While Deputy Lenihan is in the House let me say that I referred to him before questions and, in case he either heard it or it was reported to him, I want to assure him it was intended in a jocular spirit and not in an offensive one.
Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1985: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 5a:
In page 2, line 35 and in page 3, lines 1 to 3, to delete the words:—
"either—
(ia) the sale is a sale of contraceptive sheaths or spermicides to a person over the age of 18 years, or'.".
—(Deputy O'Hanlon)
That is always appreciated in the case of Deputy Kelly.
I know it is as hard to offend Deputy Lenihan as it is to embarrass him. It was not intended to wound him but we only pass this way once and if one raises a matter infelicitiously it is gone forever.
The Deputy's view is appreciated.
Before Question Time I had described to the House the demeanour of the Opposition when they were in Govern-ment in 1969, 1970 and 1971. When they resolutely refused to allow Senator Robinson to bring this subject in any shape or form onto the floor of the Seanad under the pretext that they were considering legislation of their own. In 1972-73 Mrs. McGee's case came before the High Court and then the Supreme Court and was decided in the early part of 1973. This effectively blotted out the subsection in the 1935 Act which purported to prohibit Mrs. McGee and those like her from importing contraceptive devices for their own use. That left it to the Legislature to act and the Govern-ment, of which the Ceann Comhairle had the honour to be a member, brought in a Bill under the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, intending to apply the absolutely minimal regularisation of the law which was enjoined on the House by the Supreme Court decision — unless the House was going to abdicate its responsibility and allow no control of any kind on the importation, whether individually in luggage or by post, singularly or in bulk, of contraceptive devices.
That was obviously not what the House wanted and the then Minister for Justice made an honest attempt to regularise the situation. In the spring-summer of 1974 Deputy Cooney promoted a Bill through this House which in many important respects was similar to the 1978 Bill. The party to which the two gentlemen opposite belong — although Deputy O'Hanlon was not a Member of the House at the time — opposed that Bill tooth and nail. Why? Because they knew our Government, with a very narrow majority, would have great difficulty in carrying it through. Deputy O'Flanagan was there in those days and there were two or three other dissenting Members whom I managed to keep out of the House——
You did not take the Whip from them.
I did not realise there were as many as there subsequently turned out to be. But Fianna Fáil saw this not in terms of what needed to be done, not in terms of their duty as a component of the Oireachtas, but in terms of what could be done to wrongfoot the Government, to do Liam Cosgrave's Government down. They could not have hoped that he — and I say this in respect and affection for somebody I could not feel anything else for — would commit what I have to call a misjudgment of not disclosing his intentions beforehand. This gave them a bonus.
Is the Deputy saying he was right and——
Say nothing low about the former Taoiseach. He would make twenty of any of the party opposite.
Is the Deputy saying he was right and we were wrong in 1974?
I am saying that it was clearly understood and expressed by the Government in those days that any Deputy whose conscience was offended by having to support this Bill was dispensed from supporting it. That Bill was approached by the then Opposition, notwithstanding that their own Bill four years later was in many substantial respects the same Bill, solely and simply in the spirit of what was most likely to contribute to the fall of Cosgrave's Government.
At that time I was on terms of friendship with the two Fianna Fáil Whips, two gentlemen even if they gave us a rough time, and after that vote I remember seeing in their room pinned up in triumph on their bookcase a photocopy of the division list of 16 June 1974 showing that for the first and only time in that Dáil they had fielded a full House, 73 Fianna Fáil Deputies, not because all 73 concurred with such passion in principle against the Bill but because they had succeeded in doing down the Coalition Government, irrespective of whether that Government were right or wrong.
I may not be popular for saying this, but the Deputy is making a Second Stage speech.
I will draw my remarks to a close. When the Government changed we had the Bill which the House now proposes to amend. That Bill was made possible only because the nettles about which the former Deputy Lynch was always talking about and which he was all on for grasping — but took damn good care never to grasp — had been trodden down for him by Fine Gael and the way made easy. Then and only then did they move and move minimally, move ludicrously, as I tried to demonstrate by reference to section 5 which Deputy Treacy was talking about, the foreigner section, alt na gcoigríoch. They produced an Act which was not enforced and could not have been enforced from the first day it was on the Statute Book, the sleeveen solution to the sleeveen problem.
