Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1985

Vol. 356 No. 2

Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before calling on Deputy Flynn to resume I might remind Deputies again that under an order of the House made this morning, without dissent, this debate must conclude by calling the Minister for Health at 8.10 p.m. There are somewhat in excess of 30 Deputies offering to speak. In the Chair's opinion some of those Deputies, for one reason or another, have what I think would be a special entitlement to make a contribution. Unless Deputies make their speeches short — and I cannot compel them to do so — it will not be possible for anything like all the Deputies who wish to speak to have an opportunity of doing so.

I do not propose to take much longer anyway.

Before the suspension of business I was saying that there was an element of bitterness in the debate that one might have hoped would not have been so prevalent. It appears that there has been quite a concerted effort on the part of certain individuals and groups to render the debate more divisive than it should have been and somehow to represent the debate as some gigantic struggle between the Church and State. I cannot accept that, because all sides of the House have indicated, both inside and outside it, that the bishops, that the leaders of the Church communities in the country, had every right, entitlement — in fact, a duty — to indicate what their stand on the Bill should be.

As far as I can see the church or churches do not seem to be having the tremendous effect on either side of the House that has been portrayed outside the House. As far as I understand, and as far as I am personally concerned, Deputies have not been contacted by members of the hierarchy or Church leaders of any particular denomination. It appears to me that Members are going about their proper business, taking their stand and will vote in accordance with the principles as they see them affecting themselves. I believe this question of a Church/State divide is a trumped-up charge which does not stand up to close scrutiny.

We hear also ominous statements of fierce foreboding about the relationships that might exist between the Republic and the North of Ireland if certain things are done in this House. I am of the view — and I should like to think others share that view — that it is not reasonable nor would it be profitable in our interests ever to pass measures here simply to placate the attitudes or opinions of another section of the community whatever part of the island they live in. I would like to think I would have greater respect for our separated brethren or the Unionist population in this country, that they would have greater regard for views fervently held and expressed by whatever group down here, rather than simply saying: "If you do this it might have a beneficial effect". We have seen that tested before and it was found to be faulty. I believe it will be found to be faulty in this regard as well.

Some speakers advocating the widespread use of contraceptives show an extraordinary level of intolerance to those whose views, sincerely held, are against the Bill as it is being promoted here. I regard it as quite extraordinary that those who are promoting and preaching one side of the business to us, both inside and outside this House, are showing this intolerance of the sincerely held views of others who do not see the provisions of this Bill as being in the best interests of our people at large. Somehow one is being portrayed both inside and outside the House — and in most intemperate language — as being a freak, old fashioned, out of touch or not in step if one does not come into line with new fangled ideas being promoted through principles enunciated in jurisdictions that have in the recent past begun to show that perhaps their long held views on the matter concerning abortion, enthanasia, divorce and indeed contraception are changing, and changing quite quickly in those jurisdictions.

There will be no winners here this evening: mark my words on that. We had one display of what I might describe as minor triumphalism this morning after the contribution of one Member. I should hate to think that after the vote has been taken this evening we would see a continuation of bitterness, that an atmosphere of recrimination would take over that would have a detrimental effect on all relationships inside and outside the House.

I was making the point before the suspension of business that, as far as I was concerned, a contraceptive society did require abortion as a fail-safe and that, if we were going to have obtaining a widespread liberal situation in so far as contraceptives were concerned, we would also have to place ourselves in the position of providing abortion as a back-up to that service. I do not think it is possible for us to be neutral on contraception. Any society that has widespread contraceptives available is an anti-life society and it would be in contravention of the stated aims of our Constitution.

I might cite some examples from statistics readily available from the nearest jurisdiction to us concerning the increased incidence of veneral disease and cancer of the cervix, despite the fact that that jurisdiction has quite a widespread educated and contraceptive society. I was making particular reference to reports from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, I was stating that some 28 per cent of all conceptions in the United Kingdom were illegitimate last year, and that these figures applied to a jurisdiction where contraception and sex education are freely available to all ages without parental control.

While not wishing to reduce the debate to a question of shillings and pence, it is as well to bear in mind that one parent families cost the United Kingdom last year £1 billion — this from the Hansard Report— unmarried mothers head up 20 per cent of all one parent families and their illegitimate births cost the United Kingdom Exchequer in excess of £200 million last year. Therefore the failure rate — this is the point I am making, the failure rate in so far as the widespread use of condoms is concerned — can certainly prove to be a very expensive failure rate so far as the Exchequer is concerned. If the contraceptive ethic is to be foisted on us let us at least recognise what the supporters of that kind of society promise for us. The Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Dr. Malcolm Pott, speaking at Cambridge, stated publicly that as people turn to contraceptives there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate, that therefore doctors, when contraception fails — which it does — should be able and willing to provide an after-sales service with back-up abortion services. The callousness of that little gem deserves some contemplation by those who wish to have a widespread contraceptive service available in this country. Dr. Tietze of the Rockefeller Population Council and Planned Parenthood, stated that the safest regimen of control for the unmarried and for married child spacers is the use of the traditional methods of contraception, namely, condoms, backed up by abortion. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the late president of Planned Parenthood, said that the logical inclusion of sterilisation and abortion will be integral components of a modern fertility control service. The Brooks Advisory Centre, Edinburgh, stated in 1981 that there is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the availability of contraceptives leads to an increase in the abortion rate.

These are the views of supporters of widespread contraception being made available to all and sundry, irrespective of parental or State control. These are not the views of rabid anti-abortion, anti-contraception fanatics, they represent the fundamental principles on which family planning perspectives are based and to which the Irish organisation affiliated to that group subscribes.

Will contraception have a detrimental effect on the level of venereal disease? I suggest that it will, and statistics back up my statement. Why is it that the free availability of condoms or contraceptives in other jurisdictions has not reduced the level of venereal diseases? Let us take the figures as they apply to England alone in so far as venereal diseases and sexually transmitted diseases are concerned. In 1975 the incidence of venereal diseases reached a figure of 363,551 and in 1983 it rose to a figure of 547,437. This applies to a jurisdiction where contraceptives are not just available but widely promoted by the health services. The incontrovertible evidence is that the widespread availability of contraceptives had done nothing to stop the escalation of illegitimate births and abortions.

Denmark has one of the most so-called sexually liberated jurisdictions and permissive societies in Europe, and the illegitimate birth rate has gone right through the roof. The incidence of such births was 7.8 per cent in 1960, 11 per cent in 1970 and 36 per cent in 1981. Availability has not promoted sexual responsibility elsewhere, and does anyone suggest that it will be any different here?

Yes. What is the Deputy trying to prove?

There may be a question mark over the possibility of legislating for morality but there is none in my mind over the certainty that legislation can induce people to be less moral, and a caring legislator is not entitled to be ambivalent on these matters. There is conclusive evidence——

There is no evidence.

——even from the promoters of these organisations, and the Minister and the supporters of this legislation are themselves saying that you must back up a widespread contraceptive service with an abortion after service——

On a point of order, may I ask you to remind the Deputy that I made no such statement. I have adopted no such policy and I bitterly resent the smear tactic of the Deputy when he implies that I want to see abortion referral services provided in this country. It is reprehensible on the part of the Deputy——

Is that a point of order? Is the Minister now replying?

Let us hear the hypocrisy.

I have stated the views of an international organisation which a particular family planning association is affiliated to and I have put on record what their most eminent promoters state to be the case. An extract from their own international newsletter states that abortion on request is a logical concomitant of contraception on demand. The Government are attempting to introduce contraceptives on demand and it is logical to expect that, if that is the case, it must be a very short road until such time as we have the back-up service of abortion as a rescue net for those who are caught out, because of the fact that it has been stated conclusively by statisticians who are not attached to this jurisdiction that contraceptives are not a sure thing in every case and that the failure rate has been escalating to such a degree that there is disenchantment with condoms as a means of preventing conception.

What is the Deputy worried about? Let the people make up their own minds.

Deputy Skelly is being disorderly.

Deputy Skelly did not vote against the Criminal Justice Bill. He is a double dealer. He should go to Castleknock next Sunday.

If the contraceptive ethic is to be accepted, we will have to introduce the rescue net of abortion to back it up in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the international organisations of which the Irish Family Planning Association is a member, namely, that there will be a rise in the abortion rate as long as people turn to contraceptives. We are against that. We do not think there is a demand for the Bill at present, and there is no statistical evidence to back-up the Minister——

(Interruptions.)

When will the demand be there?

If the Minister is basing his legislation on an opinion poll that was not available for scrutiny here in the House and if we have reached the stage in Irish political life that legislation will be introduced as a result of the latest opinion poll, then the Government would have run their race long ago, because all the opinion polls in the last six months said that they were gone already. If that was applied across the board, we would not be here talking this rubbish. Remember one thing: the demand is not there. While it might not be possible to legislate for people to be more moral it is possible to legislate for them to be less moral. That is the difficulty we have. This is not good legislation. It will have a bad and lasting effect on the common good.

(Interruptions.)

Let them speak.

Just like the Deputy did on the Criminal Justice Bill.

Is the Deputy on the list of speakers?

Democratic republicans, God help us.

The Deputy spoke against the Criminal Justice Bill but voted for it.

In the context of this Bill we have heard numerous references to the request for a free vote but we have not heard any reference to the possibility of having a secret vote on this measure. If there was a secret vote there would be no more than 20 or 30 people who would oppose this legislation. The overwhelming majority of Deputies know in their hearts that this legislation is right.

There has been constant reference to the suggestion that there was no demand for it. I am not clear if that means there was no demand for the legislation or for non-medical contraceptives. If it is intended to mean there is no demand for non-medical contraceptives there are statistics which show clearly that 10 million of these devices are used every year. That would give the lie to any suggestion that there is no demand for them. There are 10 million demands for contraceptives in this country year in and year out. I do not know what more formal demand there could be.

Where did the Deputy get that figure?

It is well documented and supplied——

By the Minister?

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

I give the Deputy that, but the figures must be substantiated.

It might be 60 million.

The Chair was not so quick to knock Deputy Skelly when he interrupted me.

The Chair will conduct the business of the House and the Deputy will conduct himself.

Quite so.

The intent of the legislation is to do no more and no less than to give legislative honesty to the prevailing situation. The present position is that these devices are available and are being used but in most cases it is a criminal offence to use them. Where are the prosecutions to enforce the law in this regard? Have there been 10 million prosecutions, 5 million, ten or five? Is it that we will allow the law to be brought into widespread disrepute and will allow it to be abused? What kind of sham and hypocrisy would that be?

Reference was made to the fact that this legislation will destroy the fabric of society. If society has a fabric at present it is no more than a very thin one behind which the scene is that 10 million devices are required and used every year. We would preserve the honesty of our country if we called a spade a spade and gave legislative authenticity to the present position. The legislation will not increase the use or importation of condoms or any other non-medical contraceptives. Deputy Flynn asked if the Bill could achieve what it set out to do. I say it can. If it gives legislative honesty to the situation we have, it will have done what it set out to do in large measure. At present there is widespread abuse of the law, and that is accepted by prosecutors in every town and county. We cannot allow that to continue.

The question of no demand is one canard which has been introduced into the debate. Another one is, to whom will the devices be available? There is a thread running through the debate of "children will use them". "Teenagers" is a word chosen with great care. Let us be quite clear about it. In the Bill their use is limited to adults aged 18 and over. A few weeks ago this House unanimously decided that a person is an adult at 18 years of age. It is only to adults in the legally accepted sense that this Bill applies. Adults should have the right to choose without State interference.

Another popular term used in the debate is the expression "morality". Bald and pontifical statements have been made inside and outside the House such as it is wrong to use contraceptives and that they will lead us down the slippery slope to paganism. Such statements have been bandied about and put forward as though they had a gospel truth about them and as if because they are pronounced in a strong voice, in a definitive way with the wave of an arm that they must be correct. That is taken as sufficient evidence of their truth. There is no basis in fact for these statements. As statements they are entitled to no more credence than the writings of the Emperor Justinian, a very learned man and the author of a fine legal treatise which was no doubt widely accepted at the time that homosexuality was the cause of earthquakes. These grandiose statements we hear are entitled to no more credence than that one.

Morality is not a constant accepted thing. The morality of everyone north and south is not on a par. Everyone's morality is different. In the UK they used to say it varies according to the length of the Chancellor's foot. It varies from time to time, place to place and person to person. Different groups have different moralities. There is no one morality; everyone has their own. Why should the morality of one group be given the sanction of the criminal law? That takes us out of the realm of what should be done, what is a good, right and humane thing to do and puts it into the field of the criminal law. One suggestion as to why it is right to import that morality into the criminal law is that it is the rule of a particular religion.

The law does not require each of its citizens to adhere to the faith of any one particular religion. That is a fact. There was a time in Spain in the days of the Inquisition when it was different, but in Ireland today the law does not require its citizens to adhere to any one faith. If that is so, how then can it be that the law would require all citizens to adhere to the moral teachings of a particular faith? That could not be and it should not be. It is not a criminal offence for adults to have sexual relations with each other. That is a fact. There may be many who think it should be an offence, there may be those who think that the commission of adultery should be a criminal offence, but it is not. It is not an offence, and it is not an offence for adults to have sexual relations with each other. Therefore, as the law does not deem it necessary to have that as an offence, why should it then come along and dictate the manner in which those sexual relationships take place or what facilities should be available to the many who consider it perfectly in order to act as they do?

I accept that the implications of this Bill are at variance with the morality of the majority religion. That has been enunciated by the bishops, and it is an undeniable fact. However, the question is, what should be the motive for people to conform to that morality? I think the motive should be that people will observe that morality if they wish because of their upbringing, the teaching of their parents, instructors and religious leaders and the result of advice and even exhortation, and that following on all of that they will decide of their own free will to exercise the voluntary restraint that is involved.

I pose this question: where is the moral value if the adherence to this morality is the result not of voluntary restraint but of coercion? The idea of conforming to morality surely means a person has a choice. They may do good in the eyes of that morality or evil; if they do good they will be rewarded and if they do evil they will be punished. They have a choice. Where is the reward if compliance with that morality is the result not of an exercise in free choice but of an exercise in coercion? In simple terms I put it this way: in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority in the country there is a realm of private morality which, to put it bluntly, is not the business of the law. It is the business of the private individual and, in my view, it is immoral in itself to use the criminal law system for the purpose of enforcing morality.

I have heard it asked why are we wasting our time in the Dáil discussing and debating this when there are so many more important matters to deal with such as the economy, unemployment and so on. It is true those are very important matters, but the implication behind that assertion is that talk here in the Dáil will solve our unemployment and economic problems. If all it required to solve those problems was talk in the Dáil they would long since have been fully resolved. It requires more than talk here to solve those problems. It requires a different approach to our economy, it requires a radical change in the voting patterns of the Irish people which have not been indicated so far.

This Bill is an exercise in honesty. It is not going to change anything so far as practice is concerned but it will take away some of the hypocrisy and give us some honesty. It will accept and recognise a situation that exists, it will put thousands of people into the position of being lawabiding citizens instead of criminals in their private lives. The Bill is a firm and modest measure and it has my full and unquivering support.

I am very much opposed to the Bill for a number of reasons. First, there is no public demand for contraceptives. One of the main reasons the Bill was introduced by the Government at this time was to divert the minds of the people from the recent disastrous budget. It would be far more in keeping with the business of this House to continue with the budget debate and to try to improve the economy.

This is bad legislation for a number of reasons. Any measure that cannot be implemented properly is bad, and in my view it will be impossible to implement this legislation because it will not be possible for the State to ensure that contraceptives will be used only by people over 18 years. I intend to give a few examples of how it will happen that young teenagers will use contraceptives if this Bill becomes law. This measure will put young teenage girls in particular under severe pressure. It is a well known fact that generally teenage boys have a friendship with girls a few years younger and there will be situations where boys of 18 to 20 years who are single will have relationships with girls of 16 or 17 years. These young teenage girls will be under severe pressure if the Bill becomes law.

Even if the greatest care is taken to implement the provisions of the Bill and to ensure that it is not abused, it will be very difficult to make sure that only persons over 18 years will have access to contraceptives. I have been approached by a number of parents who are concerned about what is likely to happen in certain instances when young people go on weekends as has been common practice in recent years. There is a danger that people over 18 who will be able to get contraceptives in chemist shops and in the outlets suggested by the Minister could pass them on to younger people who may be with them on a holiday weekend. This will put the younger teenage girls under pressure. I will say later what effect this undue pressure will have on youth in the years ahead.

