minister a question earlier about this matter and I was not here for his reply if he gave it. Must the people importing those contraceptives declare them when they arrive at Dublin Airport or one of our ports?

Mr. Haughey

No.

Dr. O'Connell

If they do not have to declare them they can go through the duty free zone.

Mr. Haughey

If they are of a reasonable amount for their own personal use they do not have to declare them.

Dr. O'Connell

There are specific instructions before a person can go through that zone. Will the Minister put a figure on it?

Dr. Browne

It is like cigarettes and whiskey.

Mr. Haughey

You can turn any proposal into a ridiculous situation if you want to imply all sorts of impractical and hypothetical propositions. This is an attempt by me to put in a reasonable provision for people bringing in artificial contraceptives for their own use. I believe it will work very well. Customs officers are trained, experienced and wise people. I have no doubt that this will work in a reasonably satisfactory manner. If there are any abuses of it or if it turns out to be ridiculous, we will have to look at it again. I really believe it is straining at the mast to be going into all this detail about a simple, straight-forward provision that the importation of artificial contraceptives is controlled by licence except for a person who wants to bring in some for his or her personal use in a limited quantity and not for sale. Surely nothing could be more reasonable than that?

Dr. O'Connell

We pass legislation here with the very best of intentions but unfortunately it is the implementation of it which presents many problems. Are we sending the message out from this House to the customs officers that there must be wide latitude in the implementation of this? We have one thing in mind, that we must be very reasonable about this and there must be no question of a figure, but how about the implementation of it? I believe this presents many problems.

I always remember when you were Minister for Social Welfare and there was a question of a deserted wives' allowance. I admired your statement on it when you said that we must be very sympathetic to the needs of deserted wives. That legislation, which you very successfully steered through the House, was very different when it came to the implementation of it. It was not applied as you would have wished it to be applied. You said that there would be great sympathy towards them but many of those deserted wives were denied deserted wives' benefit because their husbands had called on them the night before. When you were Minister for Social Welfare you never intended this. I quote you over and over again on that legislation, that you meant the best.

An Ceann Comhairle

That Minister has become Ceann Comhairle now and is not as reasonable.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister for Health has the very same intention but unfortunately the implementation of the Act is another matter. I believe it can pose serious problems.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should take a serious view of this discussion and be relevant to the section we are dealing with. The Ceann Comhairle has an obligation to ensure that there is not repetition. That is laid down in Standing Orders. I consider this section has been adequately discussed and I propose putting the section if everybody is satisfied.

Mr. Haughey

I have suggested to the House that if every Deputy would put every point he wants to make now we would agree to finish the section at 6 o'clock if not before it.

Mr. Horgan

If that is the case I have one more small point to repeat to the Minister. With regard to subsection (2) (a), in relation to specified contraceptives, has the Minister got it in mind to refuse importation licences for any particular kind of contraceptives?

Mr. Haughey

Categorically, no.

Mr. Horgan

That is that question answered, but there are two more that perhaps he will deal with in due course.

Dr. Browne

It is useful to know that blackmail did not work and that the Minister is now using his more plausible approach. Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Boland will recall a discussion on the Tobacco Bill when this same attitude was adopted by the Minister who told us that it was all rather complicated, that he had done his best in the legislation and would we be good enough to give him the power and he would guarantee he would implement the provisions without delay. We have not had those provisions implemented in respect of the tobacco legislation.

I cannot accept the Minister's assurance that everything will be all right on the night. This responsible and unfortunate young customs man will be left with the dilemma which we are all sending out to him. It is very untidy, confused and not very clear in its implications. As we go on we make changes which the Minister concedes after considerable pressure.

