Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1979

Vol. 315 No. 2

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

Question again proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Browne

This is the most controversial section of the Bill and is probably the most confusing, misleading and impractical proposition for many reasons. There are a number of important words used in this section for which there is no clear explanation and for which, in the process of their explication later in the law courts, the Law Library must be jubilant at the prospects of the fortunes to be made in the interpretations of this section. I will have to do my best to make whatever definitions and clarifications I can in the hope that the Minister may then tell me where I am wrong or, if I am right, in order that we shall have on the record some kind of undertaking that at least this House saw the defects in the Bill, reminded the Minister of them and possibly that this Minister may decide that he may amend this section.

The Minister makes a number of statements. He claims that the best people to implement this Bill will be members of the medical profession. He also claims that this Bill is brought in in answer to the Supreme Court decision about the McGee case. Then he is particularly vague and indecisive on the issue of to whom it is to be permitted that contraceptives shall be made available on the prescription or authorisation of the general practitioner: must these people be married and, if they are, what do we do about the complicated position, which the Minister concedes exists, in relation to the law of marriage in this country?

The Minister is reported on Radio Éireann as saying that the person who is to get the contraceptives is the individual who "in the opinion of the general practitioner formed at the time of giving the prescription or authorisation, sought the contraceptive for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances”. He then attempted to establish—at column 320, Volume 313 of the Official Report—that the Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978, follows the Supreme Court decision which involves a fundamental change in the law relating to the availability of contraceptives.

An Ceann Comhairle

This section deals with the control, sale and supply of contraceptives. The Deputy seems to be going into matters which were appropriate to the Second Reading.

Dr. Browne

With respect, Sir, subsection (2), says:

... that the person named in it is a person who, in the opinion of the practitioner formed at the time of the giving of the prescription or authorisation, sought the contraceptive for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances.

That is the part of the section with which I am concerned: the Minister's decision to establish that a person who will authorise or prescribe a contraceptive must be a medical practitioner. He is giving the impression that medical practitioners have accepted this as desirable and he has sought to give the impression that his decision to establish this practice is in accordance with the ruling in the McGee case in the Supreme Court. I want to refute all these points in some detail because I believe they are very categorical misstatements of fact.

We should further establish that as things are at present there is no law in force in this State which prohibits the distribution or manufacture of contraceptives for use inside or outside marriage. This statement was made in the Supreme Court and this decision to change the law in a very fundamental way is, I believe, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It is very strange—and I am very concerned about this—that any couple, but certainly a married couple, should not have imposed on them a legal responsibility to go to a medical practitioner to establish that they are seeking contraceptives, bona fide, for family planning purposes.

This is an extraordinarily insensitive proposal that the privacy of the individual's marriage should have to suffer this intrusion of somebody outside the marriage in order to make this essentially very personal, very private and very sensitive decision. Quite frequently, through my life as a socialist, I have been attacked on the broad principles that my socialist beliefs inevitably imply that the State will intervene in the lives of the people in a very direct way and will lay down rigid laws and rigid restrictions to order their lives. One of my most consistent opponents in this broad conflict of ideologies has been the Minister, yet, if ever 1984 was epitomised in a piece of legislation surely it is implicit in section 4 of this Bill, and, in particular, in this subsection, that Big Brother should make decisions on behalf of a married couple or a couple who intend either to have a family or not have a family—to make decisions about the extremely personal, intimate details of their married life. When the Minister says that this particular proposal in this Bill stems from the ruling in the McGee case, I think he is——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now dealing with the broad principles, the fundamentals of the Bill on Committee Stage. The section is confined, irrespective of its reference to the subsection. It only deals with control of supply and sale.

Dr. Browne

I am dealing, in some detail, with the right of the Minister to introduce this clause into the Bill. I dealt with the principle of the Bill on Second Stage; I completely accede that point. It was quite impossible for us to deal on Second Stage in the required detail on this proposal. I said it was quite wrong for the Minister to bring in this proposal on Second Stage; I am now attempting to enlarge on the general principle which I attempted to establish at that time and to back my case——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy could make a speech on every subsection of the Bill if he uses the same strategy.

Dr. Browne

It is impossible to refute, or contradict, or reject a statement without making an argument for it. That is what Committee Stage is about. The Minister has said to me, "Deputy Browne does not agree with the Bill. This is unfortunate, but this is what it is going to be." I am explaining now why I do not agree. He is quite right to reject my simple statement that I do not agree with the Minister's Bill. He would say, "Why not?" and I am attempting to say why I do not agree with this matter in detail here on Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair agrees that the Deputy may have referred to principles in the Bill in order to discuss the section, but not in a detailed Second Reading speech. The section in question deals only with the logistics of the Bill and with the manner in which it may be operated—mainly in relation to sale and supply.

Dr. Browne

I am dealing precisely with the logistics. The Minister made it clear on an earlier Stage that he would ask the doctors to implement the provisions of the Bill for him. He said in his Second Reading speech that the doctors are the best people to implement this Bill for him, and particularly this section of the Bill but he is wrong to give the impression that the medical association believe that they should implement, particularly, the section dealing with the non-medical type of contraceptive. They have repeatedly said that the legislation on contraception is social and political and not medical. They went on to say that the doctors should not be the only route by which non-medical contraceptives should be supplied. The Minister says, "I have consulted various people", and he keeps on consulting people until he gets the opinion that he wants and then he says, "The doctors told me this, therefore I must do what they say". The doctors have said they do not want to be solely responsible for the distribution of non-medical contraceptives. When they give him advice that he does not want, the Minister persists in attempting to impose this responsibility on them.

I have already made the point that there are less than 20 doctors trained in family planning in the country. The doctors welcome the suggestion that the medical profession should supervise the agents which may affect the health of those people who want the medical type of contraceptives, the IUD, the cap, the pill, and so on, and that is perfectly reasonable. These should obviously be restricted to supervision by the medical profession. The Minister, however, inexplicably refused to divide the medical from the non-medical type of contraceptive, so we have the situation where it is true that one type of contraceptive should be made available by general practitioners, but it is highly absurd that contraceptives such as the condom and spermacide should be restricted for prescription to members of the medical profession. These are articles which are available in barbers shops, chemists' shops, slot machines, anywhere and everywhere, as a result of newspaper advertisements, and through the post quite indiscriminately in most other countries. There is no case whatever for the Minister's decision to restrict the sale, or the prescription, of contraceptives to the members of the medical profession.

In fact is has been generally agreed that doctors are almost the last people who should be asked to deal with the question of non-medical planning or contraception. At the European symposium in Istanbul it was laid down that doctors are not needed for non-medical types of contraception. The report says that the medical profession, especially obstetricians, have been the greatest obstacle to the development of family planning services all over the world. A notable example is our own Dr. Arthur Barry, an obstetrician with obviously a vested interest—as all members of the profession have—in the baby business, who made a completely hysterical assault on the suggestion that there should be an extension of the availability of artificial contraceptives. He went on with the usual charges that this must lead to abortion and so on. So that if the Minister is serious in trying to extend the scope of his family planning services then he is certainly not going to do that by restricting the administration of the service to members of the medical profession. The doctors do not wish to be the instruments by which family planning contraceptives, particularly the non-medical type of contraceptives, are made available. Many of them are hostile to the extension of contraceptives for various reasons, sometimes simply ideological reasons, sometimes committed conviction and moral beliefs and sometimes the factor of simply ordinary common or garden interests in the very extensive and very valuable business of having babies.

If the Minister attempts to interpose the medical practitioner he is carrying out a direct assault on the very principle decided on in the McGee case in which it was decided that the individual has natural and human rights over which the State has no authority and the family is the natural, primary and fundamental unit of society which has rights which the State cannot control. So that the Minister is acting in direct conflict with this rather than introducing a provision which is going to implement the Supreme Court's decision in the McGee case. In another section of Mr. Justice Walsh's ruling he said:

It is a matter exclusively for the husband and wife to decide how many children they wish to have and it would be quite outside the competence of the State to dictate or prescribe the number of children they should have.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going back to the principles of the Bill again. This was appropriate to the Second Reading which was debated and passed in this House. The Deputy may not go back on it.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy asked me that very specific question at another stage in this debate and I gave him the answer to it.

Dr. Browne

The Minister may have given me an answer but he did not give me a satisfactory answer. This is why I am contesting section 4 of the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy indicated at the time that it was satisfactory.

Dr. Browne

I did not indicate that it was satisfactory. I could not have indicated that it was satisfactory because that is what my whole conflict is with the Minister.