If this legislation is passed its provisions will within a very short time become the accepted moral and social practice here, and that will not be good for the country or for the people, particularly the young people. The Minister and the Deputies who spoke in favour of the Bill indicated that the practice of using contraceptives and condoms is widespread already throughout the country. I do not accept that it is as widespread as has been indicated. Government speakers have said that we are merely legalising the present position. If something is getting out of hand or if there is danger of something getting out of hand in any area, you do not just rush in and legislate and legalise it. If that line of argument by the Minister and Government speakers is carried to its logical conclusion we could say that because larceny and petty theft are getting out of hand because persons with very little means of support must resort to petty theft and larceny to eke out an existence for themselves, we should legislate for that also. The Minister should not legislate to legalise a situation just because it may be getting out of control. A Bill providing a code of behaviour would be far more acceptable.

Parents should be encouraged to take an interest in educating their children, particularly teenage families, in matters related to sexual behaviour. Teachers should be encouraged to do the same in school whenever the opportunity arises. We must bear in mind the fact that school education is an extension of home education, generally speaking. I would go so far as to say that more Christian doctrine should be taught in our primary and post primary schools. No matter what the religious beliefs may be, Christian doctrine should be taught in our schools to a far greater extent than it is. Christian doctrine is being taught in primary and post primary schools to a lesser extent than previously.

I am opposed to this Bill because matters far more important to the nation should be discussed with urgency now, and here I am reflecting the views of people I have spoken to in my constituency. The Government should be more concerned at the moment with job creation, industrial policy, the state of the horticultural and agricultural industries and improving the situation within the health boards which arises from the health cuts. The Government should be concerned about providing more money for local authorities to improve roads and other services for the people in rural areas.

Letters in the newspapers say that the 1979 Family Planning Act was "an Irish solution to an Irish problem". I see nothing wrong with that. Why can we not have an Irish solution to an Irish problem? Why must we look abroad over our shoulders from time to time to find out how to cope with problems in this country? I cannot see why we cannot in a mature manner determine our future, our children's future, and the future of the country, having due regard for our own standards and not for an alien code of standards or behaviour.

Reference was made in this debate and outside this House to the fact that persons speaking against this Bill have not regard for the feelings of Protestants, Unionists and persons holding other than Catholic beliefs and outlook. As far as I am aware, all the churches and their members want a high moral code throughout society. Churches, organisations and people professing other than Roman Catholic beliefs are concerned about the implications which this Bill if passed could have for the youth. Also I am opposed to the Bill because it is well known in medical circles and proven to be true that condoms are only 70 per cent safe. This being so, the use of condoms as proposed by the Minister in the Bill will result in more unwanted pregnancies and a greater demand for abortion, a situation which very few in this House would wish to see arising. I have it on the best medical advice that condoms are only 70 per cent safe.

Where did the Deputy get that statistic?

It is well known in the medical profession. Teenagers may use condoms without knowing how to use them. They will be experimenting with them — as is only natural — and when this Bill becomes law we will have more unwanted pregnancies than ever before and people will be crying out again for abortion. This Bill will prove most destructive for youth. This new law and social code of behaviour will pose serious problems for youth. If the Bill is passed it will put the stamp of approval on that low social and moral code of behaviour. We need only have regard to what is happening in other countries.

Such as China.

In such places as Sweden, Germany and Norway there is a growing concern regarding the falling numbers of young people. There is concern that so many married people are deciding not to have children. There are moves in Norway and Sweden to introduce tax incentives and allowances that would encourage couples to have children. It is well known that people are going from Africa to those countries to seek employment and this employment is available as a result of the decline in the populations in that part of the world. The same applies to certain parts of Germany. The multinationals who have vested interests in the sale of contraceptives have been exploring possibilities for sales in other countries including Ireland because their sales are diminishing in other European countries.

In other countries, too, where contraceptives are freely available for single teenage persons, there have been changes in society. For instance, there are the ever increasing number of unwanted pregnancies as well as a demand for abortion. This state of affairs undermines the basic fabric of society. It undermines the family. Therefore, if the Bill is passed there will be problems for many parents. In the US there is now a turnabout on issues such as these. People are thinking in terms of controlling contraceptives and of prohibiting abortion. President Reagan is leading a campaign against abortion and this in turn will lead to a campaign against the use of contraceptives.

On a point of order, I understood the manner in which this debate was to be conducted was that there would be limited time for each speaker so as to allow those of us who are waiting to contribute that opportunity. Some of us have strong views to voice on the legislation.

Approximately 30 speakers have indicated their wish to speak on the Bill. The Minister is to begin his concluding speech at 8.10, and that means about ten minutes for each Deputy offering. If Deputies were prepared to co-operate in this matter each Deputy would be allowed those ten minutes, but the Chair has no control over that.

I shall not detain the House much longer. This is a bad Bill and if passed will result in serious problems for parents of teenagers. We must not accept this code of international socialism as it was termed last evening by a Deputy.

During the course of her speech Deputy Barnes said that rural TDs are not aware of the demand for contraceptives. I take great exception to that statement. Each of us here knows the views and the demands of his constituents. There is an obligation on us to have that information. We must know everything that is happening and everything that is being said in our constituencies. There is a great obligation on each Deputy to speak here on matters affecting his constituency and to convey to the House the views of those constituents.

The Bill will result in undue pressure being brought to bear on young people and particularly on young teenage girls.

I had hoped that this Bill, though introduced hastily, would have been debated in a mature and responsible manner and given the deep critical examination it deserves. Unfortunately, due to the highly charged emotive atmosphere in which discussion and debate have taken place both inside and outside the House, this is now impossible. However, I trust that in the short time remaining to the House for discussion of the Bill, the debate can be open, frank and, above all, charitable. My contribution will be brief and deliberately low key because I hope to remove from the debate the element of sensationalism, to bring the debate back to the Floor of the House where ultimately decisions have to be made. It would be my hope that the debate would be removed from television and from the banner headlines and be returned to the House where the Minister and all of us here have a contribution to make.

The Bill is one of the most important ever to come before us from a moral, sociological and political point of view. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is representing the Government here has not adopted an irreversible stonewall stance whereby he is immune to all reasonable and sincere efforts to resolve what is now a very serious and contentious issue. For the Minister to act in that way would be to degrade and to demean the House and to remove from the legislators the right bestowed on them by the electorate to come here and debate legislation.

I am not amazed that this issue should suddenly and with such viciousness erupt into such searing red hot controversy. It has all the emotive ingredients of politics, religion and sex, subjects on which every adult citizen has deeply held convictions and dogmatic views.

Perhaps, ironic though it may be, some good will emanate from these discussions, perhaps a better realisation for the future of the different roles of both Church and State and above all an acceptance of the personal responsibility of parents and young people alike for their moral and social behaviour. Perhaps it is timely that we look at where we are going as a nation, from a moral point of view. That is not just referring to sexual morality alone. It is no harm now and again for the people to stand back and to forget the economic issues and to devote their time and energies to seeing where they are going and what type of environment they should like to have for their children.

When one considers the ever increasing crime rate, the disasters and tragedies brought about by joyriders, the abuse of drugs, the beating up of people living alone, especially the elderly, then it is time for us all to be jarred into the reality and the morality of the Ireland we live in. A lesson, too, for the future can be learned, in that where potentially contentious new social legislation is to be introduced, a lot of preparatory groundwork has to be undertaken so as to prepare the legislators and the electors alike. All interested parties must be consulted so that there is at least some consensus before the matter is introduced red raw to the Floor of this House. The hasty — and if I might say politically inept — fashion in which this legislation was introduced to this House is the cause of the present confrontation. Sides were taken and statements made in the red hot flush of anxiety of both sides.

Coming back to this Bill, I must confess that, for the first time in my parliamentary career of 12 years, I have grave reservations about a certain aspect of the Bill. I feel obliged to indicate, both to the House and to my electorate, the reasons for such misgivings and why I have delayed coming to a final decision in my voting intentions. This delay was not occasioned by any indecision or wavering on my part, but a determination by me that I should give the matter the closest and gravest consideration, so that my eventual decision would be as informed as it possibly could be. In this regard, I should like to thank all those who wrote to me, phoned and met me and gave me the benefit of their views. Fortunately so far, unlike a number of my colleagues, I did not receive any hate mail or phone calls. There is a general acceptance that perhaps I was trying to decide on the delicate issues involved and the people were most grateful and most helpful. Indeed, much of the correspondence which I received left it entirely up to my discretion and indicated that no matter what decision I would take they would support it.

I should like to come back to what I would see as the nub of the whole problem. It is in the Joint Programme for Government issued by Fine Gael and Labour in December 1982. It is a small paragraph of 30 words. I shall record it into the Official Report that we gave the following undertaking, both Fine Gael and Labour, if elected to Government as part of our health programme:

There will be a review of the operation of the present family planning legislation with a view to providing full family planning advice and facilities in all cases where needed.

To me, that is where the problem started. I firmly believed, when looking for votes and approaching the electorate, that that commitment referred purely and simply to a family planning situation within the existing legislation, for bona fide family planning purposes. A constitutional lawyer who offered me his advice said that he is absolutely and positively certain that in relation to existing law, especially the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 and to the reference to the family in the Constitution, no other interpretation could be taken out of that. He has indicated that if other constitutional lawyers might think otherwise, any Bill which does not embrace that can be successfully challenged in the High Court and Supreme Court. Perhaps that is for another day.

Here, I am not alone in my concern and doubts about that issue. Not alone are there members of the Fine Gael Party but also members of the Labour Party who have such doubts as to the true meaning of that commitment. I firmly believe that we had a commitment to the electorate and that commitment can be accepted by the electorate and by the vast bulk of the parliamentary parties with seven-eights of this Bill. I support the Minister in the amendment of it, especially in sections 1 and 2 as they now stand. I have one query in particular about section 4, the added section in respect of family planning services. I would ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that this family planning service will not be used for the procurement of abortions or referrals. I would urge him to give this commitment to the House because there is much concern throughout the country that these family planning services, unless they are under the strict guidance of the Minister for Health and unless he is ever watchful, have a possibility of being used for referral purposes. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance.

The section about which I am particularly concerned is section 2, sub-paragraph (ia), which states:

"The sale is a sale of contraceptive sheaths or spermicides to a person over the age of 18 years, or",

I decided to have a look at that from various aspects, from the medical point of view. I could not but be moved by a letter I received on 23 October, 1984 from 17 top medical men in the country, gynaecologists, consultant surgeons, psychiatrists. I must admit that one member whose name was signed to this letter informed us that he was withdrawing his name, but I cannot recall that name at the moment. I feel that I should read this letter, so as to indicate my concern from a medical point of view. These men are perhaps of no political persuasion or no religious persuasion. Their one field is that of medicine. As this is a health Bill, their views should be taken into account. The letter goes:

Dear Deputy.

As members of the medical profession, we are extremely concerned at the recent proposals to make contraceptives freely available by law to young single people. It is our understanding that the majority of people in this State oppose such a measure.

It then refers to the Irish Marketing Survey poll taken in 1984. The letter then goes on:

We would regard the implementation of these proposals as injurious to the physical and mental health of our youth, with all its attendant social implications. If these proposals become law, the inevitable consequences will be increased promiscuity, with an upsurge in venereal diseases.

They list syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes and carcinoma of the cervix as experienced in this and other countries.

The accepted high failure rate of contraceptives when used by teenagers must lead to increased teenage pregnancy and abortion. We would like to emphasise that the setting up of an age limit for contraceptive practice is devoid of any scientific or sociological basis. Furthermore, legalising something which is productive of so much proven pathological and sociological sequelae is to us both reprehensible and horrific.

This is a statement by the top medical men of the country who are concerned primarily with what this Bill refers to. I had to take note of that. I could not glibly cast it aside. This is the advice and experience of these men, informing us of the potential dangers.

Irrespective of whether this Bill goes through or not, I would urge the Minister to make our young people aware of the dangers of using these contraceptives. Perhaps some of them are not totally aware of the high failure rate or of the other implications. We are obliged to bring those facts to the notice of our young unsuspecting boys and girls who might for some reason use these contraceptives.

I must also look at the issue from a moral point of view. I regret the Church-State confrontation on this issue, but perhaps it is inevitable because the two roles overlap. The duty of the State is to legislate but the Church has a duty to give their views on the morality of any proposed legislation. Then it is entirely up to the legislators to legislate according to their consciences. I firmly support the Church authorities when they make a pronouncement on any issue such as this. If they were not to do so they would be lacking in the fulfillment of their duties. I decry the allegation that the Dáil is ruled by Rome. That does not stand up to examination. I refute the suggestion that the Irish people are sectarian. On two occasions the people elected to the highest office of the land men of a minority persuasion. In this House today there are three Members of the Jewish faith, one to each political party — three excellent Members who are making a great contribution to political life. If the people were sectarian none of these three would be Members of the House. If my figures are correct the total Jewish community here would be less than one third of a quota of votes needed to be elected. We have another Member from Wexford who belongs to a minority religion and who is giving excellent service. These instances prove that the Irish people are not sectarian, as does the fifth amendment to our Constitution to delete Article 44.2º because it might be offensive to the Northern people. The Irish people overwhelmingly in a referendum decided to remove that Article, which said:

The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

That is a simple statement, yet the Irish people when they were asked removed it from the Constitution. Some of the Northern clergymen who are forever labelling us as being Rome ruled forget they themselves are clergymen and that they are strutting across the political stage in Northern Ireland and neither the Catholic minority in the North nor the Catholic majority here are accusing them of being a people controlled by their Church. I do not want to enter into a North-South discussion here, but in fairness to the Catholic hierarchy who are obliged to make their views known, I have made three remarks. We are over sensitive here about accepting the views of the bishops on legislation or any other issue. We should not think that they are trying to impose their will on Dáil Éireann. I do not accept that this is purely a Church-State confrontation.

In relation to the provision restricting the sale of contraceptives to people of 18 years and over, I like, Professor Deputy John Kelly have doubts about it. Unfortunately, time has overtaken us because with the Age of Majority Bill, 1984, is about to become law on 1 March this year; so whatever hope we had of putting the age limit at 21 years of age has now slipped by. It is virtually impossible to enforce the age limit. I hope the Minister will think of introducing identity cards so as to enable those people who are responsible for the outlets to ascertain the age of people seeking contraceptives. Most third level students have identity cards, and we have often heard of appeals from those in the licenced business for identity cards to help them in determining the age of a customer.

Being the father of teenagers I am fully aware of the pressure, especially the peer pressure, that will be on our young boys and girls. Perhaps there is nothing we can do in that regard, but we should at least alert our young boys and girls not to succumb to the peer pressure, to stand up for their morals and not to succumb to the easy catchcries of those who are indulging in sex at every age. I have the greatest confidence and trust in our young people. There is no imputation in my remarks to suggest that our youth have not the moral courage to decide right from wrong. I admire our young people who face far greater temptations than I had to face in my youth. There is a great tenacity and hidden reserve in our youth which can be mustered to withstand the moral pressures being put on them today. But it is basically on behalf of parents that I address my remarks.

I make a special plea to the Minister. All Deputies have been inundated with letters and appeals from parents expressing their grave concern at the consequences if this Bill becomes law. Their one aim in life is to pass on to their children the vision of Ireland that they had and to retain what they believe are the traditional values of Irish family life. Of the many letters I received on this issue two remain uppermost in my mind. One was from a mother who pleaded on her bended knees to me to resist the Bill and vote against it. I can picture the scene in the home of the second mother who wrote to me. She had five young children around her and she indicated in her letter that her house was in a mess but yet she took time to write to me, and other Members, expressing her concern about the Bill.

Irish parents may not have great wealth to bequeath to their children. Their only treasures are the beliefs they genuinely hold in the goodness and wholesomeness of family life. It is an enlightening experience for us to witness this spontaneous unorchestrated response from the parents of Ireland to what they perceive to be something that will be to the detriment of their children in the future. I ask the Minister not to turn his back on the pleas of fathers and mothers. He can be magnanimous and try to understand the genuine heartfelt fears of concerned parents, teachers, nurses, youth leaders and those involved in social work. The Minister's political stature will be enhanced if he comes a little way down the road to meet those sincere wishes, to allay the anxiety of such people. The Government, and the Minister, will not lose face but will be making a positive response to people whose sole interest is the moral and spiritual welfare of our youth.

I appeal to the Minister not to turn his back on the wealth of goodwill that exists in our youth. The essence of parliamentary democracy is to allow this and other Bills to be freely debated here and for the Minister, having listened carefully to the debate, to make prudent and wise amendments, where necessary, on Committee Stage. In the course of his speech the Minister stated that 56 per cent of our people between the ages of 16 and 25 are losing confidence in the House. I hope adults, and the parents I have mentioned, will not add to that list and think the House irrelevant or that the Minister has turned a deaf ear to their pleading.