The question about the right of an Irish citizen to buy contraceptives in New York, London, Paris or anywhere else and bring them back for his or her use without recourse to the provisions of section 4 in relation to a doctor's prescription and the provision that they must be for bona fide purposes or family planning is a new concession which the Minister's wants us to accept. Why then can the lady, to whom Deputy Horgan referred, the lady who is unemployed, who wants to minimise the amount of money she spends on contraceptives, without doctors' fees or chemists' fees, and possibly living in rural Ireland and wanting to avail of a postal service, not buy contraceptives in London, Paris, New York or anywhere else she wants by post and have the right to use them for her own use in our society? If she has the money to take a plane to London she has this facility, but if she has only 10p to put a stamp on an envelope, she cannot have this facility. Surely that is highly discriminatory and completely unfair.

Mr. Haughey

It is not intended to be. It is not desirable that the public in general should write away for contraceptives, presumably in reply to an advertisement. If we were to permit that sort of thing we might as well throw our hats at control. The Deputy knows and accepts now that I want control of availability. The Deputy said that I accused him of being in favour of limitless availability. I do not accuse him at all, I just thought that that was his general belief and approach to this matter. Is it not better for the people to whom we will make contraceptives available, to have the advice of the pharmacist rather than that they should write away to some almost certainly commercial organisation which is only interested in developing and exploiting the market? Is it not better that the person concerned should procure contraceptives from some reliable, reputable pharmacist able to stand over the product and give the advice needed in regard to it, if there is no different cost?

Mr. Horgan

There will be a difference in cost for the non-medical card holder.

Mr. Haughey

I accept that, but the Deputy is primarily concerned with those in the lower income group who are medical card holders.

If Deputy Browne wishes to be reasonable about the argument he is putting forward, he will surely see that if we permit the importation of artificial contraceptives other than by way of a licence, or if we permit anybody to write away to procure them, there will be no control and we might as well scrap the Bill. Some people might think that we should scrap the Bill anyway but the Bill is based on certain principles and this section is only a mechanical section. If one does not accept the principles of the Bill, it does not matter, but if one accepts the principles of the Bill there is nothing odious, reprehensible or silly about section 5.

Most people who travel to this country know that we have a protective mechanism in relation to foot and mouth disease. It is regularly announced on aeroplanes that anybody who has been in contact with a farm or poultry and so on should report to the Department of Agriculture in the airport. It would not cause the slighest difficulty to Deputy O'Connell to make the same ridiculous type of argument about that provision as he is making about this.

Dr. O'Connell

Would they be making the same statements on the plane?

Dr. Browne

There is no comparison at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputies allow the Minister to finish?

Dr. O'Connell

I am referring to the problem raised for people living in remote parts of the country where the nearest pharmacist might have a conscientious objection to stocking contraceptives. This would pose a problem for people and they should have the freedom to write away for contraceptives in such a situation. The Minister implied by his statement about foot and mouth disease that the same type of statement will be made on board every plane in relation to people carrying contraceptives.

Mr. Haughey

I am just saying that the Deputy could develop the same ridiculous type of argument about that if he wanted to.

Dr. O'Connell

I see this as a deliberate attempt to inhibit family planning clinics and that is why I object to this section. This is a deliberate attempt to stop family planning clinics from stocking contraceptives.

Mr. Haughey

I have given my reasons and I can do no more than that.

Mr. Horgan

In all seriousness, has the Minister any evidence that the situation which existed since 1973, which will now be changed by this section which refuses permission to private individuals to import contraceptives for their own use, has been responsible for a vast deterioration in our public or private morals? There is no evidence of that and the Minister does not believe that there is.

Mr. Haughey

That is a genuine difference between us.

Mr. Horgan

Does the Minister believe that there has been a deterioration in public morals since 1973?

Mr. Haughey

I never set myself up in moral judgment on anybody and I am not in a position to do so. But most people concerned about this would not wish to have uncontrolled importation because they feel it would be undesirable to have contraceptives widely and freely available to everybody throughout the community who wished to write away to get them.

Mr. Horgan

Does the Minister equate the right of a private individual to import contraceptives by post for his or her personal use as uncontrolled availability?

Mr. Haughey

Yes I do, it would lead to that.