On a point of order, I have listened to Deputy Kelly for half an hour giving a very interesting Roddy the Rover, Kitty the Hare presentation. He has not referred to something he referred to on Second Stage, his reservations with regard to the availability of contraceptives for young people.
That is not a point of order.
I should like to hear him on the amendment.
This is a confined debate. It ends at 5 o'clock.
I will say it in three sentences. I still think 18 years of age is too young for people to engage in serious relationships or casual relationships from which serious consequences may flow. It is futile to say that in this House, because three months ago when the Age of Majority Bill was going through, not one Deputy agreed with what I said. I said that to make statutory adults out of 18 years olds was cruel to them. There was not a peep from those benches. I was the stick in the mud. I was the one who had no confidence in young people. I was the pessimist. I was exhorted by Deputy O'Rourke, Deputy Fahey and Deputy Ormonde to show confidence in the youth, that they were better than I thought they were, that they could look after themselves.
A different song is being sung now, not because anyone over there believes it or disbelieves it, but because until yesterday they saw some chance of doing down a Government who are doing their best. That parliamentary strategy has rebounded on them. They were made to look small by Deputy O'Malley yesterday. He has appropriated, and for my money is entitled to, whatever republicanism there is in that party. Those of them who sympathise with what Deputy O'Malley said yesterday and who think the same — and many of them do apart from the five or six dissidents who have shown themselves — should ask whether they are running the risk of ceasing to deserve what people often make fun of but what is a proud name, Fianna Fáil, and whether they are not turning into a slíbhíní sleamhna party.
I listened with interest to what Deputy Kelly had to say. He did not touch on my amendment at all. He dealt at length with section 5 of the Health (Family Planning) Act with which he is very unhappy. I am amazed that, as a senior member of the Fine Gael Party, he did not influence the Taoiseach or the Minister for Health to amend section 5. He did not tell us whether he still felt the same way as he felt in 1974 when he said that if they were to put Deputy Flanagan out of the Fine Gael Party because he did not propose to follow the Government's line on a Bill, that would be an act equivalent to shooting a conscientious objector. He might have told us today whether he was in support of the removal of the Whip from Deputy Flanagan.
I am not.
He should have told the House and have it on the record.
It has nothing to do with the Bill but I make the Deputy a present of it.
Deputy Kelly said that in a Second Stage debate in 1974.
It does not arise at this stage.
I was surprised to hear Deputy Kelly criticising the 1979 Act on the basis that it was an Irish solution to an Irish problem. No Deputy tells us more often that we are shoneens because we import solutions to our problems and copy the legislation of other countries. I agree with him when he says that. I cannot understand how he criticises the 1979 Act purely on the basis that it was an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
I would be ashamed to think that was the best we could do.
I should like Deputy Kelly to tell us what good could come from this Bill. We have a legitimate objection to this Bill. We do not apologise to anybody for the stand we have taken on it. Deputy Kelly brought in the red herring that this Bill was about republicanism and Church-State relations. This Bill is about the distribution of contraceptives. That is what we are debating today. We can have a debate on Church-State relations and republicanism if we want to. Producing red herrings does not do justice to the Bill presented to us.
I heard nothing from the Government side of the House today to change our opinion that there is nothing in this Bill which will do anything for the common good. The Minister was asked by Deputy Power if he was prepared to accept an amendment which might be acceptable to numerous Deputies on both sides of the House. Government Deputies asked the Minister to consider amendments because they know the paragraph we are trying to delete is not in the best interests of the Irish people. Of course we trust young people. We do not expect young people to buy contraceptives all over the place just because they happen to be available under the law.
What is the Deputy worried about?
As legislators we were seen last night and will be seen again today to endorse a pattern of behaviour which no responsible adult says should be the normal pattern of behaviour for our young people.