The Minister should give serious consideration to the suggested amendments I put to him yesterday. Accompanied by three of my colleagues I met the Minister on three occasions yesterday. Acceptance of such amendments would be an acknowledgement by him of the innate goodness of the Irish people and of the high standards we all desire in our youth. The Minister should not reject that openness, that plea for the family from the Church and others to join with the State in preserving what is good and noble in our unique way of life.

I should now like to deal with my voting intentions. I have given the matter more thought and time than I gave to any other previous political decision I have had to make. I realise I am in a no win situation. No matter which way I vote there will be those who will find fault with me and accuse me of either political or moral cowardice. I will have to live with that. As a Deputy I have explored every available avenue open to me within the parliamentary party system to have some changes made to the Bill. If I fail in my efforts I do not think blame can be levelled at me because at least I tried very hard. Above all I have kept faith with myself and the electorate. I trust I will be seen as a legislator aware of the deep issues involved and making an honest attempt to resolve them within my parliamentary party and the House. It has been said that we are at a crossroads morally as far as the Bill is concerned. I was at the crossroads politically in trying to decide whether I should bow out of politics or remain within. On the advice of some friends who stand a little further aloof from this issue and on whose judgment I rely heavily. I have decided to remain in politics and strive to uphold the standards I have set for myself. I have decided to support the Bill at all its Stages.

I will be brief in my contribution because many Members are anxious to contribute. As far as I am aware the Fine Gael-Labour joint Programme for Government proposed to preserve and expand our health services. However, in the area served by the Midland Health Board there has been a £2 million cutback. That shortfall is having an adverse effect on clinics and other important services. I was a Member when the other controversial Bills were introduced but on those occasions I was not approached by any member of the hierarchy or any clergyman. I was not approached by those people on the issue before the House. I was free to decide on the issues. I respect the views of those who are in favour of the Bill, but it must be remembered that we have a right to put forward our views.

The section I have grave reservations about makes contraceptives available to those over 18. We are all aware that alcohol is restricted to those over 18, but what has happened in regard to that? If the Bill is passed these devices will be available to all in chemist shops and other centres. Are people prepared to accept such a massive change? In my constituency the people are telling me that they are not looking for legislation of this type but the right to work, to have a job or be able to hold on to the one they have. They say that Members from all parties have a duty to tackle the grave unemployment position and not be wasting the time of Parliament on a matter that is not required. That is the view of the majority of those I have spoken to, particularly the young people. What are we doing to provide work for the young people? What hope have they for the future? Those are the questions they are posing. They are not posing questions about this Bill. In all my years here nobody has ever asked when we were going to legislate in this manner. I had some reservations when we introduced the 1979 Act. I should make it clear that it was after the ruling of the Supreme Court only that eventually the leader of our party, the then Minister for Health, brought that Bill into this House. It may have had its defects, but so have many Bills that have been passed through this House. At a meeting of the Midland Health Board at the end of last year eminent medical people and others through a unanimous vote and with the support of that health board, were of the opinion that there was no need for any change in this legislation at this time.

I might say that the attacks levelled at the clergy and hierarchy in regard to this Bill have been unwarranted. Such people were only preaching the moral teachings of the Catholic Church in this respect. I do not want to go too deeply into that area. I should stress that, in all the years I have been a Member of this House not once have the hierarchy requested or written to me asking that I oppose any legislation in this House and, above all, in regard to this Bill.

The manner in which the Minister for Health is implementing the provisions of the Health Act would lead one to suppose that everything in the garden was rosy. He appears to be saying that there are no cutbacks being effected anywhere, that everything is running very smoothly while all these eminent medical people in our hospitals are complaining, stating that patients' health is being threatened and that, taking account of the major cutbacks being made, we shall have £2 million only of a cutback in the Midland Health Board whereas in other health board areas such cutbacks may amount to £8 million and £10 million. These are the areas into which the Minister should be putting all the resources at his disposal rather than on a Bill of this nature which our people are not seeking.

With due respects to them it is my opinion that journalists here appear to be engaging in a campaign to the effect that the electorate are demanding legislation of this nature and they are engaging in that campaign in a subtle, futile way. I have no doubt but that if this issue were put to the test of a referendum in the morning it would not be passed. Some members of the media were very quick to point out that the ratio between those for and against was 50:50. But that did not include another 16 per cent who were against.

In summary, this Bill is not needed at present. The legislation obtaining prohibited the sale of contraceptives to people of a very young age. My one fear — and nobody has denied this — is that one can enact all the rules and regulations one likes, it is easy to pass a Bill in these Houses, but when it comes to the implementation of those provisions one must ask: is one capable of implementing them or, better still, will they be implemented? If this Bill is passed it will mean the initiation of a new type of family planning applicable to everyone. Let us take the case of a person over age 18. Younger boys and girls of 13 and 14 may say to those older companions: "Go in and buy contraceptives, we want them." Can they not do so? I saw a young girl of 13 years at a music festival down the country plastered drunk. One might ask: "Where did she get the alcohol?". It was carted out to her, and she was in a bad way from its effects. I hope I shall be proved to be wrong, but it is my belief that these contraceptives will be purchased by older people and distributed ad lib among the younger and very young members of society. This is something about which I would have grave reservations. Therefore I could not support such practice.

It is my belief that this House should be dealing with the real economic problems obtaining — for instance, the right to a job, the right to hold a job and to provide employment. Those are the main issues to which we as legislators should be devoting our attention. Many people outside this House would contend that the introduction of this Bill constitutes diversionary tactics. Is it any wonder that many people now hold politicians in very low esteem? They do so because, in this instance, we are here debating an issue that, as far as the electorate is concerned, they do not want to know about. Rather do they want housing and work in order to provide food on their tables, they being the main issues of the day.

I am happy to welcome this Bill in all its sections and provisions. I shall deal first with my reasons for welcoming the least controversial sections, which are those governing access to contraceptives. There has been broad acceptance here among all who have spoken of the need for reform in this area. It was most unsatisfactory that there were large areas of the country where even married people did not have access to contraceptive advice and services without having to travel great distances and causing themselves great personal inconvenience. Contraceptive advice of the widest possible range, including advice in relation to the side effects of various contraceptives, the advisability of various types of health checks was available more easily to the middle classes of our society than was or is currently available to working class and rural people. This is an unsatisfactory situation, and I welcome the extension of possible outlets to properly supervised distributors such as chemists, health centres and especially to maternity hospitals because it is there that, universally, women come into contact with advice in relation to family planning and how to look after their own health and plan a family in a responsible way. On my one visit to such an institution there seemed to be a great inadequacy in this regard, and I welcome the commitment to ensure that maternity hospitals will be given the opportunity to involve themselves fully in family planning advice to women. With their wealth of gynaecological and obstetrical advice, who could be better qualified to advise women to have regard for their health?

The other element of the reform there is the removal of the need for prescriptions for non-medical contraceptives which was seen as farcical under the 1979 Act and has proven to be an irritant and a difficulty to the GPs who have been trying to make moral decisions in relation to individuals. It is unworkable and has been flouted on many occasions. The removal of that section is a desirable reform.

The area of greatest controversy is the right to contraception of those over 18 years of age without distinction as to whether they are married or single. I speak primarily as a younger person, and reflect more the views of that age group than others who have expressed very different views to me. I respect and understand those views, although I do not share them. When a person of whatever age decides to have sex, which I consider is the first decision they are likely to make, they should then have access to contraceptives. If I take that to its logical conclusion there would be no age limit. However, on reflection and after discussions with the Parliamentary Party, I felt that there was value in putting the age at 18. Those of us who speak in favour of the Bill suffer from the danger of being labelled as encouraging promiscuity and decadence. I reject that charge and I refuse to be labelled in that way for speaking honestly about the situation as I see it.

To put an age limit of 18 years indicates that the parties in Government feel that an element of maturity is essential in the expression of any kind of physical relationship. The coincidence of the fact that we hope to raise the marriage age to 18 and to reduce the age of majority to 18 would make it a logical age. I have no doubt that this will be changed because it will come under pressure from what I see as inevitable trends in the future; but for the moment, in the context of this reform and of the kind of society we wish to see, the age of 18 is a responsible one and it is an indication that legislators do not wish to encourage the view that children of 16 and 17 years of age are mature enough to engage in marriage, sexual activities or any other major adult commitments.

Genuine fears have been expressed to me regarding the Bill from a large number of my constituents, including older members of my own family, that there will be a deterioration in society and that immorality and promiscuity will follow the passing of the Bill. I understand those fears, but I do not share them. I draw assurance in particular from an examination of the situation in Northern Ireland, which is a country with traditions and morals very similar to ours. They have had free access to contraception and abortion for many decades and, instead of there being an overwhelming descent into moral decadence and decay, their standards are arguably higher than ours where we have had limited access to such things.

By comparison with Northern Ireland our rate of illegitimacy compares unfavourably. If you look at the statistics of the number of Southern Irish girls going to England, giving an Irish address, to procure abortions, we also compare unfavourably with Northern Ireland. It is also valid to look at the situation around the Border. To people who have fears in relation to this Bill it would seem to be logical that the incidence of immorality, as it has been described — although I do not agree with that description — would be higher in the Border area. But I am sure the Ceann Comhairle and others would say that quite the contrary is the case and what rules in those areas is not the availability of contraceptives but the moral standards and attitudes of the society in which people are brought up. That is the greatest reassurance one can give to parents. The average young persons of 18 years of age with caring parents who are conscientious and look after them are replicas of their parents in terms of views on morality.

This is a state which should not and does not last for very much longer as they move into maturity. From the ages of 18 to 20 years many young people are still very much under the influence of their parents, although perhaps beginning to find out things for themselves and to make their own decisions. In the last few years contraceptives have been freely available from family planning clinics and they did not exclude anyone on the basis of age. However, their experience indicates that people under the age of 20 have not been looking for contraceptives in any large numbers. Therefore, I think we will find that the genuine fears outlined by many people will not be realised.

I tried to look for other reassuring comparisons but, not having been in politics for long, I drew reassurance from Deputy O'Malley's reference to the debate on the mother and child scheme. Extraordinary fears were expressed than in relation to the State's interference in parents' care of their children and in relation to giving support services to mothers before and after the birth of their children. To look back on that now it seems ludicrous. In light of experience today that view would be outdated and unsupported and the contrary would be the case. There is extensive demand for supports for mothers and families. It seems to be socially and economically desirable rather than an attack on families.

I am satisfied that the fears that have been raised on this issue will be totally unrealised. Young people are capable of making up their own minds and have already indicated the kind of decisions they will make in relation to how they will manage their own morality and sexuality in the future. We should have confidence in them to do that. There is no doubt but that the Church will be able to continue to teach as it wishes. Parents will have the same power and impact on their children as they have in cases where there is a strong family relationship. There are many people for whom that is irrelevant because there are many young women who become pregnant at 14, 15, 16 and 17 years of age. We have not made studies of this and so cannot make objective statements, but I believe these girls would come from families where there is an absence of that kind of care. For those young women the die has already been cast. If the availability of contraceptives meant that one fewer young person became pregnant or there were a dozen fewer unwanted children it would be morally good rather than morally bad.

Young people listening to the debate will be struck by the level of hypocrisy in some cases. They would be a little intimidated by the fear of being described, if they spoke out, as promiscuous and permissive. They would also be struck by the double thinking. In the past year we have had a series of shocking cases involving young women who became pregnant — for example, the Granard case and the Kerry babies case. In light of the hysteria over this Bill and the suggestion of accepting the reality of sexuality and sexual activity for married or single people it is hard to understand how it can be accepted that children dying at full term is less morally disturbing and gives less cause for moral hysteria. There is obvious double thinking there. I was very disturbed when reading reports of the Kerry babies case to see that the obstetrician in the hospital involved indicated in his evidence——

The Kerry case is sub judice.

It is not a point in relation to the case.

A passing reference to the case is in order, but we cannot deal with the evidence or the inquiry.

It was a comment that the case of mothers delivering on their own and infant deaths occurring as a result was not unusual. That is a disturbing fact. That these things can happen and not cause an upsurge of public concern and morality underlines young people's cynicism of politicians. I am confident that by the Government attempting to face up to this issue, with all the difficulties and moral pressures, and reform the legislation will show young people that we are concerned.

I share other Deputies' views that this is not the primary concern of young people nor of people aged 30 and 40 years. They are all more concerned with unemployment and day-to-day living. This issue is important is so far as it is a question of who rules the country, whether the Parliament rules the country, or if issues are to be decided by outside lobbies and pressure groups. As the days have gone by this has become the issue. While many people do not become excited about the issue of contraceptives, because they are largely available to those who want them, they become excited about what the outcome of the decision will be tonight in relation to whether or not the Government are running the country. Even people who disagree about the reforms we are bringing in consider it important that that issue be resolved and that the Government be allowed to make their laws.

In dealing with hypocrisy there is nothing more unsavoury than the arrival of Deputy O'Connell into Fianna Fáil yesterday. He is on record as being totally in favour of the further liberalisation of family planning and contraception. He voted for reforms in this area and expressed dissatisfaction that the reforms did not go further. There have been rumours about him joining Fianna Fáil for some time. As recently as a week ago he expressed the views we have come to know. Yet in the past day through some sleight of hand he has ended up in Fianna Fáil safely behind the Whip and will march in behind it. That kind of behaviour will be seen through by everyone and it does not reflect well on the party or the individual.

It is too early to say but it would seem reasonable to expect, in the light of commitments made by Deputies, that this Bill will be passed. I welcome its passing in that another attempted stroke has not come off. We can all be glad of that for the quality of Irish political life.

This is not important legislation in itself, and I should have liked to see the ground tested on other issues such as illegitimacy, adoption and the Children Bill. The passage of this Bill may set markers for other legislation. It is important as part of a process of reforms.

I will quote from a letter I received from a young person in a working class section of my constituency:

In my opinion this is a very important matter for young people. It is about time this country moved forward and began to act as if it was in the 20th century and not the 17th.

I have asked in my constituency for the views of people and I have tested their reaction to the Bill. There is not a great deal of passion about it except from those who fear it, and I have dealt with their fears already. However, there is a feeling of incredulity that we should be engaged in a debate of this nature which at times is turning its back on reality. In the opinion polls it is indicated that more than 66 per cent accept that contraceptives should be available for married people. Let us consider that point. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church contraception for married people is wrong. For young people there is an element of double-think here. How is it all right for married people to go against the teaching of the Church when it cannot be considered for young people?

I agree with those who say the State should not legislate for private morality. Deputy O'Malley this morning spoke about what might happen in Iran if a person broke the state laws that reflect the religion of that country. By supporting such an approach to legislation here, are we condoning those forms of legislation in other countries that allow very severe penalties to be imposed on those who break the moral law? There is a similar situation in Saudi Arabia. In a Mormon state blood transfusions are against the religion of the people. Let us consider the implications that could have. It is dangerous to have the State legislation reflect the views of one religion.

With regard to the Catholic Church and its teaching on this matter, I have not found it easy to disagree publicly to some extent with the church in which I was brought up. I have not found it easy to disagree with senior members of society for whom I have great respect and who tried to educate me in a particular direction. However, like others, I have to be honest and consider where I am at and where I believe many young people are at. Their views on morality have changed a little. By accepting that change and the reality of physical sexuality as part of their growing experience they are not losing a sense of value for sexuality and of its intense privateness and importance. They are not involved in promiscuity. These young people can be trusted to have a greater openness to sexuality in the next decade while retaining the highest standards of morality.

The Catholic Church should talk openly to young people about those issues. In its history the Church has moved on matters of morals and faith. To refuse even to discuss or to consider change is closing one's eyes to the history of that Church and to the movement at the time of Vatican II, and the atmosphere of Vatican II is closer to 20th century society in Ireland. I should like the Church to enter into debate with young people at that level rather than at the level of proscription which will only alienate and serve to create greater distance between the Church and its flock.

I am happy to welcome the Bill and I hope it will go through the House. Almost 50 per cent of the population wants this legislation as it stands and almost 50 per cent will be unhappy. However, that should not exclude the 50 per cent who would like to see those changes. This legislation is simply allowing access to contraceptives and there is no obligation on anyone to use them. Therefore, one can legislate for many people without interfering with the rights and entitlements of others to live according to their own standards of morality. I have respect for their views but I think this legislation if it is passed will allow them an opportunity to practice their own morality as they wish.

The young people can be trusted to act responsibly, to maintain and to continue to live according to the moral standards that have made us different from Britain or America. Many parents and the senior members of society may find it difficult to accept changes that they are unable to reconcile with the standards that obtained during their youth and early married years. The reaction I am getting from my constituency is that people should be allowed to conduct their private lives in a private way and that the State should interfere to the minimum extent. I am happy this legislation will intrude minimally on the right of people to live according to their own moral standards. On the other hand, it will allow people who wish to use contraceptives to have access to family planning advice.