Dr. Browne

Is it not a fact that our experience in the whole of this debate is that if there is any weakness in this law or if there is any provision whereby people with an extremely narrowminded attitude to contraception, in the sense that it must not be permitted because it will destroy the moral fibre of the community and all that sort of thing, are given powers under this Bill we can assume that they will, as in the old days in relation to censorship, use any such weakness in the Bill. It would be wise of the Minister to insist that if there is a palpable defect in the Bill, it should be dealt with.

A question was raised about the capacity of an Irish citizen to be legally in possession of contraceptives, and to give them away if he wishes, simply by virtue of the fact that he has been in a position to go to Northern Ireland and across to England and back again. The person who as a result of an advertisement in one of the reputable magazines wants to send off for contraceptives should be allowed the discretion to do this. I do not like this Big Brother approach by the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

The logical outcome of what the Deputy is saying is that I should withdraw subsection (1) (a) from the Bill. By doing that I can remove the discrimination the Deputy is talking about. I am sure that would please Deputy Flanagan greatly, but that is not what Deputy Dr. Browne has in mind. The only way that I could remove the discrimination would be by having no control over importation. We will not have that and there is no point in trying to persuade me to have it.

Dr. Browne

It is Big Brother is it not?

Mr. Haughey

It is not. The Deputy's argument is that this is discrimination. Is the Deputy asking me to remove the discrimination by removing subsection (1) (a)?

Dr. O'Connell

What would be wrong with the Minister saying that under the Bill a person may not import contraceptives unless they are for his own personal use?

Mr. Haughey

The restriction I have in mind relates to contraceptives imported for one's own use when coming into the country.

Dr. O'Connell

But if there was a particular kind——

Mr. Haughey

I will look into it but I think it would open up the Bill.

Mr. Boland

Section 5(2) (a) (i) reads:

the Minister is satisfied that the contraceptives are required by the person for sale to persons specified in section 4(1) (b) (i) of this Act,

This means that the importer will in turn sell the contraceptives to the chemists. I wonder should we have used the phrase "solely to persons specified in section 4 (1) (b) (i) of this Act"? Did the draftsman imply that that was unnecessary? If so, it would appear strange when one looks at contentious paragraph 5 (1) (a), which has a double negative:

They are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State and their quantity is not such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use,

It would have been cleaner and simpler if it had read "and their quantity is such as to indicate that they are solely for his own use".

Mr. Haughey

I will look at that drafting point for Report Stage.

Mr. Boland

Another point intrigues me, and perhaps the Minister could assist me because I doubt if the draftsman devised this concept. In relation to paragraph 5(1) (a), how would anybody be able to decide that the imported contraceptives in a traveller's personal luggage would be solely for his own use and, in relation to certain forms of contraceptives, how could they have the required effect if they were solely for the use of the traveller?

Mr. Haughey

The quantity is the deciding factor.

Mr. Boland

Different interpretations could be put on that. I suggest that the draftsman be invited to look at that entire paragraph from those several points of view and, possibly, on Report Stage, we might have a paragraph which, while it might be equally unacceptable to some Members, might eliminate some of the various interpretations which could be and have been put on this paragraph.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Nil, 41.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P. J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South- Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Browne, Noel.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Creed, Donal.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Horgan, John.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Lipper, Mick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Tully, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Nil, Deputies Creed and Horgan.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No.25 is out of order.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 5, subsection (2), paragraph (b), lines 45 and 46, to delete all words from and including "to" in line 45 to the end of the subsection.

My objection to this section is an exploratory one and the Minister is going to find out how reasonable I am in spite of his assertions to the contrary. I do not see why the manufacture of contraceptives should be considered to be a particularly exceptional activity. I do not think it is an activity with which the Minister should be concerned in what I would read as a policing role. I believe that, if he was agreeable to saying that the conditions of the licence would be that the licence be made available only on certain standards of quality, that his concern was the quality of the contraceptives to be supplied, then——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy proposing amendment No. 26?

Mr. Haughey

He is.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 26 proposes to delete all words from and including "to" in line 45 to the end of the subsection.