On the question of bona fide family planning, I went to some trouble to find out what a family is and according to the Oxford English Dictionary a family is:

1. Members of a household, parents, children, servants, etc. (happy -, animals of different kinds in one cage); set of parents & children, or of relations, living together or not...

2. All decendants of common ancestor, house, lineage, ...; race, group of people from common stock.

3. Brotherhood of persons or nations...

4. Group of objects distinguished by common features.

5. Group of allied genera, ...

and at the end—

—planning, birth control;

But in the definition of family, marriage is not referred to at all, so therefore it is important that we try to establish that the Minister cannot restrict the principle of family to what he said in his speech, that it must be a married couple. I would be glad if he would deal with this matter again because at one stage he quite satisfied me at any rate——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy relate this to section 4?

Dr. Browne

Yes. The provision is that the registered medical practitioner may, for the purposes of this Act, give a prescription for a contraceptive to a person if he is satisfied that the person is seeking the contraceptive, bona fide, for family planning purposes. I am trying to find out what the Minister means by family planning.

An Ceann Comhairle

This was debated fully on Second Stage.

Dr. Browne

It could not have been debated fully on Second Stage. That is talking nonsense.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was debated anyway and it may not be repeated.

Dr. Browne

The Chair is attempting to protect the Minister. He knows quite well that we are entitled to debate this in detail here.

An Ceann Comhairle

That imputation should be withdrawn. The Chair is protecting nobody.

Dr. Browne

I will not withdraw it. The Chair knows quite well that we are meant to debate this in detail on Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should withdraw the allegation that the Chair is protecting the Minister. The Chair is enforcing the Standing Orders which apply in the case of a Committee Stage debate which relates only to the section and not to the principles which have already been discussed and decided. Whether the Deputy thinks they were adequately discussed is another matter, but the broad principles of the Bill have been debated and voted on.

Dr. Browne

We do not know from the Minister's statement——

Mr. Haughey

May I just intervene for a moment? Deputy Browne was present in this House when all these matters were dealt with in detail by me. Every possible question was answered. I have a record of the Dáil debate here in front of me and I will give the Deputy the reference if he wants it. It is Wednesday, 9 May, column 281 onwards. We went into all these matters and I gave my view and my approach as explicitly as I possibly could.

Mr. Boland

If the Minister cares to look at his own remarks at column 175 they are a direct contradiction and that is the cause of Deputy Browne's upset——

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Browne will speak for himself. He is quite capable of doing so.

Mr. Boland

If the Minister clarifies whether the remarks at a later stage——

Mr. Haughey

This is becoming Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will not allow the general framework of the Bill to be discussed again. It is not in accordance with the well-established principles and order in this House as laid down in Standing Orders. The imputation that the Chair is protecting anyone should be withdrawn.

Dr. Browne

I withdraw it. Our problem with this Bill is the equivocation of the Minister on a number of occasions. We had a good instance of it last night where we had an amendment No. 17 and a further amendment No. 17a One was quite different from the other. We were satisfied with one and then the Minister produced another.

Mr. Haughey

Amendment No. 17a was accepted by the House without a division.

Dr. Browne

I have already made my point. One amendment was introduced amending another amendment and that is what I meant by equivocation. There has also been equivocation on the question of the meaning of the word "family", whether it means a married couple, a stable couple or otherwise. Our laws are confused for the same reasons that we cannot make up our minds to provide for the dissolution of marriage in a divorce. We have this strange anomaly of annulment by the Catholic Church and the absence of civil law. The Minister—perhaps he would enlighten me on this for the last time when he is making his own contribution—has to admit that he cannot impose on doctors the responsibility of trying to decide who under our laws is married and who is not. We have the couple who got an annulment from the Catholic Church and are living apart, the couple who have a foreign divorce and are living apart, the couple who have had an annulment and are remarried and the couple who are divorced. Divorce and annulment are not recognised by our laws. There can be seven or eight permutations of legal or illegal marriages in our country. For that reason all the Minister can do is leave the whole question of contraception widely open in the terms of the Oxford English dictionary, that is, practically any couple living together, married or unmarried, divorced or following an annulment, can be considered suitable for being permitted a prescription for contraceptives.

I do not see how the Minister can ask any doctor to decide bona fide on the kind of person who should have further children or have no children as the case may be. This is something which must be clarified. In my whole approach to the Bill I have tried to slow myself down to the rate of the caterpillar progress of social advances in society in order to come to terms with the kind of debate that must be carried on in this House. I am not attempting to make any problems in doing so.

If I was a doctor in general practice and a person came along to me, I do not see how I could say to him or her: "I think you are bone fide planning a family” or “I do not think you are bona fide planning a family”. On what grounds could a doctor say this and why should he say it? Why should a third Irishman or woman intervene between two others when it comes to having their family? The Minister said at one stage—this is why it is so important that I deal with this matter—that bona fide family planning meant that contraceptives would be allowed only to married people.

Mr. Haughey

I never said that.

Dr. Browne

I have it written down that the Minister said that. I do not have the references but I will find the precise reference and get it for the Minister. Accepting that the Minister has not said it, this is a considerable advance.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy knows exactly what I said. We thrashed it out on 9 May by way of question and answer.

Mr. Boland

At column 175 on 9 May the Minister said it was restricted solely to married persons. This is the cause of the entire problem in the debate for the last half hour.

Dr. Browne

I would not try to deliberately mislead the House. What I asked the Minister about was whether married people could decide to have no children. That I felt was an advance in so far as he said "Yes", that he could not intervene in those circumstances. It was an advance that we would not compel people who did not want to have children to have them. With regard to bone fide family planning, that meant that contraceptives would be allowed only to married people. Now we have it on the Minister's assurance that this is not so.

Mr. Haughey

On a question of fact, I refer the Deputy to column 282 of the Official Report of 9 May, Volume 314, where it states:

Mr. Haughey: I will give you my definition of family planning. I use the word "family" because a married couple seems to bring us into some complicated legal situations. There could be people who are a family and who strictly in the terms of our law are not so regarded. Can the Deputy accept that?

Dr. Browne

No. I find it very confusing; our law is so confusing. I have made that point already. The computations of marriage in our law are so confusing that I am afraid the Minister cannot equivocate at all.

Mr. Haughey

I made it clear that I do not use "marriage" because of the confused situation in regard to the law on marriage. That is why I use the word "family".

Dr. Browne

I want to make it clear to the Minister that there is no definition of the word "family" other than the definition I gave.

Mr. Haughey

The word "family" is a constitutional concept.

Dr. Browne

It is not.

Mr. Haughey

There is a whole section in the Constitution dealing with the family.

Dr. Browne

There is no definition in the Constitution of the family.

Mr. Haughey

I have indicated that in this legislation I am adopting the constitutional concept of the family.

Dr. Browne

Yes, but there is no definition of what the family is. All sorts of wonderful things are said about it, but very few of them are implemented. There is no definition of the family other than the one I gave. The Minister can say what he likes, but when he moves away from the position of the marriage—and I am glad he has done that—that means a couple living together, a stable couple. Of course that is an absurd word. What is a stable couple? We are now in the position where we are accepting that the family is——

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is incorrigible. I know full well that if I used the word "married" in this legislation the Deputy would rant and rave about it and say it is a confused concept.

Dr. Browne

I am not ranting and raving.

Mr. Haughey

Because I move away from that and use the word "family", which is the whole basis of our constitutional approach to this matter—and the McGee court decision was derived from the family articles in the Constitution—and because I am keeping in line with that basic constitutional position the Deputy cannot accept it.

Dr. Browne

I am sorry——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would remind the Minister and the Deputy that we are not dealing with the principles of the Bill. We are dealing with a section which is an integral part of the Bill.

Mr. Haughey

I undertake solemnly not to intervene anymore.

An Ceann Comhairle

If we are to make progress we must deal with the section.

Dr. Browne

Nobody wants to make progress more than I do. You should know that. That is what I have been trying to do for many, many years.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am talking about progress on the Bill.

Dr. Browne

I know. That is quite a different thing. I am not misleading the House when I define a family as members of a household, parents and children. I am a doctor and I may be asked to prescribe contraceptives. I have been in the past, and I may be in the future. I will look at the Bill and I will find that what I have to do is be satisfied that the person is seeking the contraceptives bona fide for family planning purposes. As if I did not know already, I will look up the dictionary and I will find that a family consists of parents, children and perhaps servants. There is no question of marriage. It could be parents, children and relations living with them.