I ask the question: what is the main purpose of the Bill? Is it for the sole purpose of distracting the attention of the people from the issues of the moment? Is this Bill a way of taking our minds off the real issues, namely, the failed economic policies of the Government and their failure to do anything about them? Young people are calling on us to legislate on policies that will lead to job creation.

It was an abuse of language to call this a Family Planning Bill since, in my understanding, a family involves marriage. The main aim of the Bill seems to be to provide contraceptives for the unmarried. The Bill is being presented to the public as a minor adjustment to the Family Planning Act, 1979. This is simply not so. This Bill before the House this week is a radical departure from any legislation previously proposed in this country. The sale of contraceptives to young people in their teenage years has never before been advocated by responsible people here. The pressure for this very dangerous change seems to come from the International Planned Parenthood Federation to which the Irish Family Planning Association are affiliated. Obviously, while their professed contention is that we are allegedly backward, such organisations have a great deal to gain by extending the law so that they can sell their wares in a completely new market.

The Minister has spoken about large fines and the rigid enforcement of the law proposed under this new Bill, but can we trust the Minister to see that the law is enforced? Did he show contempt for the law when he opened a family planning clinic in his capacity as Minister for Health in a Coalition Government? Was he not supported in the act of contempt by Deputy FitzGerald as Taoiseach? How do we know that what Mr. Desmond now proposes under the Bill is not a watered down version of what he would really like for the people? How do we know that the fears which so many people, especially parents, now hold will not be realised? Should this measure be passed then we can be certain that in the future dispensing machines will be seen in disco halls and in public toilets as is the fashion in other countries. In allowing the free availability of contraceptives for all over 18 years of age Mr. Desmond is going a long way towards making this a reality. Mr. Desmond and his colleagues across the House——

The Minister for Health, Deputy.

Sorry, Deputy Desmond, Minister for Health, and his colleagues across the House have thrown insults at members of the Church, the hierarchy in particular, over the concern they have expressed on behalf of their flock. The bishops and clergy are doing no more than their duty. They are concerned for the wellbeing of the people and for the moral fibre of this nation and generations of Irish boys and girls yet to be born. The Members of this House have been elected by the people, they are of the people and they should be acting on behalf of the people. They should know that the common good of these people should be served. That good is not being served by this Bill. The Bill is a rejection of the will of the majority of the Irish people, a will which was reflected in the polls conducted in the past few weeks. The poll conducted among the members of the ICA gives a much clearer indication than any other poll of the opinion of the Irish people and the people of rural Ireland in particular.

We have heard statistics bandied about here in the last few weeks about the level of condom importation. Quite an amount of them must have been placed in intervention awaiting the green light from the Minister for Health. Many people, and I am one of them, have no doubt that this is a totally inflated picture which has been blown up to support the view of the Minister for Health that there is need for a change at this time. The voices which have been calling for a change in the law relating to contraception are the voices of the members of the Irish Family Planning Association of which the Minister for Health is an accredited member, and also of other minority groups who do not represent the general consensus of the views of the Irish people.

The change proposed by the Minister for Health is pandering to the minority voice which keeps telling us that we are a backward little country which needs to be brought up to date. If it is backward to keep contraceptives out of the hands of teenage children, then let us keep Ireland backward. It is nonsense for the Minister or any other member of the Coalition Government to say that an age limit of 18 years can or will be observed. Even if there is a will to observe it on the Government side, we know that this cannot happen. It is not for contraception that our young people are crying out at this time. It is for sound moral leadership and for an opportunity to fulfil their hopes and realise their ideas in the economic and social life of this nation. It is a poor form of moral leadership which tells our youth that a large number of mature politicians now believe that sexual intercourse before marriage is really socially acceptable; but, whether we like it or not, this must be the logical consequence of removing a restriction in the law which exists up to now. Is this the best that the Government can offer the youth of Ireland in this International Youth Year? If this Bill before the House is passed into law we will suffer the curse of generations who have gone before us and generations yet to be born.

I urge this House to reject this Bill so that we as legislators can live with a clear conscience. There is no doubt that many more serious problems face us. Finally, my fervent hope is that this Bill will never pass into law and that our country will be saved the disastrous consequences of such irresponsible legislation.

The 1979 Act, which this Bill proposes to amend, arose out of and 1973 Supreme Court judgment that married couples had a constitutional right to reasonable access to contraceptives. It is probable that, due to the limited outlets in the number of pharmaceutical chemists prepared to stock or sell contraceptives, reasonable access was not available to married couples in all areas especially in more remote areas. Therefore, I accept that it could be put forward that the number of outlets to comply with the Supreme Court ruling were not available. The 1979 Act went somewhat further than married couples, since bona fide family planning was not defined in the Act and under section 5 of that Act any person of any age, married or single, could import contraceptives as part of his or her personal luggage if he or she could indicate that they were for his or her personal use. Nowhere in the Fianna Fáil Act is marriage or marital status mentioned.

I find it difficult to associate family planning with single people. I have reservations about the proposal in this Bill to make non-medical contraceptives more fully available to people who might be single. I have found no demand for this course of action. Since this Bill has been mooted, practically all the approaches made to me have been in the opposite direction. It has been suggested that the liberalising of the law in this respect and the free use of contraceptives can lead to increased venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Deputy Griffin in the course of his speech read out a letter which we received from a number of eminent obstetricians and gynaecologists who expressed those fears. I hope that, even if this Bill is passed, our young people will be wise enough to realise these dangers.

I represent a very big constituency, mixed in terms of age and of religious persuasion, but I have not found any demand for this legislation. People advocating the legislation may put forward the argument that because of the nature of the matter constituents are reluctant to stress to politicians their demand for contraceptives. From my 35 years' experience in public life I have never found the people of my constituency backward in coming forward to demand anything they might require. They would not have the slightest hesitation in making their demands known.

The Bill proposes to extend the outlets for both medical and non-medical contraceptives to medical practitioners, employees of health boards and hospitals and family planning clinics. In relation to employees of health boards and hospitals particularly, I should like the Minister to tell me if there are objections from such people about their being involved in supplying non-medical contraceptives to single people. If they fail to comply with the legislation in that respect will there be any danger of their losing their jobs? One would hope that would not be the case. I should like to know, too, what safeguards the Minister has in mind to ensure that the law is observed strictly so that people under 18 will not be supplied with contraceptives. Publicans, for instance, who are anxious to observe the law, have great difficulty in doing so in respect of the sale of intoxicating liquor to people under 18.

I have never had occasion to visit a family planning clinic but I understand that contraceptives are made available there by way of a slot machine, which is in contravention of the existing legislation. The operation is similar to inserting a coin in a vending machine in order to obtain a packet of chewing gum or cigarettes. What is worse is that, I understand, some of these clinics are acting as referral agencies for abortion clinics in Britain. Are such people, people who have no qualms about breaking the law, to be associated with ensuring that only those over 18 are supplied with contraceptives? It seems that little or no attempt is being made to enforce the 1979 Act. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the amending legislation will be enforced rigorously.

My fear in relation to the legislation is that, though these devices may be available freely in certain parts of the country, the provision for their availability by way of legislation will leave people inclined to regard them as socially acceptable. Some have suggested that this kind of liberal legislation will help to bring about the unification of our country much sooner than might otherwise be the case. As an Ulsterman I do not subscribe totally to that view. The good six county Protestants, whether they be members of the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, Methodists or any other denomination, have very high moral values. A much greater enticement to them so far as the unification of the country is concerned would be an improvement in economic conditions here.

If the Bill were defeated it could be used, would be used, by extreme Unionists to point the finger at us and to accuse us of being subject to directions of the Catholic Hierarchy. I do not think that the ordinary Protestant population of Northern Ireland will become part of a united Ireland any sooner by reason of the availability of this legislation. In part of my diocese of Clogher contraceptives are freely available; but I do not have any evidence that the population there, regardless of denomination, are depraved or debauched. Unfortunately there is political violence there and that is causing much suffering and bloodshed.

I am glad that section 2 of the 1979 Act is being retained. That is the section which empowers the Minister to provide a comprehensive natural family planning service. I urge the Minister to give every encouragement to bodies who are engaged in research and development into those natural methods.

My main reservation is that the making available more easily of these devices will result in their use being more readily acceptable by young single people. However, I trust that, regardless of this legislation, young people's good sense would dictate that they maintain their high standards and values. It would ease my concern if I could be assured by the Minister that the law will be enforced. I should like him to tell me how people over 18 might be prevented from obtaining these devices from recognised outlets and selling them to younger people. The various outlets should be compelled to keep a register of those to whom they sell contraceptives and the quantities supplied, so that if anyone were found to be purchasing extraordinary quantities there could be an investigation into whether he was re-selling them. We might make it mandatory also that those seeking contraceptives would have to sign for them just as they would sign for any medicines which come under the poisons regulations.

In addition, people nominated to distribute contraceptives should be in a position to advise users of the dangers involved. For instance, the fact that at least 10 per cent of these devices prove to be ineffective should be made known to potential users.

As I have said, I have been in public life for almost 35 years. I have served my party at local authority level and, for the past 20 years, as a Member of the Oireachtas. During all of these years I have been a loyal member of my party. It would be only after the most serious thought that I would consider breaking the party pledge. Down through the years I have tried to the best of my ability to represent the people who have returned me time and again to this House. Their returning me at the various elections must be an indication that they are reasonably pleased with the services I render on their behalf. I have indicated to my colleagues in the Parliamentary Party that I have reservations about the Bill and that I consider that a matter such as this warrants a free vote of the House. However, when no such agreement can be had across the Floor a proper free vote is not possible. A free vote would give a better indication of the views of Members on matters such as this. In that way, too, a better consensus could be arrived at. I accept totally the view that churchmen of all denominations have a right and a duty to point out to their respective flocks what the Churches consider morally to be right or to be wrong.

It has been suggested by the media at the weekend that my motivation in questioning the measure arises from hostility on my part towards the Minister as a result of his proposal to remove the in-patient maternity service from Monaghan Hospital. There is no hostility on my part towards the Minister. Neither have I hostility towards any other Member of this House, but I have disagreed with the Minister in respect of the Monaghan Hospital. I must make it clear that I have totally separated the two issues.

Over the past two weeks I have given these proposals long and serious thought. I have considered fully all the representations and advice offered to me from many sources. As I have already said, I entirely accept that churchmen are fully entitled to put forward the moral teaching or beliefs of their respective Churches. I also must acknowledge that people over 18 years of age are entitled to vote in elections and to elect a Government. From 1 March they will be allowed to own their own property and so forth. I believe that they should, accordingly, be mature enough to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. This is an indication of my thinking at this time on this Bill.

I would like to hear from the Minister that if the Bill is passed the law will be enforced with the utmost rigour and that anyone contravening it will be dealt with accordingly. I would like also to add my voice to that of Deputy Griffin in appealing to the Minister if possible for the measure to be tightened up as regards the availability to single people. We had lengthy discussions yesterday evening and put some proposals to him. They might not be workable, but I would ask the Minister to give further consideration to this matter of tightening up the availability to single people.

I have been a loyal member of my party over the years. Having considered the matter at length, I want to make it clear to the House that I intend supporting this Bill at all Stages.

I speak this evening to make clear my opposition to the proposals by the Minister for Health to amend the Health (Family Planning) Act. I have no agonising at all because I know that it is wrong. I agree with the previous speaker, a female Member of Fine Gael, who said that she and young people listening to the debate would be horrified by the amount of hypocrisy and doublethinking which has gone on. I know from which side of the House the hypocrisy and double thinking have come, because I have sat and listened to those who agonised and who tried to stifle their consciences and who tried to make excuses for doing what they knew in their hearts and souls was wrong, because they were afraid of the Party Whip. I would ask the Members on the opposite side to leave out the word "hypocrisy" from the debate from now on, because they are the high kings of hypocrisy.

You do not have to do that. You should speak for yourself.

Deputies

Speak for yourself.

I do so because I am an elected representative.

(Interruptions.)

I was sent here to this House to reflect the views of my constituents and to represent them here. The title "Teachta Dála" means that.

By coincidence, I have represented Kildare for 16 years, the same period as the Minister mentioned. I am privileged to have two bishops among my constituents — the Catholic Coadjutor Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin and the Church of Ireland Bishop of Kildare and Meath. I have not had any discussions with either of these gentlemen, although I am on friendly terms with both. I have not found it necessary to seek their advice, or to decide what my stance should be. However, I respect the right of anybody, whether clerical or lay, to make his or her feelings public on this or any proposed legislation. They also have the right, if they wish, to contact me and let me know their feelings.

There seems a resentment among certain Members of this House when some people air their views, particularly when these views are contrary to their own. There is obvious delight, too, when their views are shared by certain Members. Nevertheless, everybody in this country has the right to free speech and it would be wrong of us to deny them that.

May I say that I have had numerous letters from constituents and others all over the country in this connection since the Bill was first mooted? I did not detect any degree of demand for the changes before the media and the Minister forecast what was coming, but there has been a definite reaction to the published proposals. Ninety per cent, at least, have been in opposition to them. These letters and messages have not come from craw-thumping, sanctimonious persons, but generally concerned people. I shall quote from one such letter which is a fair reflection of the attitude of the people in my constituency:

Dear Paddy,

I know without doubt that you will be voting against Barry Desmond's proposals to change the law on contraception. Nevertheless, I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms against same proposals.

We have six youngsters and God knows it is hard enough to feed and clothe them nowadays, what with the cost of living, outrageous taxes and no jobs, without this added worry. Since contraceptives are available at present to married couples — and anyone else it seems — I can only assume that the sole purpose of the amendment is to make it as easy as possible for kids to indulge in irresponsible premarital sexual activities.

At the first opportunity, I wonder would you ask Mr. Desmond how he proposes to confine the sale of contraceptives to 18 year olds? Will there be someone checking birth certs in chemist shops and will there be someone else to follow the same 18 year olds to the street corners to see that the goods are not passed on and sold at a profit to 15, 16 and 17 year olds? The mind boggles at the outcome. We as a nation are now saying to the kids "We don't mind what you do now, or how promiscuous you become, as long as you don't get pregnant".

It is the greatest sweeping under the mat exercise of all times.

I find myself in the unusual position of being the only Deputy representing Kildare who is completely opposed to this Bill. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is wrong. I mix with the people in my constituency and, as far as I can gather, they do not want the existing law changed. I note that one Deputy who represents Kildare has felt so strongly about this Bill that he has announced that if the Bill is defeated he will not stand again for election. I, too, am prepared to stake my future in politics on the Bill. I am quite prepared to go before the electorate in Kildare and say that I opposed the Bill. I am prepared to let them judge me on that. I am confident that I represent their views here today.

I may find myself at variance with the views expressed in The Irish Times in their results of the opinion polls. I may not reflect the views of the electorate of Dún Laoghaire whom Minister Desmond represents, but I believe that I know what the Lilywhites want, anyhow.

The Minister has referred to these amendments being necessary to provide a comprehensive family planning service. That is a misuse of the word "family". The previous Bill which it is proposed to amend did refer to a family situation. These proposals do away with the family and go outside the family to provide contraceptives for anyone over 18 years of age. Health cuts have been remarked about here. The lady in Kildare town who was expecting to be called to a Dublin hospital this month for treatment and a possible operation for a kidney complaint got word from the hospital authorities on 14 February, St. Valentine's Day, the same day the Minister introduced his Bill, that the ward in that hospital was closed because of cut-backs in the Minister's Department and that her treatment had to be postponed. I know where that lady's priorities would be. She would ask the Minister to do his job and look after the people's health and cut the cackle about contraceptives.

It is hypocrisy for the Minister to refer to this as a Family Planning Bill. They say what the evil men do lives after them and that the good is oft interred with their bones. However, in Ireland, anyhow, once a person has passed away people are charitable and many a dear departed had been referred to as a good family man. Is it possible that the Minister will be remembered as a good family planning man?

I look upon the family as the foundation of a country. Even the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights referred to the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence, the right to marry and found a family. As a Member of the Dáil I have a duty to protect the family. I believe I have a duty to encourage them to be good rather than take a decision like this which will encourage them to be bad. I do not want to see a free-for-all develop.

The Minister sees "the increase in extra marital sexual activity" as a reason for throwing in the towel. I do not agree. Is the measure for the good of the country? The answer is so obvious that one must vote against these proposals. Perhaps some immature teenagers would disagree now, but if one could turn the clock forward a few years to when they are parents their attitude would be much more mature and responsible. How many Members of this House are grateful for the parental control which their parents exercised when they were teenagers but which they resented then? Future generations will not thank the present Minister if his ideas become law. The Minister will be giving official sanction to a code of behaviour that will not lead to a better country. The Minister said that he felt it was degrading for a couple to have to go to a doctor to discuss contraception.