Dr. Browne

This is a person guilty of an offence under the Act. My point is that the Minister is treating the person who might manufacture contraceptives in a penal way simply because he manufactured contraceptives and not because he manufactured contraceptives which were in some way defective. I am concerned with the quality of the contraceptives. The Minister has made the point about how angry we all would be if he had left the introduction of this Bill to the Minister for Justice. Instead of that he brings it in as Minister for Health.

This is one of the features of the Bill which I find so repugnant. I would not object to any penal clauses where the Minister for Justice is concerned but creating a crime out of the manufacturing and sale of contraceptives is completely repugnant to me. I find it difficult to understand how the Minister can defend his position as Minister for Health. If the Minister was concerned about somebody manufacturing contraceptives which were defective I could see some justification for the provision. Other than that, I am opposed to it.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy realises that if we were to accept his amendment it would give the Minister a blanket power to refuse a licence. There would be no inhibition on the Minister's power to refuse a licence.

Dr. Browne

I would not mind that.

Mr. Haughey

We might be of one mind on this. I undertake to look at this paragraph again and perhaps include what is in it but also include what the Deputy has in mind, namely, that the Minister may refuse to grant a licence under this section to a person who he is not satisfied would——

Dr. Browne

Something to do with standards.

Mr. Haughey

Yes. Something along those lines. I will do that on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 26, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 5, subsection (5), line 52, after "Minister" to insert "in accordance with the regulations".

This amendment is simply to try to ensure that anything the Minister does in respect of this Bill to change it in future should be done in accordance with regulations. We should have an opportunity of considering these regulations before the Minister is given power. Anything the Minister does should be done in accordance with the regulations which should be laid before the House.

Mr. Haughey

Would the Deputy let me consider that? On the other hand, the insertion of a condition into a licence is something for which I would need statutory power. Is the Deputy suggesting that——

Dr. Browne

Conditions should be made.

Mr. Haughey

Incorporated into regulations?

Dr. Browne

We should know what the regulations are before the Minister grants a licence. Will we have access to the regulations the Minister lays down when he is giving a licence? Surely there will be no harm in permitting this.

Mr. Haughey

My advice is that it is not necessary. If regulations are made for the purposes of the section any conditions inserted in the licence would be in accordance with the provisions of the section of the regulations. The Deputy will note that it is provided in subsection (2) that regulations may be made under this section.

Dr. Browne

Yes. We will know about them?

Mr. Haughey

That is covered.

Dr. Browne

Will we?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This section is entitled "Control of manufacture of contraceptives". I say without the slightest fear of contradiction, and invite evidence as to the contrary, that it is the manufacture and manufacturers of contraceptives that have a grave vested interest in the whole question of birth control and contraception. Many family planning clinics that have been set up have had substantial sums of money placed at their disposal by manufacturers of contraceptives. It is the vested interest, those who have a big financial interest and those engaged in the manufacture of these devices, who have been the armchair promoters and the backbone of the contraceptives lobbies not alone in this country but elsewhere.

I oppose every section of the Bill. I disagree with the principle of the Bill and so disagree with every section contained therein. However, it is the manufacturers of contraceptives who have had medical and organising contacts and who have sponsored family planning clinics so that the demand for contraceptives would become greater and greater. They are not concerned with the kind of person who uses them. They could not care less if they were used in every school or college in the country as long as they make money out of it. They are prepared to spend a fair share of money on increasing the output of the manufacturer.