We are not endorsing it.
That is the kernel of the debate. The Minister gave us a failure rate for non-medical contraceptives of 9.6 per cent. Some surveys would put the figure much higher in the case of teenagers. The Minister admits there is a lack of knowledge about the use of contraceptives. These are very good reasons why anybody who intends to use contraceptives should get the proper advice.
We believe family planning should be placed fairly and squarely in the area of family health care. It is not just about dispensing condoms. We are talking about family health care. In that context we believe this is a bad Bill. If the Minister were to accept our amendment, it would improve the Bill and would accord with the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people who are seriously concerned about this section. They are concerned about the fact that we will be making contraceptives freely available to 18 year olds as the Bill says, but as we all know they will be available to all teenagers irrespective of age.
Before I speak to the amendment I should like to refer very briefly to a report in one of the papers this morning to the effect that my decision to vote for the Bill was influenced by the splendid contribution made by Deputy O'Malley. I was impressed by what he said, but my mind was firmly made up about how I should vote hours before Deputy O'Malley made that very fine contribution. I just want to put the record straight.
I was glad to hear that the Minister is in agreement with the conscientious objection clause. Many parents who contacted me were worried about this. Perhaps a young lady who had a conscientious objection to handling non-medical contraceptive items might find that her chances of being selected for a position in a teaching hospital were reduced.
That is not relevant to the amendment.
The Minister referred to it. I will be very brief. Parents hope that this conscientious objection clause will apply to potential employees of health boards. The Minister indicated that it applies to present employees. Lest it might militate against any young boy or girl seeking employment in the health boards, I hope the Minister will make the position clear.
In relation to the 18 year age limit. I understand that chemists are quite disturbed about it because the penalties are quite severe and it is up to the chemist to satisfy himself as to the age of the person purchasing contraceptives. Perhaps the Minister might introduce identity cards to assist the chemists. Chemists also wish to know the position in relation to temporary employees, such as students who work there during their summer holidays. Are they covered by this Bill?
I share the sentiments expressd by Members on both sides about the effects this Bill will have on traditional Irish family circumstances. We are articulating the views of many parents who are gravely concerned about the potential consequences if this Bill is passed. There can be a positive result from this Bill. Already there is a greater awareness about sexual morality and the sexual responsibility of people. I hope that the topic of sexual morality will be brought out into the open so that people can face the realities as they are and not as perhaps we would like them to be or pretend them to be. Would the Minister consider setting up a committee with representatives from the various Departments together with parents and members of Churches so as to work out an agreed programme for sexual education so that we can bring home to our young people the implications of getting involved in pre-marital sexual exploits? We owe it to our young people to alert them to all the implications. We owe it to our young boys and girls to go down this road a bit further and explore the possibility of setting up such an education programme. It would have to emphasise personal responsibility.
I am sorry to interrupt. I share the Deputy's concern but he is not talking about amendment No. 5a, he has gone off the track a little.
With respect——
The Deputy is talking about education at the moment.
We have to educate our 18 year old boys and girls who would come within the ambit of this legislation. I will leave that suggestion to the Minister and I hope he will act on it so that our young people will know the implications if they pursue sexual exploits outside of marriage.
I will be brief. I have listened all morning to the debate and at times I wondered about the standard of the debate. The sincerity of our views should be accepted and it pains me to see the sneers of certain Deputies on the far side of the House about the contributions being made by members of Fianna Fáil.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The sooner we have maturity in this House the better off we will be. The sooner the Government stop their concerted and concentrated efforts of abuse and innuendo about Fianna Fáil, and particularly about the Fianna Fáil leader, the sooner co-operation in this House will be better.
Deputy Bell put his finger on the kernel of this problem when he said that we should face reality and acknowledge that the proposals in this section cannot be implemented. That has been our argument all along; that we cannot prevent condoms getting into the hands of the under 18s. If the Minister had accepted the suggestion by Deputy Paddy Power to try to meet the legitimate concern of a number of Deputies about that aspect, this legislation would be better. There has been tremendous criticism of the 1979 legislation. We were told sneeringly that it was an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Deputy O'Malley said last night on the "Today Tonight" programme that it took a tremendous amount of hard work, consultation and effort over a long period to formulate the 1979 Bill and he congratulated Deputy Haughey on it. It is a pity that the others would not have the same attitude as Deputy O'Malley.