Our spokesman, Deputy Dr. Rory O'Hanlon, explained that, while this necessity for a prescription was a once off exercise, it was medically desirable for any couple to have medical advice in these matters from a competent qualified person, allowing them to choose the method best suited to themselves. This situation was acceptable when the Bill was passed and it is still acceptable to the vast majority of people. When the Minister quoted from the Irish Marketing Survey he neglected to tell us, with regard to information on family planning, the observation was made that almost half of those interviewed in the survey felt that there was insufficient information available to the general public in relation to family planning, that only four out of every ten adults claimed to know a good deal about all or most methods of family planning and that by contrast over one fifth of all adults and disturbingly higher proportions of single adults claimed to know very little about any forms of family planning. Further on it says that doctors were seen by the public to be the most reliable source of information of family planning.

Before making contraceptives available the Minister should ensure that the people are well informed on these matters. To make the contraceptives available in advance of the dissemination of this information can only be likened to someone who would leave loaded guns in the hands of children.

During his speech the Minister referred to a drop in the birth rate and accepted that this was because of the use of contraceptives. The Minister apparently dismissed the part played by the increased awareness in the use of natural methods of family planning as being an element to be considered at all. Further on in his speech the Minister said that he will yield to none of his desire to uphold the true moral values of a caring society. The Minister's actions in this Bill do not bear out those nice words. Chesterton once said "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it is that it has been found difficult and left untried."

The Minister decided that it was too difficult when be brought in this Bill.

There has been a hysterical reaction by many Deputies to the bishops taking part in this debate. I cannot understand this reaction to a group of people who honestly feel that it is their duty to express an opinion for the good of their flock. They represent an organisation that has stood the test of time for nearly 2,000 years, which puts the Minister's and my 16 years in the Dáil into proper perspective. Nobody knows better than they about pressures, politics and persecution. How is it that the farmers can speak out on matters that concern them, and sometimes outline unusual courses of action, that tenants' associations can take a certain stance and threaten politicians that they will monitor their actions and advise their members accordingly at election time, and trade unionists can march and even advise their members to picket politicians' clinics and make them inoperable, and we hardly hear a murmur about all these activities? Why is there such resentment when a clergyman points out the dangerous consequences of this legislation? Religious people sometimes take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Obviously many politicians here would like them to take vows of silence as well.

The Minister in his speech said that in these circumstances the Government and the Oireachtas had a clear moral duty in the interests of the common good to intervene. The common good was quoted on 14 February in the Minister's speech in the amendment to the Offences against the State Act. The common good took second place when the Minister for Health brought in this amendment which is a much more insidious offence against the State. This is a bad Bill which will not do any good. It is as simple as that.

I have not got a satisfactory explanation as to how the provision to confine contraceptives to 18 year old people and over is to be implemented. The Minister has had several requests from his own side for such an explanation. The Minister owes it to the House and to the people to explain it. The Minister claims that he knows the wishes of the Irish people and he quoted figures and percentages to prove it. Apparently the Minister did not even know the minds of his own party, although it is easy enough to count them and it will be easier to count them in the future. The Minister concluded his speech by saying that the Coalition are not prepared to inflict unnecessary constraints that will result in hardship and misery but I can foresee that the passage of this Bill will mean added hardship and misery for future generations. It will be a tragedy for our country if the Government get their way on this Bill.

This Bill has raised conflict and confrontation throughout the country. Statements have been made grossly overstating the position and, instead of being helpful, they have raised the temperature of this controversy. This Bill makes a realistic effort to try to control the sale of contraceptive devices. The present law has proved to be unworkable. At present a person of any age can purchase contraceptives. This Bill will ensure that a person must be aged at least 18 years to purchase contraceptives. The purchase of contraceptives will be only through strictly regulated outlets. The main outlets are pharmaceutical chemists, dispensing chemists, registered medical practitioners or an employee of the health board. The penalties for a breach of these regulations are strictly laid down. A person guilty of a first offence faces a fine of up to £500 or, at the discretion of the courts, six months in prison, or both a fine and imprisonment. The person guilty of a second offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine of £5,000 and or 12 months in prison. Many people have said that there is a similar regulation in regard to drink but there is a vast difference. Section 10 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1924, the relevant section states:

Every licence holder who shall knowingly supply or who shall allow any person to supply any description of intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18 years for consumption by that person on the premises ... shall be guilty of an offence....and shall be liable...on a first offence to a fine of £5 and...on any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding £10.

There is a vast difference because the word "knowingly" is omitted from the Bill and the vendor, whether he is a doctor, a chemist, or a health board official, has an obligation to ensure that the purchaser has reached his or her majority.

I cannot see any of the people referred to risking those fines, a term of imprisonment, or their professional reputation by breaching that provision. Not having an age limit was a serious omission in the 1979 Act. I can give another example of another serious omission. It is in regard to the purchase of wine. Wine can be purchased by a person of any age, even a 12 or 14 year old. That person can buy up to two gallons of wine in a supermarket where there is a wine licence. Some of those omissions should be dealt with.

The Taoiseach has given an assurance and commitment to the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party that the provisions in the Bill will be enforced. The Director of Public Prosecutions, an independent person who takes his duty seriously, will, I am certain, ensure that the provisions are enforced. One aspect of the debate that has saddened me is the serious reflection and insult on the youth of the country. The allegation being made is that on the passing of the Bill our youth will suddenly lower their moral standards. The day we have to rely on civil law to maintain moral standards will be a very serious one for all of us. There is only one way to maintain moral standards in society and that is through family love in the home and Christian love in the church. Any young person who got a proper family upbringing will not suddenly lose his or her self-respect and dignity. The vast majority of our young people are kind, considerate and sensible people with high moral standards which they will retain because of their intelligence and educational background.

However, if some wish to delude themselves and close their eyes to what is happening about them, then nothing I or any other Member will say will make them change their views. If people refuse to see what exists that does not change the reality of things. In the last four years more than 30 million contraceptives were imported. In one of the Irish Sunday newspapers last weekend, a publication that enjoys a circulation of 350,000, at least six advertisements were carried advertising the sale of contraceptives. Many magazines which circulate freely in our bookshops carry such advertisements. A person of any age can reply to those advertisements and be supplied with those devices and if that person so wishes he or she can distribute those devices to other people. There is no mention of the limit that can be supplied.

It is my view that a local doctor or chemist will be more careful in the sale of contraceptives at their surgeries or pharmacies. That will help to curtail the circulation of them rather than increase their supply. Contraceptives have been on sale in slot machines in universities in Dublin for a long number of years. The law is in disrepute and is being flouted daily. I am confident that our youth will respond positively if we trust them, if fathers and mothers talk to them and extend the same kindness, love and understanding that has always been found in the vast majority of Irish homes. Young people as they leave their teens will experience many problems. Surely it is better that such young people should approach their parents for advice and that the difficulties they face are discussed in the home environment rather than in a city or town where they are working or studying and where they may not have anyone to turn to for advice. The responsibility on parents that has always existed will still be there.

The Primate of All-Ireland, Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiach, represents the Catholic community North and South and in the North contraceptives have always been freely available. It is my view that Catholics in the North of all age groups are as moral and good living as those in the Twenty-six counties. I have no doubt that we will retain our standards here if the Bill is passed.

The Irish Medical Union on 9 November 1983 passed two motions demanding that the existing legislation be amended as a matter of urgency. The Minister has complied with that demand. I would have preferred if a free vote had been allowed on this issue. Members would not have had any excuse then and could not fall back on the Whip. Fine Gael at all times permitted a free vote and it would have been fairer and better for all concerned if that was allowed tonight. I should like to suggest to the Whips of all parties that in future on issues like this a free vote should be allowed. I have no doubt that such issues will arise again and, irrespective where we sit in the House, we should avoid playing petty politics on issues that affect the lives of so many people. Unfortunately, that is happening. The political ball game is being played. When the heat has gone out of this debate I hope the Whips, and the leaders of the parties, permit a free vote on such contentious issues.

It took me quite some time to make up my mind on this issue. I listened to those who made representations to me. I received in the region of 1,000 letters on the issue. A sizeable number of them were in favour of the Bill, but the majority were against. Most of the correspondence was helpful and courteous and people offered me good advice. However, I have great sympathy for some of the people who wrote letters to me and those who live with them. It is part and parcel of democracy that people write letters but some of the letters I received do not do any good to any cause. In voting for the legislation I believe I am doing what is right because I have great confidence in our people, particularly our youth. I believe our young people will retain the standards they have always retained and in that respect I have full confidence in them.

Much of what I should like to say has been said already and, in the interests of those who would like to speak within the time constraints on us, I shall endeavour to be concise.

Deputy Enright's contribution reflected in great measure the concern, anxiety and uncertainty of very many Fine Gael Deputies in relation to this Bill. As he said, normally Fine Gael in regard to legislation such as this have adopted the free vote. It is of grave significance that they felt they could not on this occasion.

I listened with great interest and attention to the Minister's introductory remarks and have since studied them in great detail. His views on this subject are well known. I should say that I accept fully the sincerity of his views, but I am somewhat disappointed and saddened by his apparent suspicion — and here I apologise if I am misinterpreting him — about the views held by many who oppose this Bill, and which has been echoed by many speakers in favour of the Bill, that Fianna Fáil, are opposing solely for the purpose of political expediency, that our sincerity in the matter is suspect. It ill behoves some Government Deputies to suggest that Fianna Fáil, and particularly its leader, have their feet "on the necks of Irish women," as the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Nuala Fennell, suggested, and that they were only political opportunists, when the only legislation for legitimate family planning in this country was introduced by the present leader of Fianna Fáil as Minister for Health.

Such remarks do little to help Deputies respond to the Minister's request for a full, positive and healthy debate. I should like now to refer briefly to the tremendous pressures brought on Deputies visà-vis this Bill and to express my utter abhorrence and condemnation of those who apply such abnormal pressures. They do little to promote an understanding of or sympathy for the cause any group purports to expound; rather they have the opposite effect. The manner in which threats made against those for the Bill has been dramatised by the media, with large headlines in newspapers, photographs on television and interviews on radio, is in direct contrast with the publicity given those who were threatened who would be opposing the measure. In many cases they received passing comments only, buried in the centre of an argument or as a passing reference in a news item. Threats made against any Member of this House should receive the same attention. The greatest threat has been made against Government Deputies who are known to oppose this Bill, the threat of non-ratification for future selection, meaning in many cases that their livelihood would be taken from them. When Deputy Mary Flaherty talks about the admission of Deputy John O'Connell to Fianna Fáil and of his stance in relation to this Bill she should remember the threats made to her own colleagues.

I might recall to the House an incident that happened to me on 31 October last and those people who received threats that their houses would be burned, threats by cranks which I abhor. There was an attempt to burn a property of mine and it is somewhat significant that, four months later, I have still not heard from the local officer of the Garda as to what has happened. There was very little publicity given that incident.

In the course of his remarks the Minister emphasised that, as Minister, he must be guided by grave health considerations. I shall address my remarks mainly to this aspect. For example, the Minister spoke of the increase of 4.1 per cent in the number of illegitimate births since 1971 and linked this to the non-availability of contraceptives. The Minister appears to advance the somewhat logical argument that the free availability of contraceptives could have prevented this and would do so in the future on the passage of this Bill.

I submit that this has not been the experience in other countries, and particularly not so in the case of our nearest neighbour Great Britain. Statistics from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys issued on 17 July 1984 show that in England and Wales in 1981 28.5 per cent of all conceptions occurred outside marriage, this in a country where the Department of Health and Social Security Handbook on Contraceptive Practices, 1984, states that in Britain it can no longer be said that there are couples who are totally unaware of the availability of contraceptives nor is there a scarcity of centres to which they can go for advice, certainly in urban areas. I submit that the figure of 28.5 per cent is revealing in the light of the fact that sex education is the norm in most schools in England and Wales and because free contraception is available under the National Health Service there. Therefore our Minister's argument does not stand in the face of these facts and statistics.

Also in the course of his remarks the Minister reminded us that the abortion option is chosen increasingly by those who become pregnant outside marriage and, by implication and suggestion, he tells us that to prevent this we should support the Bill. The experience of England and Wales is that 40 per cent of those who became pregnant outside marriage in 1981 chose the abortion trail, again in a country where all types of contraceptive devices are known about and are freely available. Why then are there so many unwanted pregnancies and abortions? Perhaps the answer lies in the link between the general availability of contraceptives and abortion which many family planning associations and experts on family planning acknowledge.

In 1979 a member of the New Zealand Family Planning Association and of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand told their abortion supervisory committee that personally and from the viewpoint of both the Abortion Law Reform Association and the New Zealand Family Planning Association he thought this to be a legitimate interest — that there be an intermingling of contraception and abortion, that they could not be separated for various reasons.

Doctor Judith Bury of the Edinburgh Brook Advisory Centres in The Scotsman of 29 September 1981 said there was overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what one might expect, the availability of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate. The Ward River Press, item 216, which was headed “Abortion. The Irish Question” stated that the answer to this question used to be to improve sex education, make contraception freely available and the need for abortions and the number of unwanted pregnancies would decline. Now we know from the experience of other countries who have had the very best of sex education programmes, coupled with freely available contraceptives, that this does not reduce the need for abortions. If anything it increases it.

I might quote now from a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph on 28 January 1984 — I have already quoted part of this letter — which is headed “Misleading propaganda” and which had this to say:

Dr J D J Havard of the British Medical Association (Jan. 18) perpetuates the same misleading propaganda on the provision of contraceptives to under-aged children which is being spread around by various groups in the family planning industry. He really should acquaint himself with some facts. He emphasises the need of girls to be "protected" from pregnancy: the false promise of contraceptive protection to which the young have been subjected in widespread sex/contraceptive education. What has been the result? According to the industry itself: "There is overwhelming evidence that contrary to what you might expect the availability of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate".

From 1969 to 1982 the number of pregnancies occurring in girls below the age of consent virtually doubled from 2,660 to 5,021 in 1982. The majority of these pregnancies ended in abortion which is evident by the fact that between 1969 and 1982 the rate of abortion among those under the age of 16 trebled. Common sense dictates and the evidence shows that the exposure of teenagers to contraceptives has been a disastrous policy. It has led to more sexual intercourse at a younger age with more contraceptive failures, promiscuity, cancer of the cervix, parental estrangement and the exploitation of girls.

I fail to see how the passage of this Bill will advance the status of women and the signature on the letter to which I referred was that of a woman, Mrs. Valerie Riches. There are other aspects of Irish law which could and should be changed which would add to the status of women.

The letter also spoke of an increase in cases of cancer of the cervix. In a letter to the British Medical Journal, volume 289, of 4 August 1984, Angela Mills of the London Family Planning Association stated that, despite the density of cervical screening, the estimated proportion of positive smears from the 25-35 age group more than doubled between 1973 and 1980 and that during this time the death rate from cervical cancer increased only in these younger women. How comforting it must be for other women to be told that this only happened in the case of younger women.

In the period 1971-1983 new cases of sexually transmitted diseases reported by clinics in England rose from 299,905 to 517,668 and is continuing to rise. It appears that, despite contraception or because of the attitude to sexual behaviour caused by contraception, increased sexual activity has resulted in an increase in these diseases. The need, which the Minister acknowledges, for education towards responsible sexual behaviour will not be met by the passing of this legislation. It will be discouraged by the perception which this legislation gives to people.

Deputy Skelly expressed shock that very young girls would obtain and use contraceptives and rightly said that this could constitute a criminal offence. He obviously felt that the speaker who mentioned this has been trying scare tactics. He may be interested to hear that in Britain a very large number of young girls under 15 years of age were attending contraception outlets. Will we follow that example? If so, what will Deputy Skelly do?

It is not possible to enforce the section of the Bill which deals with the age at which contraceptives may be obtained. There is no way that people under 18 years of age can be prevented from obtaining contraceptives. Already — this is of some importance in relation to the commitment which the Taoiseach, according to Deputy Enright, gave to the Fine Gael Party — some exponents of family planning in Ireland have stated that if a 15 or 16 year old comes to them looking for contraceptive devices they will supply them.

At this stage someone should define what the word "family" means. Is it the same definition as is contained in the Constitution? Much as been written and spoken about our aim towards a pluralist society. Frankly, if that means that very young teenagers can have free availability of contraceptives leading to unwanted pregnancies and abortion, many — not all of them Catholics — would abhor that concept. My idea and definition of pluralism is completely different.