I do not go so far as to say that those who speak the loudest receive a fair share of the financial reward for speaking on this matter. Vast sums of money have been invested in family planning clinics. I am saying, for the record of the House, that this is a section which controls the manufacture of contraceptives and the materialistic, pagan-minded, godless money seekers, money squeezers, get rich by every means fair or foul, by right or wrong, bury moral standards, promoting every kind of standard that brings in money. They are the type of people responsible for the sale and promotion in general of contraceptives.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have permitted the Deputy to refer to the manufacture of contraceptives but the section deals with their control.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I agree. I was dealing with the motivation behind those who manufacture them. Those engaged in the manufacture of these devices could not care less about the moral standards or the social conditions in our country. Their only concern is to advance their interests and swell their dividends and they endeavour to create discontent and to eliminate by every means in their power anything that would cut across their greed for money, even at the expense of destroying the quality of life by the promotion of the most immoral forms of public activity. That is why I condemn as strongly as I can those engaged in the manufacture of contraceptives for the amount of money they have put into the campaign in which people were paid for shouting——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, this is hardly relevant.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Vested interests are behind the whole question of the manufacture of contraceptives. It would not have been possible to have these family planning clinics and other campaigns in the halls, the streets and elsewhere if pressure had not been put on men in public life so that the manufacture of contraceptives would be increased vastly. The result is that the financial profits for those engaged in this business extend and expand while the moral standards and standards of decency disappear completely.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Browne

The Minister will know the line I am about to take in regard to this section about advertisements. I do not want him to think that I want to have all the school newspapers, children's comics and programmes on television and radio pervaded by advertisements for contraception. Frequently absurd things are said in this sort of situation. This business of people using contraceptives irresponsibly and widely cannot happen unless the people are educated to behave in an irresponsible way. Most people would agree that the kind of people who are products of our schools have had fairly powerful indoctrination in the Catholic ethos or what is considered in our society to be a Christian ethos. Therefore, it has always puzzled me to understand why people become so worried about the likelihood of the abuse of things like contraceptives in a society which is so heavily censored, controlled and educated by people handpicked because of their orthodoxy in things like Catholic social moral teaching.

I do not know how far one goes in this business of big brotherism. With young people of 16 or 17 years of age, at what stage do you tell them to make decisions for themselves? What have you done with them up to 16 or 17 that they are likely to fall into some sort of evil or wrongdoing simply because of the effect of putting in an advertisement offering them something which you have taught them they should not make use of? I have always felt that the educational process is the correct way in which to make an individual able to stand up to the appalling pressures and stresses of life, particularly in relation to the very powerful seductive pressures of the sex drive in its various manifestations.

I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not in favour of pornography of any kind, soft or otherwise, as my basis for consideration of this question of the advertisements. I merely see once again here a very persistent feature of our society over the 50 or 60 years since the State was founded—the dual standards of our society on issues of this kind. Listening to Deputy Flanagan, whose opinions I respect completely, I would put very much higher on the list of moral turpitude—if such terms must be used—the people who sell drink, the beer barons. Also, if one looks at the consequences of tobacco on cigarette smokers and the influence and effect of that on our society, then if we are serious about the question of advertising, why have we not done something if we are going to be so restricted as we appear to be on the question of contraceptives? Why is it that the enormously wealthy powerful vested interests of drink and tobacco in this country——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not in order. I appreciate the analogy but it is not relevant.

Dr. Browne

I will not pursue it. Without doubt, if one is to make a choice between contraceptives and drink and cigarettes, the last two are easily the more likely to be in need of curbing from the point of view of advertising. The view has been accepted in most western countries, in the US, and in all socialist countries, that family planning is part of ordinary living, that people simply cannot do without it, that, in the words of the Supreme Court judgment in the McGee case, it must be freely available.

Therefore, I am opposed to restrictions on advertising, particularly of educational programmes which have to do with limiting the size of families. I do not think such advertising should be restricted to the medical and nursing professions. Perhaps the Minister will make his position clear in regard to the kind of regulations he proposes to draw up to implement this section and I hope he will not lean as heavily as he has done in other sections in favour of one kind of family planning as against the other, that he will allow equal dissemination of information on both. In his letter to the Medical Association last year he made the point that the public must have access to information about all forms of family planning.

A sort of reluctance has permeated this legislation, a suggestion that it has been brought in because of the McGee case. Consequently, many women, particularly in the poorer sector, the less educated people, need to be helped by advertisements to find out about all forms of family planning. I do not agree with natural family planning because I think it is inefficient, but if people want to use it they should be permitted to do so. However, the natural system of family planning should not be promoted universally at the expense of other forms, right down to the most efficient forms of all, sterilisation and so on.