Remember that there are such things as polyandry, polygamy and monogamy. The status of marriage in our society is crazy because successive Governments have left it the way it is. The Minister has had to desert the marriage position and go into the family position. Whatever he may say about all the wonderful things which are said about the family in the Constitution —and at this stage I have studied the Constitution in greater detail than I ever did before and I have more admiration for it now than I used to have—there is no doubt in the world that there is no definition of the family in the Constitution.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Constitution suffer because of that?

Dr. Browne

I am just making the statement that there is no definition of the family in the Constitution.

Mr. Haughey

I am asking a question. Does the Constitution suffer because of that?

Dr. Browne

I am not concerned about that.

Mr. Haughey

If the Constitution does not suffer because of that lack of a definition, I do not think this Bill suffers either.

Mr. Boland

Another solemn undertaking broken.

Mr. Haughey

I do not understand the Deputy.

Mr. Boland

Five minutes ago the Minister gave a solemn undertaking that he would not intervene again.

Mr. Haughey

It is my overwhelming impulse to be helpful.

Dr. Browne

I am concerned with the dilemma of a doctor. We are attempting to solve the problem of a doctor facing the line in this Bill which says he must satisfy himself that the person is seeking the contraceptive bona fide for family planning purposes or for adequate medical reasons. Despite all the marvellous things said in the Constitution, about the family being the basis of society and so on, there is no definition of the family in the Constitution. The Minister has given me no definition of the family.

Mr. Haughey

I have given the Deputy a definition of family planning ad nauseam. That is the important thing.

Dr. Browne

Yes, planning a family. I ask: what is a family? I made it quite clear that a family is a group of people living together, men, women and children, dozens of them, or two or three of them. This is a considerable advance. No wonder the medical profession are very puzzled as to why they should have to intervene in this very private and personal decision between two people. It is a completely personal whim how the doctor decides. It is an extraordinary, absurd and inexplicable intervention by another individual in such a private and personal decision. It must occur to the doctor to ask: "Why on earth should I be asked to make a decision between a man and a woman as to whether they should or should not have a family?" This provision must make us the laughing stock of Europe.

The Minister mentioned the McGee case concerning this lady's right to have no children and to have the contraceptives of her choice, but even that does not hold up. The Minister tried to establish that because of the McGee case, a married lady and her husband, the provisions here can be extrapolated in some sort of reverse direction. The Supreme Court decision was that this married couple must have contraceptives but even that does not hold up because in a dissenting judgment on this question in the Supreme Court, Mr. Fitzgerald said it is well to realise that the plaintiff's claim here is as a citizen and not as a married person and that if any portion of section 17 of the 1935 Act is declared unconstitutional—and of course it was—the benefit to be derived from such a decision is equally to be enjoyed by every other citizen married of not.

The Minister's whole case is in shreds. He is asking for a Supreme Court action to be taken the day this Bill becomes law. That is why it seems so extraordinary to me that the Minister should make the claim in his Second Reading speech, and subsequently, that he is in fact implementing decisions arising out of the McGee case. He is not. This is a crazy provision. It is completely unworkable. Maybe that is what the Minister has in mind. It is so totally unworkable and impracticable that perhaps I am wasting my time. It will go under the carpet and nobody will take any notice of it. Maybe that is so.

At the same time if law-abiding citizens want to get permission to buy contraceptives presumably they must consult a lawyer in order to ascertain the position legally, in order to ascertain what variation of Irish marriage is permissible so as to give one the right to decide whether to have a child. Even more important is the position of the doctor. He would be in a very vulnerable position and would possibly face a High Court action if he presumed to tell two people who were planning not to have children that in his opinion they should have children. The whole situation is absurd.

Mr. Haughey

We know that what the Deputy wants is the simple solution of making contraceptives available by way of slot machines but the House would not accept that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must intervene here because we are having a tremendous amount of repetition, must of it from Deputy Browne. We must make progress on the section before the House. It is not in order to continue to repeat the argument.

Dr. Browne

The Chair must be fair and admit that I have not repeated the argument. I have been very careful not to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has been hearing the same argument repeatedly. I heard it on the last occasion and again this morning.

Dr. Browne

Has the Chair heard the argument I put forward a few moments ago—that the right given to Mrs. McGee in the McGee case must be given also to every other woman?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must point out that repetition is not in order.

Dr. Browne

That was not repetition. We have established much this morning. For instance, we have established that the Minister is making it possible for a doctor to make contraceptives available to anyone who asks for them and that while there may be defence in law such defence would not be upheld in terms of the Constitution in the case of any doctor denying people, whether married or unmarried, the right to have as many or as few children as they wished. The Minister attempted to establish that "family" meant marriage but later in his dealings with the medical association he said that the law relating to marriage is not clear and that, consequently, he did not wish to put medical people in the position of having to decipher the law in this regard.

Mr. Haughey

May I intervene again on a matter of fact?

Dr. Browne

I do not have to give way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would remind Deputy Browne that he is indulging in repetition.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is endeavouring to mislead the House as to what is the constitutional position.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If there is no new matter to be put before the House the Chair will have to put the section, because repetition is totally out of order.

Mr. Boland

Before there is any attempt to guillotine the section, I should hope to have the opportunity of speaking on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no wish on the part of the Chair to guillotine the section but it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that legislation is not obstructed and to ensure also that there is not repetition. Deputy Boland will have the opportunity of speaking but Deputy Browne may continue if he has anything new to add to the section as amended.

Dr. Browne

This has been a most useful morning. We have established the very important principle that a couple need not be married in order to be able to avail of the means of planning a family. I have made the case before that arising out of at least one interesting survey carried out by Dr. Bowman of the Department of Psychology at TCD, just less than 50 per cent of those visiting family planning clinics are not married. We should have regard also to the ICTU recommendation that there should not be any restriction in this legislation in relation to marriage. I cannot forsee any possibility of this section being upheld.

We have dealt with the position of the doctor but the position of the chemist is particularly invidious because he is to be put in the position that if he gives advice or information to his customers as to the use of contraceptives, and it would be reasonable for a chemist to do that since he offers advice in respect of any drug or anything else he sells, he will be acting unlawfully as a family planning clinic.

Mr. Haughey

I tabled a specific amendment on that point and that amendment has been dealt with by the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are going back on amendments that have been dealt with.

Dr. Browne

My main point is, then, that it is completely outrageous that we adults here should legislate for the establishment of the principle that one citizen has the right to enter the bedroom of another pair of citizens and make decisions for them regarding the size of their family. In addition we know now that the phrase "family planning" is totally meaningless and cannot be established in the sense in which the Minister attempted first to establish it. We have established that family planning refers to people living together, that marriage does not enter into the question. Regardless of whether the Minister or any other Member of the House may like to hear this, the situation as a result of this Bill will be that anybody who wants contraceptives will be able to get them on the prescription of a doctor but at unnecessary expense. In other words, the Bill is unworkable.

Mr. Haughey

Before Deputy Boland intervenes, it might be useful for me to demonstrate the manner in which Deputy Browne is approaching this legislation. He has just said that the position of a pharmacist is to be very difficult but the Deputy knows that amendment No. 13 which was passed by the House applies directly to the situation of the pharmacist and will result in his being exorerated specifically from the sort of difficulty to which the Deputy referred. If we are to continue to cover the same ground all Deputy Browne will succeed in doing will be to delay the Bill and, therefore, to delay the initiation of a family planning service. There is one very brief point about the constitutional position. It is my view, and I think constitutional lawyers would uphold this view, that the majority decision in the McGee case contained the following point but I might point out that it was the minority decision to which Deputy Browne referred——

Dr. Browne

I quoted from both.

Mr. Haughey

The majority decision is the one that matters and in that decision the point was made that a husband and wife have the correlative right to agree not to have children. There is no argument about that. Towards the end of that majority decision Mr. Justice Walsh said that he wished to emphasise that he had not given any consideration to the question of the constitutionality or otherwise of laws which would withhold or restrict the availability of contraceptives for use outside marriage and that nothing in the judgment was intended to offer any opinion on that matter.

Dr. Browne

He simply had not considered it.

Mr. Haughey

It is my view that the majority decision was based on the Article in the Constitution relating to the family and that, therefore, any question of the availability of contraceptives to single people was not involved. I am reasonably certain from my knowledge of these things that the Supreme Court did not and would not upset this Bill because it does not make artificial contraceptives available to single people as of right. The Supreme Court have never said that there is any such constitutional right and I do not believe they ever would say that there is any such constitutional right.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to read out the first quotation from the majority Supreme Court ruling that he gave to us.