Deputy Conlon spoke of the concern of Unionists. They would have much more respect for us upholding our standards, which are Christian and not Catholic, than if we lowered them. He spoke from his knowledge of people who are not hardline Unionists and he has a far greater knowledge of these people than I have. Therefore, I accept his comments on this matter. Much has been made of the comments of the Catholic bishops and their right to offer advice with regard to this Bill. I fully accept their right to offer advice, which is similar to that of everyone else to offer advice. There have been times when we cannot get into Leinster House because of the pickets placed outside and, as Deputy Power said, very little was written about the right of the Dáil or that democracy would fail if particular legislation did not pass.

This Bill is contrary to the religious teachings not only of the Catholic Church but of the Protestant and Jewish religions, all of which frown on and are opposed to sex outside marriage. The IPPA and IFPA will celebrate if this Bill is passed. They will have succeeded, after many years of trying, in getting this legislation on the Statute Book and will be encouraged to try for further legislation. The Minister said that Fine Gael Deputies were in touch with their constituents.

I am also in direct touch with my constituents and they do not see the need for this legislation and are not demanding it. Young people particularly are interested in and worried about the lack of employment opportunities. Many have finished third level education but are still unemployed. Others are studying extremely hard for examinations but are at their wit's end because they know that in many cases the stark reality is that they will have no opportunities to obtain employment at home. They are frustrated, of course, not because they cannot obtain contraceptives but because they have no jobs and they see very little likelihood of obtaining them. Contrary to many suggestions, there is no real demand for this legislation. It will not solve any of our problems; it will only create more. These are some of the reasons why I am opposing this legislation.

In contributing to this debate I believe that there are some fundamental principles which need to be restated if we are to keep the issues in perspective. Firstly, and above all else, we must remind ourselves that this is a democracy and that those of us who are charged with the running f the State are accountable only to those who elected us as legislators. Naturally, as part of the the democratic system we must take account of all representations and viewpoints no matter how trenchantly expressed, except the form of imtimidation that has become evident on all sides of this debate over the last few weeks. My family received threats last night that the house would be burned down if I voted against the Bill. That kind of threat serves no purpose and I certainly would not be intimidated by it. It makes it very difficult for legislators to debate any issue in the calm and rational manner which such a sensitive issue as this requires. The freedom to lobby public representatives in the strongest possible manner on any issue is at once the cornerstone and glory of the democratic process which makes it the greatest of all the political systems. Having studied fully the representations made it is then our solemn duty to legislate for the overall common good.

In that context one of the most significant and welcome statements made in politics since the foundation of the State was that of Most Reverend Dr. Cathal Daly, Bishop of Down and Connor, when addressing the New Ireland Forum on behalf of the Catholic bishops on 9 February 1984. He stated inter alia:

The Catholic Church totally rejects the concept of a confessional state. We have not sought and we do not seek a Catholic State for a Catholic people. We believe that an alliance of Church and State is harmful for the Church and harmful for the State.

We rejoiced when that ambiguous formula regarding the special position of the Catholic Church was struck out of the Constitution by the electorate of the Republic. The Catholic Church has no power and seeks no power except the power of the Gospel it preaches and the consciences of those who freely accept that teaching.

They go on to say:

It is not for us to formulate proposals for constitutional change or to draft blueprints for a future Ireland. That is the business of legislators.

As a member of the New Ireland Forum I welcomed that profoundly clear and important statement. It is against that background that I have formulated my own position on this Bill. I am equally conscious of the fact that one of the greatest documents of Vatican II was that on religious freedom which has been proclaimed by Pope John Paul as one of the great documents to emerge from that council. One of the major architects of that document, the Jesuit historian John Courtnay Murray, the American, remarked:

A long standing ambiguity has finally been cleared up.

Will the Deputy please give the reference?

He was commenting on the document on religious freedom.

The Deputy said he was quoting from a document.

Yes, it is a comment by the Jesuit historian, Dr. John Courtnay Murray, speaking on the document on religious freedom.

I am not trying to be awkward but the reference that is required is one that would enable someone to trace the source of the quotation.

I accept that. The reference is Dr. John Courtnay Murray's comment on the document on religious freedom.

When was it published?

I cannot give the exact source of the quotation. I will get it later if it is necessary. He stated:

A long standing ambiguity has finally been cleared up. The Church does not deal with the secular order in terms of a double-standard ... Freedom for the Church when Catholics are in a minority, privilege for the Church and intolerance for others when Catholics are in a majority.

I have not and will not bow to pressure from any source, however much I respect the opinions of that source. That leads me directly to my second principle, which can bear with repetition here today. Having asserted the fundamental right of legislators to legislate as they think proper it must be an inalienable right of any elected representative in any democracy to dissent from his party policy on grounds of conscience and, by extension, the right not to vote if he or she thinks fit.

I understand that is the position in many other parliamentary democracies, certainly in Westminister. Deputies have a free vote on all issues except those relating to financial policy. Surely, if we are mature enough to be free to make up our minds in this House without extra parliamentary pressures, that automatically implies we should be able to have a free vote on any issue other than finance and especially when we are dealing with matters that impinge on morals and conscience.

It is safe to assume that in any political party in the world, even under totalitarian regimes let alone in democracies, there will be strong held differences of opinion, but it is only in a democracy that dissent based on conscience can be freely advanced. We must never forget that. That is why when this issue was first raised at our Parliamentary Party I supported strongly the case for a free vote on an issue which runs counter to my own fundamental beliefs. The reason this was refused was, I understand, that Fianna Fáil would not allow a free vote to their members. This shows clearly the intention of Fianna Fáil to use this question simply to bring down the Government. This was the position outlined recently by Deputy Flynn in the "Tuairisc" programme on Radio Éireann, which I listened to last Thursday as I drove home to Limerick. I hope I am quoting him, if not directly, in the sense in which he said: "Dúirt sé dá mba rud é go gcaillfí an Bille seo go gcaillfeadh an Rialtas aon chreidiúnacht a bheadh acu agus go gcaithfeadh siad éirí as an Rialtas laistigh de thrí mhí nó mar sin". The irony in the situation into which Fianna Fáil have got themselves is that if they were really serious about defeating this Bill per se they could have done so by allowing a free vote. They would have achieved their objective had that been the position.

They have admitted that there were inadequacies in the original Bill introduced by Deputy Haughey in 1979. The reason they are advancing for opposing this measure is that there is no great demand for it. Could I ask them if this Bill is passed and they are returned to power again as a Government, will they bring in amending legislation to restore the status quo as it is to-day?

While I agree with them that there is no great demand for change in the present system, my opposition to this Bill goes much deeper than that. I cannot vote for this Bill in its present form. I accept fully the compassion and concern of the Minister in relation to those married couples who cannot avail of what is their legal right to contraceptives because of the failure of local chemists etc. to stock these devices. I see nothing wrong as a legislator in remedying this deficiency but I cannot support the wholesale issue to teenagers of contraceptives.

With other Deputies I spent about three hours with the Minister last night advising him that I could support this Bill if that clause was taken out of it. I assure the House that this is the viewpoint of the overwhelmining majority, on a basis of about 97:3 of all those who corresponded with me. I never received more correspondence on any other subject since my election other than on the referendum debate in 1983. I met representatives of the Limerick Family Planning Clinic yesterday morning. They presented me with a petition signed, they said, by 900 people. I was very sorry to see that among the signatories to that were children aged 16 who are known to me and who could not, I submit, in all objectivity make up their minds on a much deeper issue than the mere provision of contraceptives.

I happen to be one of those who incline to the viewpoint outlined by Lord Devlin, Judge of the Queen's Bench, in his Essay on the Enforcement of Morality published by Oxford University Press in 1965. He said:

If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement the agreement goes that society will disintegrate. For society is not something that is held together physically; it is held by the invisible bond of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society. and mankind which needs society must pay its price.

The signs are all too painfully there for everybody to see, that our cultural values in this country have undergone a traumatic change over the past 20 years or so. Some of these have undoubtedly been for the good; in particular a greater tolerance and sympathy for minority viewpoints, whether religious or social, and the gradual elimination of old divisions which have their origins in less tolerant times and attitudes. But side-by-side with this welcome trend we are witnessing a level of lawlessness and crime unprecedented in our history, where old people are afraid to go to bed at night for fear of being robbed and murdered or having their fingers cut off by robbers in search of money, where women in advanced stage of pregnancy are being gang-raped, where young children are being kidnapped for ransom and churches and presbyteries are ransacked for money. All these things have happened here in the past 12 months. These are all symptoms of a deep malaise in our society. I do not want to overstate the point, but the facts are there for all to see.

One of the basic laws of science is that everything has a cause and an effect. I believe that one of the main reasons for our present situation as I have outlined it is the widespread disregard for law and authority and a decline in its influence, whether civil or religious. These sentiments will be dismissed by those of a liberal inclination as being too conservative or pietistic but nevertheless I believe they need to be said in this debate. Some of the greatest conservatives — with a small c — I have met are those who like to proclaim themselves as liberal or progressive, but, at the same time, they are so rigid in their own viewpoints as to be almost immutable — too far east as west. Some of them are among the most intellectually intolerant people I know.

One of the overt reasons for this Bill is to bring the law back from the area of disrepute. I suggest that anyone who is sanguine enough to believe that can be done does not know or understand the history or the ethos of our people. As Rex Mackey pointed out, we are a society by our culture, history and tradition that lives windward of the law. For obvious reasons we have what some might describe as a healthy disregard for the law and its institutions. Nevertheless, the situation is if we give the nod to young people in this matter we are encouraging conduct that I think is known to be morally wrong. We must be free to legislate but, as Edmund Burke reminded his electors in Bristol in 1774, "Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion". Above all, we owe it to our children to give them sound moral guidelines even if they wish to reject them. The passing of this Bill will, I believe, do a great disservice and unfairness to our young people. It will give them the impression that the Government and leaders of our country are approving officially conduct that is basically wrong.

I am not in any sense whatever arguing for a draconian form of society — quite the opposite. If history has anything to teach us it is surely that legal or religious extremism has no enduring place. The most ruthlessly inexorable force of all is moderation. I am pleading here for a rethink on this question of making contraceptives freely available to our young people. In my view, there is no great demand for such change. Contraception is a mentality and those who want to avail of it will find the means anyway; they have done so since the dawn of society. The Minister himself has admitted that 30 million condoms have already been imported since the 1979 Act. Although I may not be around, because some of us will be gone the way of truth, it will be no harm to look back. I say that the cost to the taxpayer of this country will extend far beyond that of providing contraceptives to those people who look for them. Experience everywhere has shown that a greater availability of contraceptives, far from reducing social problems such as venereal diseases, single parents, teenage pregnancies and so on will only increase them with the State paying the price, and I am not talking of money only.

I realise that in not supporting my party colleagues on this I incur automatic expulsion from the Parliamentary Labour Party, the party to which I have given 33 years of my life and for which I have worked and laboured for their objectives with as much industry as any one single person could do, perhaps to the neglect of my family and other interests. I am sorry I have to part company with them on this, but I would point out to those who say that availability of contraceptives for all was part of Labour party policy that I believed an issue with such conscientious difficulties for some Deputies would have to be catered for by a free vote as was the case on previous occasions, most recently the last constitutional amendment.

I am even more deeply depressed by the belief that if this Bill is lost its defeat will mean the end of the fondly cherished hopes and high vision enshrined in the New Ireland Forum with all its generosity and nobility of purpose. Because of the insentive manner in which opposition to this Bill has been launched, its defeat will be welcomed by the most extreme Unionists as a vindication of their tribal hatred and suspicion of all things Irish and Catholic and will set back for decades the hope of helping the Northern minority and restoring peace to this land.

My peace of mind was not made any easier last week when I was approached by a very prominent representative of the SDLP in the North to say that if this Bill were defeated it would be a matter of despair for the Catholics and the minority in the North who would then have lost all hope in the New Ireland Forum. That only helped to deepen the awful dilemma in which I find myself, that although I come from a background of trade union and Labour tradition of democratic procedures, nevertheless I cannot genuinely vote for something which I believe is fundamentally wrong and with which I disagree in conscience.

Therefore, having discussed the matter very fully over a long period with my colleagues and advisers in the Labour Party and the trade union movement in Limerick, I am guided by their advice that the only realistic and very unpalatable option I have is to abstain on this issue. This I propose to do for all the reasons I have outlined.

The proposals to amend the Family Planning Act has given rise to considerable public concern. In making my contribution to this debate, I am saddened at the fact that at a time when the country is faced with so many major problems of high unemployment, low standards of living and poverty the Government and the Minister for Health saw fit to bring this legislation before the House at this time.

In the past week we have seen how divisive is this legislation, not just among politicians, not just among the clergy, bishops, priests and religious, but among the community at large. It can be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister and the Government that they are the cause of the confusion and divisiveness in our community which we may never overcome. During the week we heard a great deal of comment, which at times was very clever, criticising bishops and individuals and particularly parents who were very concerned at the effect this legislation would have on their children. They are being accused of being cranks, freaks, you name it, it was mentioned. It is a disservice to those people that because of their dearly held convictions and concerns for their families they should be treated in this manner even by Members of this House. I saw the contribution of some of those people on television last weekend, and it was most unbecoming of representatives of political parties.

"Mind boggling" is the only term I can use to describe some of the contributions here today. People on the other side of the House contributed as if they were parish priests or bishops and at the end of their contribution they said they would support this Bill. Black is black and white is white, and you cannot serve both, and that is what people are trying to do in this House tonight. They are expressing concern for the situation as we find it and as it is, and they will go up there tonight and turn left. It is hypocrisy of the highest order. We are legislators. I am in here as a legislator, not as any bishop's man. I am here to represent over 7,000 people in Cork who elected me, and it is a pity that we cannot say that about many of the people who have spoken in this debate so far.

Deputy Shatter in his final comment last night said that he wished the people who should know better would express their views in a calmer way and not give respectability to a small minority in society whose views even in a delicate situation can be given an aura which they do not deserve. I do not know what minority Deputy Shatter was referring to, because he did not say. I have my own views on it, and I hope that I am not right. Minorities have been well served in this community and they have little to complain about, but you cannot override the opinions and the views of the majority as some people on the other side of the House would like us to do. We have always been concerned for the rights of individuals and minorities, but I would have no part in imposing minority views and opinions on the majority while I am a Member of this House. The division that has been caused by this measure can be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government.

After two and a half years as a legislator in this House I am very disappointed that we have very little to show the young people. In my clinics every week people do not come in looking for contraceptives, but young people come in looking for jobs, a better standard of living and a better quality of life than they have at present. I can say without fear of contradiction that the young people today face more problems and difficulties than ever we faced in our lives, and they are entitled to our assistance in every way possible in these difficult times. The free availability of drugs and the excessive use of alcohol are creating turmoil in our community today and will not help young people while they continue. Then the Minister for Health came into the Dáil last week and circulated a Bill to make contraceptives available to people over 18 years of age. Some Deputies who were indecisive all the week spoke here this afternoon and sought all sorts of assurances from the Minister about how we were to protect people under 18 when they know in their heart and soul, as I know, and so does the Minister, that he cannot give them those guarantees. This is the fallacy of this legislation. We cannot protect people under 18 in this legislation irrespective of how some of the people in the Government benches would like to wriggle out of their indecision during the week. Now they state that they will walk behind the Minister tonight into the lobbies to make sure that this legislation goes through.

We have heard about the need for legislation and what it will do for us. It will reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. We will have a quality of life never before experienced. There are no statistics to back that up anywhere, and neither the Minister nor any speaker from that side of the House has given that information to the House, because it does not exist. I will give some statistics. They are not mine. They were published in the Irish Independent of 19 November 1984. In 1968 in the UK for every 100 registered births there were three abortions. In Denmark in 1968 for every 100 registered births there were eight abortions. In 1981 in the UK for every 100 births registered there were 43 abortions and in Denmark in 1981 for every 100 births registered there were 43 abortions. These are EC statistics for anyone to see. Where do the people who say that this will remedy matters here and help prevent unwanted pregnancies, illegitimacy and abortion get the facts and figures? They are fallacious and those people know that, but in order to justify walking into the lobbies tonight to pass this legislation they are saying such things.

There has been much criticism of the Catholic bishops in regard to this legislation. The first bishop whom I heard make public comment on it was the Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, Dr. Samuel Poyntz. On Friday night after the Bill had been circulated he welcomed the legislation and said that in his opinion it was helping us towards a pluralist society. I did not comment on Dr. Poyntz's right to speak. He was quite entitled to do so. However, the minute the Catholic bishops expressed their opinion which they believed to be right, and they believed their right to be to advise their flocks, all hell broke loose. It was like a red rag to a bull, particularly to some people in this House whose values may not coincide with those of the bishops and whose opinions of the quality of life may not coincide with mine. All hell broke loose because the bishops were carrying out their duties as they saw fit.