I should like the Minister to say that the general principle of family planning has been accepted by our society. That would be a marvellous advance. As somebody who has observed it for many years I consider that the introduction of even this kind of Bill is a great advance when we think of the position we had and the appalling powerful opposition over the years. I believe that the present generation of 18-year-olds to 30-year-olds will have family planning of the kind they want whether our generation like it or not.

At the same time, there is at the moment an element of urgency, and this section should be used to dissipate resistance to the idea that there should be responsible family planning, that it is necessary to our society, and we should carry out a systematic programme of education where it is most likely to be effective, including, of course, our schools. A programme suitable for schools should be promoted by the Department of Health to help youngsters to meet the tremendous stresses of adolescence. All this can be done through this section.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Of course it is right and proper that responsible family planning should be undertaken. I have not heard that being disputed, particularly if it is by natural methods. The section deals with advertising and publicity. The Catholic Marriage Advisory Council are concerned to ensure that the widest possible publicity should be given to natural family planning methods. I am sure they have been in touch with the Minister before the introduction of this Bill. On the other hand, I think there should be the strictest possible control on advertising and the display of artificial contraceptives.

Section 7 states:

A person shall not take any part in, or procure, the publication of an advertisement or notice in relation to contraception or contraceptives or display, or procure the display of, contraceptives,

Am I correct in thinking that the only exceptions permitted are professional or medical journals the circulation of which is limited to medical people? I would be obliged if the Minister would explain if the word "notice" shall be deemed to include any published matter advocating or describing the use of contraceptives but does not include a statement of the dangers to health which may be involved in the use of such contraceptives? Does "publication" include any transmission by radio and television in the case of advertisements in relation to contraceptives in medical journals? It is my view that, as in the case of cigarettes and certain drugs, those advertisements should carry a note warning of the dangers to health. The Minister should not permit such advertisements unless they carry such a notice.

I hope the Minister will have a further look at this section with a view to improving its provisions before Report Stage. This aspect should be seriously and fully examined now. We all know that there are many smart people in our society who can drive a coach and four through most legislation and I have no doubt that an effort would be made to do so in relation to this section. This is an important aspect of the Bill which can have far-reaching effects unless there is rigid control. The Minister should not permit any publicity in relation to contraceptives. I make that suggestion on the basis that contraception is morally wrong and that most types of contraceptives are a grave danger to the health of the users. I should like to hear members of the medical profession deal with the records which show that the use of contraceptives has been damaging and responsible for the deaths of numerous people who use them.

Mr. Horgan

I have listened with some bafflement to Deputy Flanagan, much as I respect the sincerity of his views and the intensity with which he expresses them. My bafflement has been related in particular to a suggestion that this section is inadequate because it does not require the incorporation in any publicity of warnings of possible dangers to health from the use of contraceptives. There are many different kinds of contraceptives and I do not understand what Deputy Flanagan was getting at. Take the most common form of contraceptive, the male condom, the only possible danger to health arising from the male condom, as I understand it, is if they are not used properly. To the best of my, no doubt, imperfect knowledge the manufacturers of most of these articles have taken such steps as are open to them to include such instructions with their merchandise as to make sure that they are used properly. They are already meeting the conditions demanded by Deputy Flanagan.

My basic quarrel with the section is that it is a consorship provision and one which is repugnant to common sense. It is not so long since a number of countries of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation made an attempt to impede the free flow of information and our Government took a liberal and enlightened view at that time on this issue. Section 7 files in the face of the free flow of information, particularly in relation to the free flow of necessary information on family planning. I can already hear in advance the Minister's counter-argument. He will say that because contraception is a medical and pharmaceutical matter the doctors and pharmacists must be involved. He will say that anybody who goes to a doctor or pharmacist will be told where to purchase or otherwise acquire the means of family planning and, therefore, the restrictions in the section do not unduly restrict access to the necessary information by the persons concerned. However, that is all based on the fundamental premise of the Bill the effect of which is that the adult male or female married person who wants to buy a mechanical contraceptive for his or her use within marriage is obliged to seek the intervention of a qualified medical practitioner and qualified pharmacist. Those people are not adjudged responsible enough to go into a shop to buy the things for themselves.