I listened to Deputy Kelly's contribution. It is always a pleasure to listen to Deputy Kelly; he has the reputation of being the court jester. The Deputy regaled us with tales of student mishaps and misdeeds and with what happened when he worked in Dublin Airport and he made a new award — the award for hard necks. I do not think that Deputy Treacy's neck is too hard.
(Interruptions.)
I was here for the vast bulk of Deputy Kelly's contribution and, as far as I am aware, he never referred to his own misgivings about this section. It would have been interesting to hear Deputy Kelly on that. Deputy Shatter brought us on flights of fancy in and out of Dublin Airport and on bus trips to Newry and talked about 13 year olds with large numbers of contraceptives and about what a customs officer should do in that case. I heard a story about a customs officer seizing a large number of contraceptives and when he was asked why he did it he said he believed that a crime was about to be committed because if a person used all of them he would commit suicide. Perhaps that would get over the point raised by Deputy Shatter.
Last night during the discussion on Second Stage I fully accepted the sincerity of the Minister's views on this subject. The sincerity of the views of the people on this side of the House should be acknowledged. The word "hypocrisy" was used by quite a number of people, and it came very badly from some of the people who used it. I accept that there are unwanted pregnancies among young people and that there is transmission of sexual diseases among them, but the great weight of evidence available from the UK is that, despite what can be described as the best sex education system in the world, despite the availability of contraceptives to teenagers from 13 years upwards, the rate of unwanted pregnancies has increased dramatically in the last ten years.
That is not the type of sex education I would like to see here.
I showed the Deputy the courtesy of listening to him. Perhaps he would do the same. He can make his comments later. I hope the sex education we use here will not be of the type spoken of by the Minister and Deputy Doyle or the type available in many English schools where the number of pregnancies among young people has continued to rise dramatically. The Minister went into flights of fantasy when he said that the 1979 Act allowed people to import contraceptives through the post. Perhaps he would let us know which section provided for that. Perhaps he was frustrated from having sat here for three days.
The Minister seems to have set his face against accepting anything we propose in the way of change to this Bill, no matter how sincere our arguments have been. If he had listened to us he would help to prevent unwanted pregnancies here. This Bill will not do anything to improve the status of women.
Deputy Calleary asked about the incidence in this field of sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Mary Shortt, a distinguished practitioner in Northern Ireland, recently appeared in a television programme and on the Friday before did some research. She got figures from the office of the Registrar General in Northern Ireland to show that the rate for gonorrhoea for people under 19 years dropped from 11 per cent last year — in Northern Ireland there is free availability of contraceptives — to nil last year. Another doctor in this field made an interesting observation on that television programme. He said that in Northern Ireland, taking just gonorrhoea as one of the notifiable diseases, in the four year period ending 1981 the official statistics for Northern Ireland showed that there were on average 404 cases per annum. He said that the official statistics for the Republic for the same four year period showed 211 cases per annum. He pointed out that the official statistics for the Republic represent clinic returns and that the Department of Health here estimate that those figures represent at best 10 per cent of true incidence in the Republic.
I have issued many directives and requests in the Department so that we would have a true return of the incidence reported. That doctor went on to say — and I share his view — that Northern Ireland, with half of the population of the Republic, would appear to have double the incidence. Officially, that is correct, but the Republic statistics are meaningless because they represent only about 10 per cent of the incidence. He said:
I would argue that the true number of cases of gonorrhoea in the Republic is probably 2,000 per annum.
Therefore, Northern Ireland would have only one-fifth of the incidence in the Republic.