Mr. Haughey

It is the same as I told Deputy Browne here last day: "In my view the husband and wife have a current right to agree to have no children."

Dr. Browne

"The sexual right of husband and wife is an area of particular privacy." They also said that.

Mr. Boland

That is why I said on Second Stage that I did not believe that the courts would look in a benign fashion on this Bill and that is why this Bill and this entire discussion have been a waste of time of the House and have been misleading the public. In section 4 of this Bill the Minister now purports to join a third party, the doctor, into that right which the majority decision that the Minister has read twice into the record of the House gave to the husband and wife. The Minister is now removing from the husband and the wife that absolute right which the Supreme Court in the majority decision stated was theirs and he is giving instead that decision to a third person, a doctor. He is giving it specifically in section 4, not on the basis of the doctor's medical knowledge, abaility or training. In section 4 (2) he says:

A registered medical practitioner may, ... give a prescription or authorisation for a contraceptive to a person if he is satisfied that the person is seeking the contraceptive, bona fide, for family planning or for adequate medical reasons....

If the Minister had not chosen to put in the last phrase it might be argued that "family planning purposes" came within the ambit of the doctor's medical training. However, the Minister in his own legislation is at pains to make it clear that family planning purposes are not necessary medical reasons at all. It appears clear that this Bill will end up in the courts on foot of this section and the joining of the doctor with the couple who had their right confirmed by the Supreme Court in the McGee case judgment to decide how to order their sexual affairs in private without interference from anybody else or without their interfering with anybody else. That right appears to be eroded and attacked in section 4. If the courts take the same line as they took previously they cannot accept sections 4 as being constitutional now because of the joining in of the doctor, and indeed in some degree of the chemist, into that decision-making approach. For that reason we are to a large extent wasting the time of the House unnecessarily on a Bill that will not stand up.

The last time I warned the Minister that we were wasting the time of the House on a Bill that was unworkable he did not accept that. That Bill, which was for the control of the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, has never been implemented because the Minister subsequently found that what I said was right. That Bill has never come into effect and this Bill will not come into effect either.

Mr. Haughey

The Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Act is in effect.

Mr. Boland

I do not see "Smokers die younger" on the side of this packet.

Mr. Haughey

That was never in the regulations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on the Family Planning Bill.

Mr. Boland

I am not suggesting in any facetious way that this Bill is going to fall. I am making the suggestion on the basis of a fairly careful study that I and other people have done of the legal effects and implications of the Bill and I am pointing out that the last time I made such a prediction I was proved right. The regulations have not been made.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy said that the regulations were unconstitutional.

An Leas Cheann Comhairle

We will have to get some other opportunity to discuss that Bill.

Mr. Boland

I said it would be unworkable, not unconstitutional.

Other parts of section 4 raise serious doubts. Section 4 (1) (b) sets out the fact that a chemist, his servant or agent may supply contraceptives to a person on foot of a prescription or authorisation, but apparently the situation is now to be that the chemist may supply to the named person who has to go to the doctor to have a prescription made out to him in his name for contraceptives. The spouse of the person to whom the prescription has been issued apparently would not be empowered to go to the chemist's shop with the prescription or authorisation. Similarly the husband of a woman would not be allowed to go to the chemist's shop to have the prescription or authorisation dispensed. Does that not seem a rather unfair, unnecessary restriction? The Minister might care to explain why he is insisting that only the person to whom the contraceptive prescription is issued must attend personally at the chemist's shop to have the prescription filled. It does not seem reasonable. There is the even more ridiculous position that the pharmacist apparently will find that while he is selling contraceptives to other people on foot of these scripts he will be obliged to obtain a script from a doctor in order to supply himself with contraceptives. Otherwise if a chemist were to sell contraceptives to himself he would be clearly in breach of the provisions of section 4.

I referred last night at some length to the use of the phrase "bona fide” and the difficulty it had created. I asked the Minister to explain why he had used the phrase “bona fide” in the legislation. He suggested, perhaps a little facetiously, that it was because of his classical education. My reason for inquiring is that in recent legislation on the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Bill, 1979, which was an amendment of the 1930 Act, the phrase “bona fide” was dropped. When the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy D. Andrews, who handled that Bill in the Seanad, was questioned as to why “bona fide” was no longer being used his explanation was that it is just a piece of superfluous jargon which lawyers are inclined to use. I think he would agree that it is not necessary in the context and is purely a drafting matter. The phrase “bona fide” is a cliche. Why use the words? Why not use the words “with the best of intentions”? The Minister of State went on to say that it was about time we started to use printable and understandable English. When the matter was raised again in the Seanad on 2 May by way of amendment the Minister of State said, as reported in the Official Report of the Seanad, column 15, Volume 92:

The language is there, but it is out-of-date language. It has not been updated and consequently is meaningless to anybody who would wish to understand it, except lawyers....

We have an obligation to make Acts meaningful not only to the people who practise the law but the people who actually use the law in defence of their interests.

It is also a well-known matter of social justice that people in the capacity of private citizens are entitled to go to the courts without, dare I say it, the services of a solicitor or a barrister.

Consequently, to ensure that fundamental concept of social justice we have an obligation to make Bills in this House, which eventually become Acts, as meaningful as possible. I have no reason to change my views in relation to the use of the words "bona fide”.

If the Minister handling the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which is a very complicated piece of legislation, should speak as strongly as that against the use of the words "bona fide” because it is not clearly understood by the general public, why has this Minister chosen to use the words “bona fide” in a section where the unfortunate doctor and the person visiting him will both be obliged to interpret for themselves what “bona fide” means? If the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is normally interpreted by lawyers, has the words “bona fide” excluded from it because the Minister believed it to be a cliché in lawyers' jargon, why are we including those words in a Bill which is to determine the decisions to be made by doctors for their patients? I tried to raise that matter last night but I am afraid the Minister did not deal with it to my satisfaction. The main objection to section 4 is that it places a very unfair obligation on the doctor to decide which people should or should not have contraceptives made available to them.

Mr. Haughey

How often has the Deputy made that point?

Mr. Boland

For the benefit of Deputy Browne, or anybody else, it is the doctor who will decide what bona fide family planning purposes are, not having regard to his medical experience, because the Minister in subsection (2) set family planning purposes aside from adequate medical reasons.

Mr. Haughey

Because he is the family doctor who knows the family.

Mr. Boland

Somebody else could be the family milkman, but that does not mean that he is any better qualified.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is not serious.

Mr. Boland

I am being absolutely serious. Apparently the association representing doctors did not see that it was appropriate that they should be asked to take on the business of being the moral arbiters or to take on a quasi-judicial role. Subsection (2) states that once the doctor issues the script and states on it that it is for the purposes of this Act, it shall be conclusively presumed that the person sought the contraceptive for bona fide purposes. Not only has the doctor to take on a moral role as an arbiter but he has to take on a quasi-judicial role as well and yet he is being asked to interpret words like “bona fide” which the Minister of State, Deputy David Andrews, a lawyer, felt should be excluded from other legislation because of the difficulty of interpretation.

The doctor is also being asked to define "family", a word which the House was not prepared to define. I have the same reservations as Deputy Browne in relation to the Minister's definition of "family". I would be satisfied with the definition given by the Minister on Wednesday, 9 May at column 282 of the Official Report except that earlier on the same day the Minister gave a completely different definition. I invited the Minister on two occasions to state that his later statement was appropriate rather than the earlier statement.

Mr. Haughey

It is.

Mr. Boland

The earlier statement at column 175 of the report of the same date said:

I am convinced that there is a considerable majority of people in favour of making artifical contraceptives available to married persons. That is solely what we are legislating for in this Bill.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy knows that that was a slip of the tongue and that I meant to say "family" there. My approach has been consistent throughout the Bill. I have explained repeatedly that I did not use "married" because of the difficulties involved.

Mr. Boland

I accept that now. As the Bill goes on, that is the way the courts would interpret it. The Minister would have saved a lot of time this morning if he had said that.

Mr. Haughey

In cross talk across the House the Deputy cannot blame me for using the word "married" on one occasion, when I meant "family".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair recalls that we debated that fully before.

Mr. Boland

At last we have clarified it and I accept the Minister's explanation. I would like the Minister to deal with some of the other points I raised especially in relation to his belief that this section would stand the test of the courts.

Mr. Haughey

I have no doubt about that. The drafting of legislation is a skilled art. Neither Ministers nor their civil servants are involved in it but a skilled body of men called parliamentary draftsmen whose specific skill is used to devise legislation for us to draft.