In so far as control is needed on advertisements I would suggest to the Minister that we already have fairly wide-ranging legislation on indecent displays and publications. It should be up to the courts and to the police force in common sense to decide whether any advertisement or series of advertisements offend against this canon of taste. It is essentially a canon of taste we are talking about and that canon of taste changes from time to time. As society becomes more mature they can take some things without being shocked that they would not have been able to take a generation before. The standard of what is permissible and what is not is partly governed by legislation and is partly governed by the common sense, maturity and sophistication of the particular generation of adult human beings who form our parents, our police force and our judiciary. I do not see anything wrong with leaving the control of the advertising of the ordinary mechanical methods of contraception to the good, ordinary and honest judgment of those people.

In relation to the wording in detail of the section, in particular subsection (1), I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister because the section as it is worded seems to be extraordinarily wide in its possible application. I adverted to this on Second Stage and I asked the Minister whether it was proposed to make the sale or distribution of magazines which contained advertisements for mechanical family planning methods an offence. I do not recall the Minister replying to that. The section states:

A person shall not take any part in, or procure, the publication of an advertisement or notice...

The Minister must be aware of the fact that many publications of a more or less serious kind, most of them originating outside the country and offered for sale here, carry advertisements of the kind this section seeks to control. Is it not obvious on the facts of the matter that somebody who sells or distributes one of these publications is taking part in the publication of an advertisement because the advertisement is not published unless it is delivered to the person who reads it, the general member of the public who buys the magazine. What am I to say when I go to my newsagent tomorrow morning to buy The Irish Times—he is a well-established member of the Minister's party—in relation to this subsection? Am I to tell him that he will not be able to sell The Spectator, The New Statesman or the New York Review of Books? Let us, for example, take the situation in which some foreign television stations eventually allow the broadcasting of advertisements for contraceptives on television. When this is done by a commercial television station in a neighbouring island what then is the position of an organisation like RTE Relays—a wholly-owned subsidiary of a semi-State company? Are they also to be guilty, under section 71, of taking some part in the publication of an advertisement because they have set up a relay system which conveys a particular signal containing a particular advertisement to an individual's house? I would be very greatful for the Minister's observations on this point.

Mr. Haughey

I would have thought that this was the most impeccable section. As the Deputies know, I have had a long exhausive series of consultations with different groups, representatives, sectors of the community, interested parties, and there is one matter, above all other matters, upon which everybody who came to see me was agreed, which was that there should be some control on advertising about artificial contraception. Every group that came to see me was of that mind. I am certain of that. There might have been one exception but I doubt it, because it was a question which I put to every deputation or group, that came to see me. There is unanimity about this one thing above everything else.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

And rightly so.

Mr. Haughey

In particular, there was unanimity among all the representatives of the different religions who came to see me. I would have thought that this section was beyond reproach. First of all, I want to say that this is only a preventive section. It is a section which prevents, except in accordance with the regulations—in other words it is the regulations that will really be the important matter. In regard to the point raised by Deputy Browne under another section, these regulations will be before the House and will be available for discussion. I indicated, on a number of occasions, that it was my intention that the regulations would not, in any way, prohibit or inhibit the making available of advertising material about artificial contraceptives to those professionally involved in family planning—doctors, nurses, pharmacists and so on.

Mr. Horgan

Families are professionally involved in family planning.

Mr. Haughey

Professionally?

Mr. Horgan

It is their profession to plan a family.

Mr. Haughey

My intention is that the regulations should prevent the commercial exploitation of artificial contraceptives. That concept of mine is in keeping with the general philosophy of the Bill. In a situation where we wish to make artificial contraceptives available, in certain circumstances, for family planning purposes, I think it would be completely out of keeping and absurd to permit commercial companies to freely advertise their products to the public at large. We have in mind in that regard susceptible young people and indeed maybe people who are not so young who need some sort of instruction, advice and guidance from disinterested parties before they are exposed to the pressure of commercial advertising.