I am here as a legislator and to represent all the people of my constituency. I welcome the views and the opinions of the bishops. I am a friend of both the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Cork, but there was no pressure brought to bear on me in regard to how I should vote in this legislation. It is my conviction that the provision of the legislation would result in a lowering in moral standards and in the quality of life. That contention cannot be contradicted. We must have our priorities right on this matter. It will not be possible for the Minister to ensure that those under 18 will be prevented from obtaining contraceptives. I have here a question and answer document which was circulated by some Deputies from the other side of the House. The first question is whether the Bill would provide unlimited access to contraception. The answer is, "no" but that it limits access to specific outlets, namely, doctors, chemists, health boards, family planning clinics and certain hospitals, and that all of these will be under an obligation to limit sales of contraceptives to people over 18.

If, for instance, an 18 year old goes into a chemist's shop and buys two dozen of these devices and then goes out and proceeds to distribute them to seven or eight friends who are younger than he, is the chemist in that case considered to be observing the law? The Minister has not spelled out what would be the position in such cases. Instead, there have been some cleverly put statements by the Minister and by some other speakers in expressing their concern on the question of age. They say that the chemists will ensure that the law is complied with, but the fact is that the law in this regard cannot be applied. This legislation will put us on a slippery slope. The free availability of contraceptives in such permissive societies as those in Denmark and Britain has failed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It will fail here too.

The second question on the questionnaire was how effective one thought the legislation would be, and asked whether drink is sold to people under 18. The answer was that the two situations are totally different, that there are thousands of pubs concerned exclusively with the sale of drink whereas the outlet for contraceptives would be limited and that clearly the vast majority of doctors, chemists, hospitals and so on would act responsibly and would apply the law. The answer went on to proclaim that it would be relatively easy to identify a small minority who would break the law. In other words, it has been admitted already by people on the other side of the House that the proposed law would be broken. We have failed the young people in regard to the licensing laws. I have no wish to be emotive, but I speak here as a result of my concern for our young people. The Minister or the Government are blindfolded to the reality of what will happen as a result of this legislation being passed.

We are told that young people are using contraceptives anyway. Many young people are using them but there are many who are not using them. However, if this legislation is passed, many more young people will be using contraceptives. Therefore, we will have created a greater problem than we have now.

We have failed our people, and our young people particularly, in terms of jobs and of the type of environment they are entitled to. That is why the Government are taking the easy way out. In the short time. I have been there I have learned that one expresses a view and then acts in the opposite way. The press will publish what one says but the way one votes is not recorded and that gets him off the hook. I have seen that happen too often here, and we will see it again this evening when the people who have expressed concern about the Bill will vote for it. I urge such people at least to be manly enough to do what they believe is right. There was much criticism of Deputy Flanagan last week for his saying that his conscience is his own. My conscience is my own and I will do what I consider right having regard to the views of the people but the final decision must be one's own. Some speakers today dismissed much to easily the opinions of those who wrote to them on this issue. Deputy Kelly and Deputy Shatter have told us that very concerned people wrote nice letters to them, letters that were not offensive in any way. I was very glad to hear that, but I was sorry to hear of the abuse and the threats to which Deputy Prendergast and some other Members were subjected. However, in some other instances I understand that the reports of threats and so on were fabricated.

We have a duty to the people, but by passing this legislation we are failing in that duty. Some Deputies on the Government side who have been undecided all week as to how they should vote have come here and expressed their concern but have indicated that they intended supporting the measure on the basis of assurances given to them by the Minister. The Minister cannot give them the assurances they seek, and consequently they should be honest. If they are sincere in representing their constituents they should oppose the Bill this evening. I trust that the legislation will be defeated.

Those of us this morning who had the privilege of hearing Deputy O'Malley not only witnessed a superb and honest parliamentary performance but had the opportunity of having the real issues in the debate set out, clarified and put into context in a way that had not happened up to then in this debate.

There was not a word or sentiment uttered by Deputy O'Malley this morning with which I would disagree. In the short time available to me I shall address myself to what I regard to be the main issues in the debate.

First there are the contents of this extremely short Bill. Like Deputy O'Malley I wonder also whether a year from now we will be asking ourselves what the fuss was all about. The effect of the Bill are extremely straightforward. First it will remove from our legislation the meaningless and unworkable concept of bona fide family planning. The concept may have been a nonsense in 1979, though maybe it was important to use it then in order to have the Bill passed, but it has no place today. Secondly, the Bill frees our doctors from the obligation of prescribing for non-medical contraceptives. This is being done at the request of the overwhelming majority of Irish doctors as expressed through their professional associations. Thirdly, the Bill provides a framework of control within which condoms can be dispensed in an ordered and regulated way and which provides very severe sanctions against those who would break that law, and that is something that does not exist in the present legislation. Lastly, this short Bill extends the availability of condoms to parts of the country where people, mainly married people, who would have a right to contraception, cannot exercise that right because of the outlets not being available.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is not in any way about the opening up of floodgates or about the collapse of moral standards. There is no element in the Bill of the forcing of alien moral standards on anyone. People will continue to be free to do as they wish and in accordance with their conscience. The Bill seeks only to amend the practice of a principle which was enacted here in 1979.

I appreciate the understandable fears of many of those who are opposed to the Bill, but I would ask them to have regard to the facts. In many ways, as Deputy O'Malley mentioned, what is more important than the measure itself is the context in which we are debating it. There are three main elements in the climate and the context in which we are debating the Bill. The first stage is the way in which we, as parliamentarians and Members of the Oireachtas, have handled the Bill and the entire matter. Anybody who listened to the eloquent and very honest speech of Deputy Prendergast and the speeches of people like Deputy Griffin and Deputy Conlon must have wished that we could have had a free vote on this Bill. It is worth recalling that when this House was being set up, when our democracy was being established, it was the earnest hope of the founders of this State that most issues would be debated in a free way, that a defeat on a measure would not mean the collapse of a Government. Unfortunately, civil war politics meant the end of all that.

Certainly, if this issue had been debated on the basis of a free vote, two things would have happened. We as legislators would have been under far greater pressure, individual pressure and pressure from various groups and each and every one of us would be personally accountable for our vote here today. I would have welcomed that and I would be voting tonight as I intend to vote, for this Bill. When people outside and inside the House talk about a free vote and the absence of it, the blame for the absence of a free vote must be placed squarely where it belongs. I say this, not as a criticism but as a matter of fact. The Fianna Fáil Party for its long years of history have always said that they do not believe in free votes. That is their way. It suited Fianna Fáil well down the years and I am not here to criticise it. It is not my way. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for my feeling happier on this side of the House. Perhaps Fianna Fáil are happier to have me over here, too. That is the way it is and has been over the years.

There is no such thing as a free vote for one half of the House only. I am quite certain that the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party would have been very happy to have a free vote if it was genuinely a free vote for all the House. I was struck by the perhaps unconscious hypocrisy of the last speaker when he pleaded with the people over here, those who are voting on this Bill and who have had great difficulties which they have spelt out, to vote "No" tonight. Would he extend the same freedom to Deputy McCreevy and Deputy Harney? Of course, he would not. For Deputies on the far side to vote with their consciences is seen as betrayal, as an act of treachery against the Party Leader. If people in Fianna Fáil are talking about a free vote, or people outside are wondering why there is not a free vote, let them look fairly and squarely where the reasons for this lie.

The second context in which this Bill is being debated has been touched on by very many speakers and it would be wrong of us not to draw attention to it, that is, the part played by the various churches in this debate. From the point of view of the nation, the debate over the past number of days has been an extremely healthy and open one. When the smoke has cleared away, we shall find that a framework has been laid down in an area where issues and practices hitherto were very unclear and very illdefined. This debate will serve as a basis for future discussions on genuinely important matters which concern both Church and State.

Most politicians in this House took the bishops at their Forum word, that ours was the right to legislate, theirs was the right to teach and to instruct but, ultimately, ours was to be the final word. The experience of the past few weeks probably has not been all that easy for people on these sides of the debate — I mean the bishops and the politicians. Old habits die hard. The bishops and politicians are better off that these issues have been aired and that what I believe to be a new framework for discussion is being laid down.

Every Member of this House has listened to and read the warnings, instructions and teachings of the Catholic bishops in this matter. These teachings have been taken into account with great care by every legislator in this House. What they have said has been evaluated with perhaps greater care and at greater length than the warnings of any other group but, at the end of the day, as the bishops have told us, people here, either individually or collectively, within the democracy of their parliamentary parties are making up their minds.

If this episode is seen, as it tends to be seen by many in the media and by people outside this country, as being a Church-State clash — and I add that very few in this House see it as such — the fault for that perception must lie fairly and squarely with the bishops. There was not a collective statement from the bishops. Their statements were made individually but the majority made their case in a calm and reasoned way. This is especially true of the statements made by the Bishop of Ferns, Dr. Cummiskey, the Bishop of Galway, Dr. Casey, Bishop Cassidy of Clonfert and, of course, by Cardinal Ó Fiach. However, for whatever reason, historical or otherwise, the context of the debate has been changed harshly by the intervention of two of the bishops. They intervened, as was their right, in the way in which they wanted to intervene but their intervention did change the context of the debate and changed it in a harsh direction. I refer first to my own archbishop, Dr. McNamara of Dublin. The speed of his intervention in the debate, the apocalyptic nature of the language which he used in his first and subsequent statements, the sweeping and, I believe, not always sustainable nature of the sociological claims he made about the consequences of this legislation and his unyielding stance created an atmosphere in which confrontation and not conciliation became almost inevitable. Dr. McNamara, who is a man of whom people speak very well indeed, either on purpose or inadvertently harshened the tone of this debate.

The second bishop is Dr. Newman of Limerick. I am afraid that Dr. Newman went even further. Does this learned and good man realise the effect of what he says on every Member of this House in telling us that we as Catholics have a duty to follow the line laid down by the bishops in this matter? He puts every politician in this House into an impossible position. If we vote against the Bill, the perception will be that this House, individually and collectively, has bowed to the crosier, that we have been whipped into submission by the bishops. If we vote for the Bill, then we will be seen as defying the bishops and engaging in a Church-State clash, one which does not exist and which on one in this House and very few outside it want. Does Bishop Newman think sufficiently of the impact of his statements, on the impossible position in which they put every Member of this House, on the way in which this House is portrayed outside and the perception, which can be extremely dangerous, in Northern Ireland in the entire process of reconciliation? Does he think sufficiently of the consequences of his words when he makes statements such as he made on television last Sunday and in his other utterances? I do not doubt his sincerity or his goodness but I doubt his judgment in this matter.

I hope when this Bill is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas — and passed it certainly will be — that both bishops and politicians will have learned a great deal from this experience, that we can resolve our legitimate differences without confrontation, in the language of debate and in language which will be healing and unifying. It is probable that when historians look back on this episode they will see that there was a possibility of scarring confrontation but that commonsense prevailed and that confrontation did not take place and that we, as a parliamentary democracy have come of age and shown a great deal of maturity in this whole matter.

Following on from that, I would like to talk about this Bill in the context of the Forum and of Northern Ireland but I am very conscious that there are many speakers who want to come after me. All I shall say in that regard is that everything which would have been a consequence of this Bill failing was said eloquently this morning by Deputy O'Malley. The consequences of failure of this Bill to pass — it should pass on its merits — in Northern Ireland, put the SDLP and the integrity and authenticity of the Forum report in great peril.

For these and other reasons I commend this Bill to the House and in doing so I praise the courage, the integrity and the courtesy of the Minister for Health who has steered this Bill through the House. The Minister deserves full support.

I oppose this unwelcome and unwarranted legislation. Deputy Maurice Manning referred to the intervention of the hierarchy in this debate. The hierarchy as members of the electorate are entitled to express their views at any time. I welcome the views of the hierarchy. If the hierarchy had expressed views favourable to this legislation, Deputy Manning, the Minister and the Government would be delighted; but when the hierarchy and individual bishops express views opposing the legislation they are not so welcome. To amend legislation to suit another administration is a bad reason for bringing this Bill before the House. If we have legislation that suits our people we should be satisfied with it and we should not amend an Act to appease people outside the State or to try to ape another administration.

This Bill should not be called a Family Planning Bill; it should be called The Sale of Contraceptive Devices Bill, 1985, as suggested by Deputy Alice Glenn. It has nothing to do with family planning. It just makes available the sale of contraceptives to 18 year olds. What mandate have the Government to introduce this Bill? In the Programme for Government this idea was hatched out between Labour and Fine Gael after the general election of 1982. It was not a consideration during the 1982 electoral campaign. I have no doubt that, if it were, this Government would never have got into office and if many Deputies who are voting for this legislation tonight had expressed that view during the 1972 campaign they would not have been returned to the Dáil. The Fine Gael Party stayed away from this issue during the campaign. An agreement was made between Fine Gael and Labour and one of the conditions of that agreement was that a review of the 1979 Family Planning Act would be undertaken, but even that undertaking in the agreement is not too clear. When introducing this legislation the Minister said that the agreement was to review the operation of the present family planning legislation with a view to providing full family planning advice and facilities in all cases where needed.

The agreement did not say that the Legislature would pass a Bill to provide for the free availability of contraceptives to 18 year olds. The danger is that this Bill will provide for the availability of contraceptive devices for younger people. The Government cannot enforce this legislation. The Bill does not make it a condition of sale that a prosecution will be pursued in relation to the sale of non-medical contraceptives to people under the age of 18. The Bill does not prevent the sale of contraceptives to young people by slot machines placed in chemists shops. The Bill does not insist that the chemist should undertake the sale directly to the person involved. Members of the chemist's staff, of any age, would be free to make the sale. There is nothing to prevent an unscrupulous chemist opening a separate unit of his shop for the sale and distribution of contraceptives to teenagers. It is open to large multi-national stores to engage the services of a chemist for the sale of non-medical contraceptives in supermarkets. The legislation is very loose in this regard. The legislation is faulty in that area.

The purpose of this Bill is to make contraceptives available without control. The Minister is achieving that objective by having this legislation passed through the House. There is an inherent danger in providing for the availability of contraceptive devices on such a scale. In my seven and a half years as a Member of this House I have never received representations from young people in regard to the availability of non-medical contraceptives. They are more concerned about jobs creation and educational facilities. They are not concerned with this legislation and this House has spent many hours debating an non-issue. The Minister has a clear commitment to the liberalisation of the family planning laws. This is one of the conditions for the Labour Party staying in Government. It is one of the conditions imposed by the Minister in exchange of his support of the budget in 1985. These are conditions which the Minister must have imposed on the Cabinet. Soon after the recent budget was introduced a quid pro quo was involved — the Minister and the Labour Party were prepared to support the budget if this legislation was introduced.

There is a prohibition in relation to the sale of drink to people under the age of 18 but it has been found to be unforceable. The same situation will apply to this Bill. The Bill does not make it mandatory on the person wishing to purchase non-medical contraceptives to produce evidence of his age. The Bill does not copperfasten the provision that the chemist will have to satisfy himself that the person is over 18.

The Bill should be put to the real test, it should be put to the people in a referendum. It would be worth while to place these proposals before the people and give them an opportunity to decide on the issue. It is my view that more than 62 per cent of the electorate are opposed to these measures. We do not have a mandate from our constituencies to vote in favour of it and the Government do not have a mandate to bring it forward. I am confident that if the proposals were put before the people in a referendum more than 62 per cent would oppose it. Like all Members I would abide by the decision of the majority in a referendum. I challenge the Minister to put his opinions, and the Government's credibility, to the test in the form of a referendum. That referendum could be held in conjunction with the local elections this year and if that took place it would not be a very costly exercise. The result of the referendum would be a clear statement from the majority, like that given in the referendum on the pro-life amendment, to the Government. It is worth recalling that in the recent referendum more than 85 per cent of the electorate in my constituency voted for the pro-life amendment.

The Minister should consider Article 41.2º of the Constitution which states:

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

The Bill seriously undermines the family and Article 41.2º. For that reason it should be referred to the Supreme Court. I make that suggestion if the Minister says that he is not prepared to refer it to the people in the form of a referendum. The Bill seriously undermines the family unit and will pose a difficulty for our young people. Since it was published I have had talks with various interested groups and young people about its provisions, and they all expressed serious reservations about them. The fact that the provisions have been so widely publicised and debated has also damaged the fabric of the family and our young people. Children of nine and ten are now asking what contraceptives are and where they can be obtained.

The media has a massive obsession with this issue. Whenever so called social or liberal legislation is brought before the House one is guaranteed that our national newspapers will give it front page coverage and that it will be highlighted on radio and television. There has been more attention given to this issue than to the fact that 235,000 people are unemployed. Why is it that the mounting problem of unemployment is not given banner headlines each day? Why is it that the media are not concerned with the ever increasing rate of unemployment and emigration? I understand that emigration is now estimated at 30,000 young people per annum. That is a tragedy.