Mr. Boland

Are these the same draftsmen who drafted amendment No. 17 so badly that the Minister had to amend it before it went through the House?

Mr. Haughey

In these matters parliamentarians are entirely in the hands of the draftsmen. The phrase "bona fide family planning” is the phrase adopted for the purposes of this legislation by the draftsmen. I am quite satisfied that it achieves its purpose. It means genuine or valid and in neither legal terminology nor in common parlance is there a phrase which means more to the ordinary person than “bona fide”. I am not claiming any pride of authorship nor am I defending it except to say that it is the phrase which in the draftsman's skilled opinion he has deemed appropriate for this legislation.

I read the report of the majority decision of the Supreme Court again and again and right through that decision the sentiment, the direction keeps reappearing that married couples—here I am using the word "married" because that is the phrase that the Supreme Court used—have the constitutional right to artificial contraceptives. From that simple statement this legislation has evolved. I am convinced that the trend of the majority decision of the Supreme Court is that the availability of artificial contraceptives be confined to a husband and wife relationship or to married couples. The Supreme Court went to the trouble of specifically stating that they were not extending this right of availability to single persons. It is very significant that the Supreme Court did that. If the Supreme Court were leaving the thing completely open and were only deciding the issue in so far as a family, married couples, or a husband and wife were concerned it would have stopped at that. The Supreme Court did not stop at that. In the majority decision they went on to specifically indicate that they were not prepared to extend this constitutional right of availability to single persons.

We are all fallible. We can only do our best. However, I am reasonably convinced and advised that what we are proposing in this Bill is not alone in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court but also in accordance with the spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court majority decision is based upon and evolves from the family Articles of the Constitution and therefore we, as parliamentarians, are obliged by the Supreme Court decision to make artificial contraceptives available to families for family planning purposes. I have sought in this legislation with all the advice and all the parliamentary drafting skill of the draftsmen to give effect to that and on that basis the Bill will stand up. If it does not we will have to try to legislate again. At least we have made a reasonable effort to legislate for what is a difficult complicated sensitive area.

I do not know that I can add any more to this argument. We have been over the ground again and again, we have taken every word and examined it minutely, we have discussed it and considered its implications. I maintain that if we accept that there is a constitutional obligation on Parliament to make artificial contraceptives easily available, reasonably accessible—that is all that is involved—to married couples, then everything else in this Bill follows in logical sequence. I do not have to say this to Deputy Boland but I have to say it to Deputy Browne. If you accept, on the one hand, that you have a constitutional obligation to make them reasonably available to married couples for family planning purposes, husband and wife relationship, and at the same time you do not want to make them completely and limitlessly available to the general public, then some mechanism and some arrangements such as are outlined in this Bill are the only logical alternative. I maintain that the arrangements I am outlining in this Bill to try to fit inside those two parameters are as good as you can devise.

Major de Valera

I want to take up the point the Minister made in his last few words, which is the kernel of the matter. I know we have got to keep to section 4, but there are many points of view. Yesterday, when I asked Deputy Boland a certain question it was not with the intention that he attributed to me, but to bring out the broad spectrum. My view of the situation might not be very far away from Deputy Flanagan's in fundamentals but we have to follow the line of the Minister for two very coercive reasons, which apply particularly to section 4.

We have, as the Minister said, a choice of a free for all. The McGee case has resulted in the administrative necessity of bringing in control. The alternative is commercial exploitation, serious problems of public health and morality and the protection of young people. These are the consequences resulting from the administrative impact of the McGee case, which left everything wide open. It is on that fact that I believe Deputy Flanagan and I take different views in relation to this section. I take the Minister's view very strongly because I believe that this control must be brought in urgently before the situation deteriorates completely.

The second fact was discussed on Second Stage. It may arise on Fifth Stage but it would not be proper to discuss it now. I must mention it as a background. Section 3 is a necessary ingredient in this Bill because the McGee judgment was given. The absence of section 3 would substantiate Deputy Boland's argument about constitutionality. I do not believe that the Deputy would ask me to go into the constitutional argument with him. The Minister has answered it and there is no need for me to answer it again. With regard to constitutionality the Bill would not stand up without section 3. I am no more enamoured with some of the implications of the situation than Deputy Flanagan is but the choice is: "Will you sit back and do nothing and let the flood gates widen and have all the consequences?". It would be out of order to go into those details now.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is getting back to a Second Stage debate and we cannot have that.

Major de Valera

I will be very brief on this. In all the arguments, constitutional and others, there has been little advertence to what I regard as the fundamental reasons why the doctor is the appropriate agent. I have already given them in detail. Whether contraceptive methods are drugs, intrauterine devices, surgery or even diaphragm, these are all matters for close medical supervision. It would be very difficult under any of those headings to supply any other answer than the one in section 4. They all have serious implications within the doctors' ambit. I believe, in tying it to the medical profession and the pharmaceutical profession, that the arguments I made on an earlier Stage in regard to that still hold and this is the basic reason why it is logical to adopt the mechanism the Minister is using.

The last point is one that has been insinuated into the argument on this section, that is, putting the onus on the doctor. Is it not just relying on the doctor as a responsible member of the community to use his judgment since it is so closely associated with his skill and with his profession? Where else can one go? There is an implication in the criticisms that have been made of referring this matter to the medical profession that the medical profession are not a group of responsible people who will particularly look to the human factors. I would like to make this point to Deputy Browne, who is a doctor. Are not the doctors the most likely people to be humanly and understandably sympathetic to their patients?

There has been sufficient time given to debate on this section without going into further detail. I wanted to say something, particularly to a Deputy like Deputy O.J. Flanagan, whose fundamental views and attitudes I would share more nearly than perhaps I do a lot of other views expressed in this House. Furthermore—and this relates somewhat to what happened here yesterday—there are many arguable and divergent views held and there are very substantial groups holding very different views in this community. We must take that as a fact also. My personal view is that we have got to do something; we cannot sit back negligently and let everything go by default. In all the circumstances the Minister's Bill, as he has justly claimed himself in his last remarks, is about the best solution to this very difficult problem facing our community with its diverse thinking and this House representing it. In all these circumstances, then, I urge that we take a reasonable view of the realities following the McGee case. Endeavouring to take that view I personally, as well as being a member of the party supporting the Minister, I feel that his solution is the best and that we should pass section 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. Browne. Unless there are some new points to be raised at this stage the Chair must put the section. We cannot go on hour after hour repeating the arguments made and making Second Stage speeches.

Dr. Browne

I will deal only with the points referred to by the Minister in relation to the Constitution, but I think he gave the impression in some way that I was misleading the House in my references to the Constitution, the majority decision, and particularly Mr. Justice Walshe's magnificent and very moving defence of citizens' rights in our society. This is what genuinely amazes me about this provision for the introduction of the doctor in the decision-making process between married people for married people—of course, that is what is intended here—but even between any two mature people, any mature couple taking a decision about having children, whether they should have contraceptives or plan their family.

The general point made by the Minister is correct, of course, but he did not deal with it, I felt, completely frankly. Mr. Justice Walshe was dealing with the case put to him, that is the McGee case. That was a married lady looking for the right to use contraceptives. He came down categorically on her right as a married person. He did not deal with the rights of an individual, of a person as a citizen, because that is a separate question arising out of the rights of the individual under our Constitution. While it is true to say that Mr. Fitzgerald dissented in his judgment from the majority decision, in the course of his dissent, he made the statement to which I have referred already and which I have read into the record of the House. It is well to realise that the plantiff's claim here is as a citizen and that if any portion of section 17 of the 1935 Act is declared unconstitutional the benefits to be derived from such a decision are equally to be enjoyed by every other citizen be they married or not. That statement was not concerned with the McGee decision. It was the interpretation of the right of an individual under the Constitution. That is quite unequivocal and, it seems to me, unanswerable. It establishes beyond doubt that this section cannot be applied.

What is surprising—if the Minister has gone to the trouble of reading Mr. Justice Walshe's decision—is how on earth he could bring in a Bill of this kind in which he is insisting that an individual shall intervene in the decision-making when eloquent paragraph after eloquent paragraph makes the position quite clear, according to Mr. Justice Walshe. Incidentally he dealt also—something which might interest the other Deputies here who are insisting on the implementation of Catholic social teaching on the question of natural family planning methods—with the question of the pluralist nature of our society.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must intervene again. Deputy Browne is now making a Second Stage speech. We must adhere to the section before the House. If there are no new points to be made on it, I must put the section. That is the duty of the Chair. I cannot allow the debate to continue this way much longer. There is no reason why the Chair should permit repetition after repetition and Second Stage speeches. The Chair has a responsibility to the House.