The liberal wing of the House must be in a dilemma in this regard. They, like me, would deplore a great many of the modern techniques of sales promotion, the unrestricted commercial exploitation. of a market where every modern psychological device is used to persuade the public that the use of a certain product is the gateway to human happiness, satisfaction or whatever. We would not want that sort of situation where artificial contraceptives are concerned. Deputies know that if there is no control and no regulations the resources of the advertising people to promote the sale of their products are almost inexhaustible. They have all sorts of modern persuasive techniques for promoting their products which to a great majority of the population are almost irresistible whether they are selling detergents, clothes pegs or refrigerators. It has now become a very exact sort of science.

I have not intruded my personal opinion too much into this debate, I hope, but I look with horror at a situation where our media would be completely open to full-scale commercial exploitation of the market for artificial contraceptives. That would be very harmful, and I do not see that any good could flow from it. It is a complete distortion of the situation to suggest that by controlling or attempting to control unrestricted advertising I am interfering with the free flow of information. That is stretching the fine sounding phrase "free flow of information" a bit too far.

Today, the idea of controlling advertising is on the increase. Governments everywhere are setting up institutions to control and restrict advertising so as to try to make sure that if it is not directed to the public good, it at least is not subversive of the public good. Totally unrestricted advertising cannot be condoned in any situation, and certainly not in this situation. It certainly would not be in keeping with the general principles according to which the Bill is designed. The situation will be governed by regulations which Deputies will have an opportunity to discuss and examine in detail, but I wish to give fair notice now that as far as I am concerned the regulations will restrict the advertising of artificial contraceptives to the categories of persons I have mentioned. I would not go as far as Deputy Flanagan, who suggested that there is need to include a warning in these advertisements.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Deputy Horgan seemingly was not aware, but the Minister is aware that it has been medically established beyond doubt that the use of certain types of contraceptives is responsible for abortion, heart disease, VD and cancer. Surely, as Minister for Health, when making these regulations there is a serious responsibility resting on the Minister to warn the users of contraceptives of the dangers of heart disease and cancer particularly.

Mr. Haughey

As the advertisements will only be available to professional people, knowledgeable medical nursing people or pharmacists, they will be aware of any danger or any medical disadvantage attached to a product, so that it would not be necessary to stipulate that in the regulations. Even if I never had the intention of putting in the section to control advertising by regulation, this section would have recommended itself to every single group of persons who came to see me no matter which side of the fence they came from. Certainly, the almost universal unanimous opinion of those who came to see me about that matter, no matter what they said about availability was against uncontrolled, unrestricted advertising.

Mr. Horgan

In response to what I have said the Minister ignored all the reasonable points I made about the effect of this section, if it is passed, on a great deal of the ordinary commerce in newspapers, journals and publications of altogether reputable standards, and he has created a bogey man of a picture of what might happen in a situation in which there were totally unfettered rights of advertising. I invite the Minister to look at the situation in a neighbouring country where there has been totally unfettered advertising for over half-a-century. What has happened to the advertising of contraceptives in that jurisdiction during that period is that the advertising of contraceptives in the UK has by and large been confined, without any regulation or control by any Government, to medical and trade publications, because medical and trade publications go to doctors and pharmacists and because in that jurisdication certain contraceptives have to be prescribed, doctors and pharmacists are the people who need to be told about the characteristics of certain contraceptives and to learn where to get them for their stocks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy report progress?

Mr. Haughey

Just before that, does the Deputy wish to pursue this argument indefinitely or is there any chance of us getting at least two sections today, in view of the fact that these matters will be dealt with by regulations anyway?

Mr. Horgan

I would not be averse to a vote now, but it would take time from the Fine Gael Private Members' Motion. The Minister is aware that, as far as I am concerned, there will probably be a vote on this immediately we resume discussion of the Bill and I can foresee only a couple of other sections giving any problems.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.