The Government are aware that the Bill has deflected public attention from the main concerns of our people. It has cleverly deflected the attention of the electorate from the inability of the administration to bring forward policies that would create jobs. We have spent hours discussing a Bill for which there has not been any demand. Has Minister Desmond any constituency considerations for job creation following the passage of the Bill? In my view it will not create any jobs. It is possible that the Minister has some other direct reasons for his passion to bring the Bill before the House. A passion it is. The Minister has displayed a single minded extreme view that it must be brought forward and I believe he would be prepared to resign if the Bill is defeated.

In the course of his speech the Minister alleged that the leader of our party, Deputy Haughey, when Minister for Health, had secret meetings with the hierarchy. That is a blatant lie. Former Minister Haughey had confidential private meetings——

The Deputy should withdraw the word "blatant".

It is a lie.

The Chair deprecates any suggestion of circumventing a long-standing rule in the House which goes back to the foundation of the State that it shall not be said or implied that a person is telling a lie. "Blatant" is some sort of an addition to the word "lie" that might be construed as implying that the person concerned was telling a lie and knew it. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the word "blatant".

I could refer to it as a vicious lie if that would suit the Chair.

I ask the Deputy to accept the spirit of the ruling.

I take it that my reference to the Minister's statement being a lie is in order?

As long as the Deputy is not suggesting that the person referred to is telling a lie.

We welcome visitors to the House, but I should like to ask them not to join in the business of the House by applause or protest.

The general statement was a blatant lie. That is not attributing it to any one individual in the House. The fact is that it is a lie. I will not quibble about words but I stand over my statement that it is a lie. Former Minister Haughey scrupulously researched this matter before bringing in the 1979 Bill. He had 17 meetings with other groups, and yet the Minister dishonestly would not refer to those groups when he mentioned the hierarchy because he felt that by implying that the former Minister for Health, former Taoiseach, and present Leader of the Opposition had secret meetings with the hierarchy it would in some way undermine our opposition to the Bill. That is the psychology behind the Minister's statement. If former Minister Haughey had secret meetings with the hierarchy he would not leave a detailed minuted file in the Department of Health when he was leaving it that Minister Desmond could not get his greedy hands on. A secret meeting would not have been minuted, would not be detailed. The Minister brought forward the actual minutes of that meeting into this House, undermining the confidentiality of a former Minister when he was prepared to state that a former Minister had had that meeting, which was well documented and published at that time.

I compliment the then Minister who was prepared to have open dialogue with 18 groups before introducing the Bill for which I voted in 1979 and which was rendered necessary under the Constitution because of the ruling in the McGee case. That is an excellent, workable Act, but the will to make that work is not within the competence of this Government; they do not want that Act to work. Many who were prepared to vote against that Bill in 1979 are now those queuing up to vote with the Minister on this slim, inadequate Bill, the simplest, most dangerous Bill that has come before this House in my time here, a most sinister Bill, the most undermining Bill ever brought before this House. Time will tell how right I am and how right are Members on this side of the House in relation to our position on this Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

Why should a former Minister, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, express so many reservations about this Bill, a man who is prepared to put his future political life on the line? Why should Deputy Alice Glenn, a woman of integrity, of honesty, of sincerity——

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

——a woman who has the family's welfare at heart and is prepared to put her political future — and she has been ridiculed by her own party——

Deputy Skelly, it is the Chair's business to get order for all speakers. I want order for Deputy Leyden now. I want order for the Minister in five minutes and I would ask the Deputy to please co-operate with me.

As far as Deputy Glenn is concerned her future here may be short but her presence here is glorious because she will be remembered long after this Government have been forgotten, long after every member of this Government and every Deputy on that side of the House has been forgotten. Her name will be remembered with those of Deputy O. J. Flanagan and Deputy Tom O'Donnell. Now Deputy Prendergast is at least prepared to abstain, but I would recommend him to go in and vote on this Bill when he also will join that group of honourable, respectable and decent Deputies.

Deputy Séan Treacy expressed so well his reservations. He is prepared, as a former Ceann Comhairle, to go into the lobbies with us this evening because, in the best interests of our people, he does not care about his future here, his political future, but what he can achieve will be achieved. They will go down in our history as achieving more for our people than any other Deputy here. I am proud to be with them this evening voting against this Bill.

In regard to the consultations which the then Minister for Health, Deputy Haughey, had honourably in 1979 with 18 groups I wish to pose this question to the Minister: had he any secret meetings with the Irish Family Planning Association, a group of which I understand the Minister is a paid-up member? He has an opportunity of denying here this evening whether he is controlled by the Irish Family Planning Association. He is the puppet of that association. He is bringing in their Bill. He is a very proud member of that association. He was prepared to break the law, going to Dun Laoghaire and opening an illegal family planning clinic. He broke the law and the only honourable course open to a Minister who breaks the law is to resign from his ministry and, I go further, resign his seat in Dáil Éireann. He did not apologise for that illegality, which he must accept was such. And the fact that the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste did not reprimand or dismiss that Minister means they are condoning his illegal activities.

I want the Minister to say here this evening if he is a member of the Irish Family Planning Association. I want him to admit it, because that group is associated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation and we are all aware of their commitment to the sale and distribution of contraceptives, being linked to the multi-national producers of non-medical contraceptives. By being involved with its Irish section the Minister is himself involved in that area. I want the Minister to apologise to this House, when replying. He should apologise for casting aspersions on a former Minister who held honourable discussions with 18 interested groups before the Family Planning Act, 1979 was implemented. Would the Minister object to consultation? I know that the Minister in his Department has adopted an aloof, arrogant manner in relation to consultation with interested parties. For example, surely the pharmeutical groups should have been consulted before the introduction of this Bill? Surely the 18 groups consulted by a former Minister, Deputy Haughey, should have been consulted again before this Bill was introduced? I feel confident had the Minister been prepared to have widespread consultations with all those interested groups, then he would not have brought this type of Bill, which is totally unworkable, before the House, because he would have been told by them that it was totally unworkable.

Has the Minister any intention of changing the provisions of section 11 of the 1979 Act which stated conscientious objections? In that section the then Minister provided for any doctor, pharmacist or health board to opt out of the provision of non-medical and other family planning facilities. I want to ask the Minister this evening: will he impose any sanctions if the health boards are not prepared to operate the provisions of this Bill? Will he bring about a situation in which funds will be withdrawn? Will he introduce a blackmail type of sanction on health boards who will not operate the provisions of this Bill, because that would be a very serious and irresponsible action for him to take? I believe the Minister is prepared to carry out his single-minded plan whereby non-medical contraceptives will be available in every village and town in Ireland.

I appeal to the Minister to have second thoughts about this Bill, put it before the electorate in the form of a referendum; better still, put it before them in a general election campaign, when I can assure him he will never again sit there as Minister for Health.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions to this debate. The measures contained in this Bill are extremely limited in nature; in scope they are somewhat significant. They provide that the sale of contraceptives can be made legally at a more realistic range of outlets, all of which will be staffed by responsible individuals. They cannot and will not be indiscriminately distributed without a sense of social responsibility. The outlets are clearly defined — chemist shops, GP surgeries, health centres, family planning clinics, maternity hospitals and hospital clinics for sexually transmitted diseases. I submit that many Opposition Deputies have cast aspersions on the professional staff of those outlets by implying that there will be indiscriminate distribution.

The Bill also provides that adults who so decide may purchase non-medical contraceptives on their own initiative and without seeking the permission of a third party. Given all that we say about the protection of our young people and their sense of responsibility and our decision in recent months in this House to recognise the age of 18 as the point at which people enter into adulthood and that we passed the Age of Majority Bill without dissent, I submit that it is outrageous to deny adults — not teenagers — the legal right to exercise, if they so wish, the purchase of non-medical contraceptives. Of course, medical contraceptives will required medical prescription, and that applies irrespective of age. There are young people aged 15, 16 and 17 who, in the context of cycle regulation, require and will be given them in accordance with medical prescription. That was in force long before the 1979 Act and, therefore, any objective analysis of what is proposed must conclude the measures in this Bill are reasonable and moderate in intent.

I emphasise that the Bill does not in any way impose contraception on anybody, young, middle-aged or old. It merely, as Deputy Kelly correctly pointed out, extends to adults the legal right to purchase non-medical countraceptives in the case of condoms and spermicides in the case of women from an extended range of professionally controlled outlets. This House, without dissent, accepted the age of majority as 18 and the capacity of young adults for responsible behaviour in a variety of circumstances.

Regarding the question of the morality of contraception. I want to repeat the point I made in my opening address concerning the nature of the issue before us. It is not for us in this House to determine the morality or the use of contraception; that is not our function, which was so dramatically and cogently argued in Deputy O'Malley's magnificent contribution to this debate. It is not for us to determine the morality of contraception or the use of contraceptives. That is a matter for individual conscience guided by the moral or religious teaching each citizen is guided by. Our task as legislators is to frame legislation as best we can, having due regard to the overall common good. I would have though that we, as legislators, would at least know that much in the context of our contributions to the debate. Of course we all have strong views with regard to responsible sexual behaviour in society. Furthermore, many Members have very strong views — and I fully respect those views — on the intrinsic morality of contraception. They are entitled to their views, and many Members of this House are guided by the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is to be profoundly respected, but the line must be drawn in the context of legislation overall for the common good. I am aware of the official position of the Catholic Church on this issue and I did not have to have any consultations in that regard.

It was stated recently and, thank God, most rationally, by Bishop Cassidy in a radio interview on Wednesday, 13 February, that the Catholic Church teaching on the issue of contraception has to be taken very seriously and weighed with all the other considerations that a legislator must take into account. He said that a legislator had to consider individual freedom in society, the common good, and to try to balance the two. He has to consider the views, convictions and standards of the people who elect him and, if he is a Christian, the teaching of his Church. In that context, having given due regard to all the factors involved, I have proposed this Bill to Government. The Bill is not a Barry Desmond Bill. It is a Bill approved by all the Members of the Government accepting collective responsibility. It is Government sponsored legislation and, as such, the Whip is imposed to have the legislation enacted in this House. I wish to state that, in view of the hysteria of some Members of the Opposition about Desmond and the Bill.

There are those who opposed this Bill on four principal grounds. They have said that there is no need for the Bill, that there is no demand for the Bill, that the consequences would be harmful to the common good by providing an incentive and encouragement to young people to engage in irresponsible sexual relations with all its consequences, and that it is not appropriate at this time. With regard to the need for this measure, great difficulties are being experienced by a significant proportion of the adult population in gaining access to their desired means of limiting their families and engaging in contraception. There are areas in which contraceptives are not on sale generally or, if they are on sale, in a very covert manner. As a result, people travel long distances to major urban centres where family planning services of a specialist nature are known to be available. This is undesirable, and there has been a demand from the medical profession to be relieved of the hypocritical requirement that I, as a married man, must go down the road to a general practitioner whom I know personally and ask him for an authorisation and a prescription, in personal humiliation, and then go along to a local pharmacist whom I also know personally and ask him for a packet of condoms across the counter. That is a sick legislative provision which should never have been enacted. The Irish College of General Practitioners and every other medical body I can think of have said that it is ludicrous and that I should amend it. There is clear evidence that the requirement should be removed.

Regarding the consequences of the passing of the Bill, I wish to repeat my belief that the cataclysmic predictions of the consequences of adopting this Bill are incredible. I hand it to Deputy O'Hanlon, who quite rightly said he was confident that young people would not rush out and buy contraceptives simply because they would be legally available on the passage of this Bill. He should reflect on this position. Some Deputies have inferred, grossly unfairly and abusively, that I have some peculiar obsession and aberration to get this Bill through. That is not true. One Deputy suggested I had a perversion of reason in advocating this legislation. If this is so then the recently retired secretary of my Department, Dermot Condon, is so possessed. The current secretary Liam Flanagan is equally so possessed. I sought their sound views and obtained professional advice.

Deputy Leyden asked whom I consulted. The inference was that I had no professional advice on this area. In the Department of Health, as Deputy Haughey well knows, there is a competent and esteemed medical officer. We have three deputy chief medical officers, as Deputy Haughey knows because he met them. We have senior medical officers and a support staff. Not one member of that staff suggested in any way——

Hiding behind the officials.

On a point of order, I object strenuously to the breaking of a long-established precedent in the House on the naming and identifying of officials. Now that the Minister has brought it up, I would like to point put to him that the former——

That is not a point of order.

——secretary of the Department of Health took advantage of section 11 of my legislation because he had a conscientious objection to dealing with artificial contraceptives.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Minister to continue without interruption.

I raise the matter because it has been suggested that I, in my perversity of attitude, am bringing forward a Bill which will lead to an escalation of sexually transmitted disease, an increase in abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and a growth in cervical cancer. On all the evidence available to me within my Department no such assertion is borne out and no such evidence has been submitted to me in that regard. That applies as much to the ethics committee of the Irish Medical Organisation as it does to the professional medical staff of my Department. I have no authoritative evidence in that regard. In fact, the evidence available suggests the exact opposite. What we are trying to do is prevent by a variety of measures — contraception, sex education and others — abortion, teenage pregnancies and venereal disease. That is one of the major beneficial effects of this legislation rather than the opposite of which I have been so vehemently accused in this House.

There is no basis for that.

I shudder at the implications made by some Deputies in this regard. Not one woman from the Opposition has spoken in this debate. I am very pleased that so many women Deputies spoke in the debate. Above all else, contraception provides a fundamental protection for women in our society. It is very disturbing, to say the least, that this House, composed of 50 year old males, should so confidently pronounce on the basic human rights of women in society.

That is nonsense.

That phenomenon, coupled with the dominant pronouncements of many churchmen on the issue, shows how far we must go before we have true emancipation of women.

I wish to comment on the outstanding contribution of Deputy O'Malley. It was historic and courageous. His speech was the finest I have heard in the House in my 16 years experience. I thank him and Deputies Gregory, De Rossa and Mac Giolla for their support.

What about Deputy Treacy?

Deputy O'Malley raised a question about the operation of family planning services. I assure him that in relation to the statutory instruments regarding the Health (Family Planning) Regulations, 1980, I am prepared to review them. They were not enacted or drafted by me. I assure Deputy Conlon that there will be no prospect of facilitating abortion referral by my giving consent to any such clinic. I am prepared to make any required changes in the regulations in that regard.

Is the Minister prepared to close down the ones that are there already?

The one he opened himself.

I wish to refer to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. In July 1984 he stated on RTE in reply to a woman inquirer:

I fully accept and acknowledge that the time has come for a major review of that particular piece of legislation and we in Fianna Fáil will play a full part in the review. I would hope we would be able to agree with the Government, perhaps when they put forward their proposals, as to what is the best thing to be done. I readily recognise that the solution put forward in the last piece of legislation was by no means perfect, that it had certain drawbacks and disadvantages, some of which you mentioned, and the way it has operated has not been very successful either because, as you probably recall, the original legislation placed very great emphasis on the building up of family planning services, including natural family planning. Most of these things have not been done.

Why did the Minister not do that?

(Interruptions.)

Is the Minister a member of the Irish Family Planning Association?

I suggest that Deputy Haughey finds himself more at home tonight with the ultimate hypocrisy displayed by Deputy O'Connell on this issue.

(Interruptions.)

For 20 years in Dáil Éireann from 1965, from his joint sponsorship of reform in this area with Noel Browne to his most recent editorials in the Irish Medical Times, Deputy O'Connell espoused this fundamental reform. Now to win the award of the month for hypocrisy, he goes with Deputy Haughey on this. I find that embarrassing.

I regret Deputy Treacy is unable to join us, but I am aware he has genuine and sincere objections to this Bill as have a number of other Deputies. He asked and voted in the European Parliament for the making available of contraception to men and women and young persons of either sex——

The Minister is scurrilous and slimy.

Character assassination.

(Interruptions.)

Is the Minister a member of the Irish Family Planning Association?

Order, please.

Go to the country.

This measure has caused considerable public controversy. I hope that it will come to an end with the vote this evening. I join with Deputy O'Malley, in his historic contribution, in asserting the rights of the House to enact legislation. My only regret is that his party have not been able to join with us in that regard. I regret that none of the women members of Fianna Fáil was in a position to contribute to this debate. Perhaps they will be able to make their views known on Committee Stage. I look forward to the enactment of this legislation. It is part of a social package of reform on child legislation, adoption legislation, legislation relating to illegitimacy and a whole range of social issues.

Youth employment?

This measure is part of the package. I urge those Deputies at the end of this debate to consider their position and to join with us in support of this Bill. I want to make it clear there will be no amendments to the Bills. I commend the Bill to the House and I thank Members for listening to me on this occasion.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 80.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McCartin, Joe.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil Terence.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, subject to agreement.

We propose 11.30 a.m.

That is agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 February 1985.
Top
Share