Dr. Browne

I appreciate the Chair's dilemma but the position is that the Minister has referred to the majority decision.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister no more than any other Member of the House, has the right to repeat arguments he has made or to make Second Stage speeches.

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order, the Minister dealt with the constitutional argument only because it was put up by Deputies Browne and Boland, and I was asked to deal with it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept that, and I allowed it, but all of this is completely out of order. I must put the section. I will allow Deputy Browne now to make his point and then I will put the section.

Dr. Browne

I shall make just two very brief references that I think will establish my point: the question of the outrageous nature of this proposal to introduce the doctor as the arbiter in family planning.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy has said that.

Dr. Browne

All right. Now I shall explain that the Supreme Court is on my side and I cannot see how the Minister could come in here and say that he has the backing of the Supreme Court or majority decision, which he said a few minutes ago, in defence of this. I am reading now from Mr. Justice Walshe's ruling:

It follows that the use of contraceptives by them within that marital privacy is equally guaranteed against such invasion and as such assumes the status of a right so guaranteed by the Constitution.

Mr. Justice Walshe continues:

The sexual life of a husband and wife is of necessity and by its nature an area of particular privacy. If the husband and wife decide to limit their family or to avoid having children by use of contraceptives it is a matter peculiarly within the joint decision of the husband and wife and one into which the State cannot intrude unless its intrusion can be justified by the exigencies of the common good.

And there is no such suggestion.

The one aspect which is very important from the point of view of Deputy de Valera's and Deputy Flanagan's point of view is that we live in a pluralist society from a religious point of view. Therefore Mr. Justice Walshe went on to point out that we have guarantees of religious freedom, freedom of conscience which are not confined to the different denominations of Christian religions but extend to other religious denominations and so on. There is another point which is important in relation to the importance given to natural law.

It is undoubtedly true that among those persons who are subject to a particular moral code no one has a right to be in breach of that moral code. But when this is a code governing private morality and where the breach of it is not one which injures the common good then it is not the State's business to intervene.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must again point out that all this was debated on Second Stage. It is not relevant to the section before the House. The Chair has to put the section at this stage.

Dr. Browne

This is the final paragraph:

There is no law in force in the State which prohibits use of contraceptives either in or outside of marriage or the manufacture or distribution of contraceptives within the State.

I accept that the majority decision of the Supreme Court referred to marriage strictly because that was the case put to them. The dissenting decision had nothing to do with the fact, Mr. Fitzgerald went on to say, that if the majority decision was a valid decision—and obviously it is—then it refers to everybody in this State.

Deputy Flanagan rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Flanagan, but the Chair must put the section at this stage.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Is the Chair denying me the right to speak?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not denying you the right to speak as long as you raise a matter relevant to the section and which has not been raised previously.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I will take this opportunity to refer briefly to what has been said by other Deputies. This is the first time I made a contribution on section 4 and it is not my intention to delay the House. The Minister must be extremely anxious to put this Bill through the House and I realise the Chair is anxious that this section be dealt with quickly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not the job of the Chair. If the debate on this section went on for a year the Chair would not have the power to do anything about it. The Chair must ensure that there is no repetition, or that a section is not being deliberately held up.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is not my intention to repeat anything that has been said already. This section gives a person the right to obtain contraceptives. It says that:

(1) A person shall not sell contraceptives unless—

(a) the sale is in accordance with regulations for the purposes of this subsection relating to the sale of contraceptives,

And the prescription must be given solely for the purpose of family planning. A person who acts contrary to the regulation which is likely to be made under this section shall be guilty of an offence. I would not like to rush this section through without hearing what every Member has to say about it.

Deputy V. de Valera and the Minister referred to the Supreme Court decision on the McGee case which brought about this legislation and particularly this section, which is the principal section of the Bill. If the Supreme Court rule in a special case that a certain husband and wife have, or a wife has a legal right to obtain contraceptives, we are now told that we must change the law because of that decision. If a citizen feels she has a legal right to abortion, as Mrs. McGee felt she had a right to contraceptives, and as a result of the Supreme Court decision in her case we are now changing the law for everybody, we must bear in mind—and this is accepted by Catholics and Protestants—that contraception is morally wrong——

Dr. Browne

That is not true about Protestants.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There are Protestants, particularly in Northern Ireland, who express indignation when we say that in order to bring about national unity we must change our laws in relation to contraception. A large proportion of Catholics and Protestants object to the provisions which this section will place on our Statute Book.

The Minister said, and Deputy de Valera agreed with him, that this Bill was introduced as a result of the Supreme Court decision. Does this mean that every time the Supreme Court give a decision on any matter pertaining to the family or the individual, irrespective. of the special or unusual circumstances of the case, legislation will be passed to give everyone the same legal rights as those given in the special case which was brought before the Supreme Court?

When this section is passed the groups which pressured the Minister into bringing in this section will say, "We have won the first part of the race and we will now proceed to pressure for the further opening of the floodgates to make contraceptives available". This Bill was introduced as a result of a Supreme Court decision. In the event of somebody claiming a legal right to abortion in special circumstances and the Supreme Court deciding in her favour, will we reach the stage when we will legalise abortion to meet the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court?

This House has the right to legislate independently of any outside views, and this is where section 4 comes in. If the Supreme Court or any other court has laid it down that the purchase, sale and making available of contraceptives is a legal right, have we not the right to legislate for the good of the majority? Must we put in section 4 of this Bill to please a small pressure group in a complete minority? Must we leave dangers for the majority in order to please the pressure group minority? That is the danger I see in section 4 of this Bill. This is a section giving teeth to the Bill. The valuable time of the House and the Minister is taken up with this section, simply because a small pressure group in a complete minority wishes to have legislation enacted in order to meet its point of view, to the detriment of the majority. I cannot contribute, by any means, to this section, bearing in mind that the whole question of the prescription, purchase, sale and the making available of contraceptives are morally wrong. This is the section which gives the right to do that and I strongly oppose it by every means in my power. No matter how we legislate, we cannot make right what is morally wrong and make available to any section of the public facilities which are morally wrong. No Act of Parliament passed by this House can do that.

Deputy Boland

I want to speak on section 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has something new at this stage?

Deputy Boland

The Minister has not dealt with my question. Perhaps Deputy de Valera would care to deal with the question I asked the Minister? How can this section stand against the ruling of the court—let us leave aside any other matter—that married couples are entitled to be allowed——

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order, I want to state that the constitutionality or otherwise of this legislation may not be discussed on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing arising on Committee Stage except what is on section 4. We are discussing all the principles of the Bill which were raised on Second Stage. I am sorry, the Chair will have to protest.

Deputy Boland

Section 4 is the kernel of the Bill. Are we going to be deprived of making points? So far I have spoken only once on this section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not depriving anybody of making points. The Chair is telling the Deputy, and every other Deputy, that all the points being raised have been raised a score of times already. The Chair must point that out.

Mr. Boland

Have we come to a new stage where the Chair is going to decide to cut Committee Stage short if he has become bored?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will resume his seat at this stage. The Chair is not bored. The Chair is prepared to sit and hear the arguments all day. The Chair has a duty to the House to ensure that legislation is put through in a proper fashion, that there is not continual repetition of argument, as we have had already for the last four hours on this section. If the Deputy has any new points to raise, the Chair is prepared to allow him to so so. The Chair has no authority to prevent a discussion lasting as long as it will, or as long as it must, provided it is not repetition. We have had, on this matter, nothing but repetition for hours on end. We cannot have repetition; we cannot have Second Stage speeches and that is what we are having.

Mr. Boland

I am not making a Second Stage speech. I am making Committee Stage points and I have long enough experience in this and the other House to know the purpose of Committee Stage as well as any other Deputy. I will not be deprived of my rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not dispute the rulings of the Chair.

Mr. Boland

I am not going to be deprived of my rights. When the Minister did not answer my question, I want to know if Deputy de Valera will deal with it. I will not be denied my rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot deprive any Deputy of his rights.

Mr. Boland

I want to ask a question. I did not get an answer; perhaps Deputy de Valera will answer. How can this section be reconciled—this section which joins the doctor with the husband and wife in the decision whether or not the husband and wife should have artificial contraceptives made available to them? How can that be reconciled with the majority ruling in the McGee case? I accept the point made in relation to the importance of section 3 being in compliance with the McGee ruling. How can this section, joining the doctor with a married couple in the decision as to whether or not the married couple should have availability of contraceptives or not, be reconciled with the majority ruling of the McGee case? This is one question.

Major de Valera

On the basis, very simply, of the need for control, having regard to all the circumstances which I mentioned before. Now, I do not want——

Mr. Haughey

I have mentioned on a number of occasions that it is my view that the arrangements set out in this Bill are compatible with the constitutional majority decision of the Supreme Court. For Deputy Boland to ask that question is simply being illogical.

Mr. Boland

The next question I wish to ask is, suppose Deputy de Valera chose to import 100,000 gross of condoms and set up a stall in O'Connell Street to sell them as prophylactics——

Major de Valera

He might have problems.

Mr. Boland

——apart from the fact that he might be penalised for not having a street trader's licence—can anybody tell me what law he would be breaking, as the law stands or as the law will stand when this legislation is passed? If Deputy de Valera or any other Deputy chooses to sell them as prophylactics for the prevention of disease, what law would he be breaking?

Major de Valera

None, at the moment.

Mr. Haughey

My responsibility as Minister——

Mr. Boland

What is the purpose of section 4?

Mr. Haughey

It is my responsibility, as Minister, to pilot this legislation through the House and to deal with questions arising out of it. It is not any Minister's duty to deal with a hypothetical question which any particular Deputy asks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is putting the question.

The question is: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Deputies: Vótáil.

Mr. Boland

Am I not being allowed to ask this question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question has been asked a score of times. The Chair must make up its mind.

Mr. Boland

On a point of order——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is putting the question.

Mr. Boland

In the interest of endeavouring to make further progress may I suggest that the House adjourn for ten minutes so as to discuss, and possibly have reconsidered, the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no option but to accept the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. A division has been called and I am putting the question. If the Deputy has any protest or complaint he may raise it afterwards.

Mr. Boland

I must make the point that we had not concluded the Committee Stage discussion on section 4. While I was on my feet and had been interrupted by the Minister the Leas-Cheann Comhairle chose to rise and put the question that section 4 be passed although the Committee Stage debate had not concluded. It raises very serious problems.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is unusual to have a discussion just as I am about to put the question. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has taken a decision; the division bells rang and I have come in to take the division and I have no option but to put the question.

Dr. FitzGerald

I would ask the Chair to consider an adjournment of ten minutes to allow us to consider the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no precedent for adjourning the Dáil on a point of this kind.

Dr. FitzGerald

There is no precedent for the action of closing a debate on Committee Stage with someone intervening in the middle of a sentence and the debate going on across the floor of the House. It is that lack of precedent that leads me to ask that there be a ten minute adjournment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald will appreciate that we cannot have a discussion on this at this time.

Dr. FitzGerald

I would just like to move an adjournment of the House for ten minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot accept the motion.

Mr. Bruton

If this is allowed to happen debate in this House is going to be undermined.

Dr. FitzGerald

I press the motion that I wish the House to be adjourned and I put the proposal.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to raise the matter afterwards he may. I must put the question.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

At this stage in the proceedings of the House it is not in order to have a debate or to make speeches. I am not familiar with what the Deputies are talking about. All I know is that when I was in the Chair earlier section 4 was under discussion and was being discussed for a long time and indeed there was a bit of repetition to which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle possibly took exception.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The only point I want to make is that there is only one way of putting a question that a section stand part of the Bill and that is if all debate has stopped or as a result of a motion that the question be now put.

Mr. Haughey

It was the Opposition parties who called for the vote.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister wants the question put he must propose that the question be put and that was not done. The only other way it can be done is if the debate has finished.

Dr. Browne

As the person involved at the time I think the Chair should——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no option but to put the question.

Dr. Browne

This is an outrageous precedent.

(Interruptions)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Dr. FitzGerald

I seek merely an adjournment for amicable discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is being put. The vote was called. It must have been challenged in the House; it could not have taken place unless it was challenged.

Dr. FitzGerald

It was challenged by one Deputy. I am asking that, in order to enable amicable discussion to take place, we adjourn for ten minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot accept that proposal.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is a guillotine without adopting the guillotine procedure.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no precedent for a debate just as the Chair is about to put a question which has been challenged.

(Interruptions)

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Nil, 33.

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.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Daly, Brendan.
• de Valera, Sile.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South— Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• 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, Noël.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Creed, Donal.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Horgan, John.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Lipper, Mick.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Tully, James.

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

Question declared carried.

Dr. FitzGerald

Before the Ceann Comhairle leaves, would it be possible for him to take the Chair for a moment?

The Ceann Comhairle should be in the Chair for the statement I am about to make. I wish to give notice of my intention to move a vote of censure against the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in view of his handling of that vote and of the calling of the vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's remarks are noted. I do not think it is necessary to give notice.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, might I ask for an interpretation for the guidance of the House for the rest of this Bill? I think I am right in thinking that the question can only be put when the debate has concluded on the amendment or on the section and if the Chair thinks, or the Government think, that it has been debated long enough a question must be put that the question be now put. There are only two ways of doing it. The Chair cannot decide himself that he is going to put the question in spite of the House and that is what was done in this case.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Fitzpatrick was not even in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to discuss that matter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I know what happened.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

SECTION 5.

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

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Might I direct the Chair's attention to a very serious matter unless Parliament is to be turned into a complete farce? I have been sitting here since 10.30 this morning. I have certain questions to ask on section 4 and I had been waiting for Deputy Boland——

An Ceann Comhairle

That section is now passed.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It should not have been passed.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy has been deprived of his democratic right.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Can we raise section 4 despite the fact that the division has taken place? We were not finished with it when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle decided to dispose of it.

Mr. Haughey

You are finished with it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Government may have 84 seats here but they do not have 84 seats in the country.

Dr. FitzGerald

They are just bullying this House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

Lest any misstatements get abroad I want to say that I patiently answered every argument put up and every question put to me on section 4 all day yesterday and all day today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 4 has been disposed of.

Mr. Boland

I want to ask the Minister what was in his mind on this section and I do not think we can accept that the parliamentary draftsman is entirely responsible in this case. Section 5 (1) (a) provides 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. Possibly the draftsman may be responsible for some of the tortuous language employed in the paragraph but the Minister must have indicated what his requirement was in this area.

How on earth is the unfortunate customs officer to interpret what is a quantity of contraceptives which would indicate that they are not solely for the traveller's own use? Is the customs officer supposed to determine for himself on the basis of his own knowledge or experience what is an acceptable quantity for a person's own personal use? Does the Minister intend to issue regulations or guidelines giving some indication to the customs officials that quantity X would be deemed to be appropriate for a person's own personal use but quantity Y might not? Would the length of stay of the traveller in the country be taken into account vis-á-vis the amount of contraceptives he may or may not have in his personal luggage? Will the whole thing not be as farcical as the wording of paragraph (a)? Surely the Minister could have found something better, or nothing at all, rather than inserting that paragraph in that form at this time?

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

Dr. Browne

A recent survey indicted us as being the most hypocritical nation in Europe. They will be able to introduce a new category now of our being the most absurd and ridiculous nation in Europe when it becomes common knowledge amongst visitors to this country the kind of questions they will be asked about their very intimate and private and personal lives. A Frenchman, or a German, or a Dane, or an Englishman, or an American, coming into the country will have to suffer an inquisition by an unfortunate customs man about details of his private and marital relationship arising out of an investigation into the contraceptives he is attempting to bring into the State.

To me a contraceptive is simply an industrial product. A non-medical contraceptive is an industrial product and it is a matter for the IDA, if they so wish, to set up a factory to produce and sell them. Nothing more than that is involved. The Minister has not referred to the question of standards. Contraceptives coming into the State should be dealt with as ordinary industrial products. Tourists, visitors and businessmen coming into the State, and our fellow countrymen coming down from the North of Ireland, will find that this society——

Mr. Boland

On a point of order, may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is not a quorum present?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy asking for a quorum?

Mr. Boland

If the Chair cares to consult Standing Orders he will see that I do not have to ask for one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy asking for a quorum?

Mr. Boland

I do not have to ask for one.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should have some respect for the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Generally a Deputy asks for a quorum.

Dr. Browne

The Chair has to earn respect.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Browne, please do not let us have that.

Dr. Woods

It is a shame.

Mr. Boland

May I draw the attention of the Chair to Standing Order No. 64:

If during a sitting of a Committee of the whole Dáil, other than while a private member's Bill is under consideration, a member calls the attention of the Chair to the fact that a quorum is not present, or if on the report of a division such fact shall appear, the division bells shall be rung...

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All down the years the precedent of the House has been that a Deputy has asked for a quorum.

Mr. Boland

That is the Standing Order.

Mr. C. Murphy

Deputy Boland likes the sound of bells. Will we get him a baby's rattle?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The precedent is that Deputies asked for a quorum. That is the way it has always been done. I take it the Deputy is asking for a quorum?

Mr. Boland

I take it the Chair will comply with Standing Order No. 64.

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

Dr. Browne

I was dealing with the problem of the customs man at the point of entry to the State faced with implementing the provisions of section 5 in respect of visitors. It is well to remember that there are a number of different kinds of contraceptives starting with the pill of varying strengths, and then the IUD, the cap, the condom and the spermacides. Imagine the position of a customs officer faced with one or other or all of the different forms of contraceptives in a visitor's luggage. He has to decide whether the person is bound by this bona fide intention of family planning. He has to decide whether a traveller may bring them in and not use them bona fide and whether he is subject to our law. He has to ask whether he will use those contraceptives for the purposes of family planning. That is one question which obviously arises and which a stranger or a non-Irish person coming here will be asked.

Secondly, there is the Irish man or woman coming in here with one or more of these different devices who presumably as a national is subject to our law. What is the position of the customs officer faced with a multiplicity of these various devices in the bottom of the person's luggage? The customs officer is faced with a citizen and he has to decide what he will do. Does he ask the Irish national for his prescription authorising him to import them and in what amount, or to reimport them if he had them when he was going out and in what amount?

As Deputy Boland asked, how is the customs officer to decide? Taking the simplest device, the condom, what is a reasonable amount for a week's stay, a month's stay, six months' stay, a year's stay or an overnight stay? What is he to tell the foreign visitor who brings in a week's supply and may or may not stay for a fortnight? Must he tell the visitor: "Once you are in here you are subject to Irish law and you will have to go to a doctor for further prescriptions if you require them for contraceptives."? If a woman mislays her contraceptives will she have to accept the strictures of Irish law and go to a medical practitioner in order to be fitted with a new device rather than simply going and saying: "I want No. 5 or No. 6" or whatever it may be, or will she be treated as a foreign visitor and so allowed——

Mr. C. Murphy

Apparently some of these visitors are not men but supermen.

Dr. Browne

It is not really funny. It is pitiful.

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

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Browne.

Dr. Browne

This is the typical, classical Irish republican, sectarian and bigoted nationalist.

Mr. N. Andrews

On a point of order, to what does that remark refer?

Dr. Browne

Irish republicanism and sectarianism.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Browne on the section.

Dr. Browne

It is a total negation of the pluralist idea of true republicanism. We are talking of a couple from the Continent who during their stay here find it necessary to renew their supplies of contraceptives but neither he nor she can obtain supplies without going to a chemist and producing a prescription. Is the customs officer to tell him or her that this is the situation here? I am emphasising both him and her since both are involved. Are they to be told on arriving here that in order to obtain contraceptives they must go to a doctor for a prescription for which they must pay and then go to a chemist where they must also pay a fee in order to allow them to carry out this perfectly reasonable practice of indulging in effective family planning as they know it on the Continent?

In subsection (a) there is reference to the situation of contraceptives being part of a visitor's personal luggage but the reference is to "he". What is the position about a woman? Do we recognise that women come into this State from other places and that they may bring contraceptives with them? Are they to be permitted to bring in condoms or other contraceptives or do women exist at all in our male chauvinist muslim-type society? They do not appear to have any rights so far as this section is concerned.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy should know about the Interpretation Acts.

Dr. Browne

So far as I can see customs officers are to be faced with the problem of attempting to decide whether the contraceptives in an individual's luggage are for the person's own use and whether the amount involved is reasonable. This will put customs officers in a dilemma comparable to the dilemma facing a doctor in terms of section 4 except infinitely more advanced. It is particularly absurd for us to treat contraceptives as if they were some kind of dangerous drug like cocaine, opium, pot or one of these which are alleged to be serious drugs. To treat contraceptives in the same way in regard to the supervision of their importation into the State is absurd. They are completely harmless. They are medicinal, as the Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions. They are most valuable to every society. They are accepted by the World Health Organisation and by EEC bodies involved in the question of family planning. It is obvious that if we leave section 5 in the Bill we are going to create an absurd dilemma which will bring about a laughable situation where Irish people are concerned in Europe. They are going to be subjected to this inquisition by these unhappy young customs officials who will not for the life of them be able to say whether the person they are talking to can say reasonably and truthfully that the number of contraceptives that he has in his baggage is the amount to which he has a right.

Mr. Haughey

Before Deputy O'Connell joins in this, Ministers have some rights in this House.

Dr. O'Connell

I was not denying those rights. I did ask first.

Mr. Haughey

I have been asked questions for the last half hour.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister does not necessarily have priority over another speaker who may request first.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is usually called after a couple of speakers from the Opposition. I will call Deputy O'Connell afterwards.

Mr. Haughey

We have all afternoon.

Dr. O'Connell

I did offer first, if I may say so.

Mr. Haughey

Before the Deputy follows Deputy Boland and Deputy Browne in making a cod of himself, I tell the House that the position now is that the law at the moment is that anybody may import artificial contraceptives for his or her own use. Persons may not import them for sale, so this legislation does not change the situation that Deputies opposite seem so terribly worried and excited about. If the present situation upsets them, then they are objecting to legislating at all in this area. Apparently Deputy Browne is content to let the present situation continue, but the present situation is exactly as it is in this legislation.

Dr. Browne

I am opposed to any kind of restriction in this.

Mr. Haughey

At present as a result of the Supreme Court decision anybody coming into this country is entitled to import artificial contraceptives for his own personal use. He is not entitled to bring them in for sale. Therefore, this provision in section 5 does not change the situation.

It is quite simple to use that reductio ad absurdum argument to put forward a hypothetical proposition in regard to any legislation. Any legislation must be looked at reasonably and sensibly. This is a reasonable proposition. I can visualise clearly the ranting and raving by Deputy Browne and others if there was no provision in this legislation for a traveller coming into this country to bring in artificial contraceptives for his own use. Could you imagine the song and dance we would have about that? Just because I put in a simple, practical provision, Deputy Browne wastes the time of this House endeavouring to use reductio ad absurdum tactics to make it appear ridiculous. Customs officers are trained officials used to dealing with this sort of situation every day of their lives. They will have no difficulty whatever in administering this provision and they will administer it in a reasonable, sensible and mature fashion. It is a sensible, practical proposition. Apart from anything else, this is the situation that has prevailed for the past ten years since the Supreme Court judgment.

Dr. O'Connell

First, the Minister says that this has prevailed for the past ten years, but the contraceptives must be in the luggage accompanying the person. This is not the law as it stands, Secondly, this brings us into disrepute and holds us up to world ridicule in that we may now have to have notices displayed prominently at foreign ports to say that tourists coming into Ireland may not bring more into this country than a quantity sufficient for their own personal requirements. Who is to determine their personal requirements? Shall we now measure the sexual prowess of an individual? Shall we measure his virility? Shall we have blood tests of his serum and antigens? Shall the person have in attendance there a doctor or medical consultant to advise him——

Mr. Haughey

Where does the Deputy want this position to lead us?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. Haughey

What is he suggesting?

Dr. O'Connell

It holds us up to public ridicule. Any legislation that we are attempting to pass in this House must be sensible legislation that can be enforced and which should not hold us up as a nation to public ridicule among other nations of the world.

Mr. Haughey

The other nations of the world have enough to do looking after their own affairs.

Dr. O'Connell

I did not think that the Minister would start interrupting me. I did not intervene in this debate at much length because I feel there are more pressing issues.

Mr. Haughey

Let us get on with this Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

This should have been submitted to a Select Committee of the House so that this House can proceed with more important legislation. I am of that opinion and I am sorry to say that, but now that the Bill is here and not before a Select Committee of the House, this section creates a problem because we are now giving customs officers arbitrary power which they do not want.

Mr. Haughey

Which they have at the moment.

Dr. O'Connell

Not in so far as they deploy it. I would be glad if the Minister would correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, at present it is not stated that contraceptives must be part of the personal luggage accompanying a person coming into this country. When we come in with this luggage must they be declared? Must we go with them into the green or the red zone? These questions must be faced by everyone who may bring them into the country. I am not trying to take this jokingly. I am talking seriously about a problem that may confront a customs officer.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.