I hold, and it must be evident to Deputies here, that the use of contraceptives acts as a major preventive against the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. That is unquestionable. However, Deputies who have available to them a massive volume of evidence from the mid-forties to the mid-eighties, still refuse to accept that fact. It must be accepted that the use of contraceptives acts as a major preventive to disease incidence. I can supply a great deal more information to Deputies but I suggest that they talk to any venereologist in the country——
Dr. Verling in the Mater.
He will confirm the incidence of disease here. The massive balance of evidence given to me is that the use of contraceptives has an impact on the transmission of disease.
According to DHSS there were 334 cases of gonorrhoea in Northern Ireland in 1983 — 217 in males and 177 in females.
That does not particularly dispute the comment by Dr. Jack Cantrell, who gave an average of 440 per annum.
What did Dr. Shortt say?
She has stated that the rate of gonorrhoea for under 19 year olds in Northern Ireland has dropped from 11 per cent to none last year. That is a comment which she made. It is in a transcript of a television broadcast. I have not had a chance of double-checking it with her personally, but we all know that there is nothing more horrible and nothing more conducive to appalling disaster than that a young person, with total unawareness, casually, experimentally, should contract a sexually transmitted disease. This imposes a devastation upon the young person. I, as Minister for Health, am responsible for public health, for preventative medicine. That is supposed to be my function. That is why we have a separate division in the Department of Health and why we have a deputy chief medical officer responsible for the public health area. I cannot ask him in conscience to implement measures when we know, legislatively, that our Department and our directors of community care at local level are spancelled by legislative measures which do not give them the impetus and the incentive to cope with sexually transmitted diseases. We are just not spending enough money on that. I am appalled that three Deputies from Limerick voted against the Bill and one Deputy abstained, because the incidence there——
Two abstained.
The incidence there is probably one of the highest at national level.
On the last point, very briefly, while I would not dispute the figures the Minister gave us in general, I do dispute one figure, a projected figure from Doctor Jack Cantrell for the incidence of gonorrhoea for the Republic of Ireland. That can be counteracted by the statement that Deputy Griffin read out to us here yesterday from 17 doctors, consultants who are working, some of them in maternity hospitals, who would be in very close contact with patients who would suffer from gonorrhoea. They make the case very clearly that if these proposals become law and I quote from their letter:
The inevitable consequences will be an increase in promiscuity, with an upsurge in venereal disease and carcinoma of the cervix as experienced in this and other countries:
They accept the high rate of failure of contraceptives which would lead to more illegitimate births and abortions. We must accept what they said in a letter to Deputies of this House. They are 17 consultants and we must accept their figures.
Could I reply briefly in that regard?
What is the date of that letter?
We can come in and argue until bedtime tonight but the reality is that the Minister himself has told us that the statistics that he gave from Doctor Jack Cantrell in relation to what he thinks is evidence of the number of cases of gonorrhoea in this country is a projected figure from the top of his head. He has no evidence of it. However, these here are 17 doctors who are concerned about the implications of this legislation. That is their opinion.
This is one of the problems of this debate. The doctors concerned I do not propose to name, but I do propose to name the man who refuted their case. There was a very major refutation of that assertion by, for example, a very distinguished professor, a colleague whom Deputy O'Hanlon knows well, a Professor Dermot Hourihan, Professor of Pathology, Saint James', Trinity College, Dean of the Faculty. He and the deans of the other faculties in one cryptic letter to The Irish Times devastated that assertion. Not one of those other 17 doctors has been prepared to come forward with any supportive evidence of their assertion. In fact, ironically——
It stated that the statistics are there for other countries.
May I conclude on this point? It is ironic that one of the other doctors in this House, Deputy John Francis O'Connell, wrote in The Irish Times denouncing that letter. I find it very difficult to believe that a letter which was written by virtue of a particular ideological persuasion, making the most charitable assertion in relation to those who signed it ——
Would you accept that ——
I shall not expand on that any further.
——one was a professor of Obstetrics at Trinity College?
That was not written on a medical basis, not written on the basis of any medical evidence.
The evidence is there for all.
That letter was circulated widely to all the Deputies in this House. I find it appalling that members of the medical profession, a very small number of them, 17 out of the 1,100 consultants in this country, here would attempt to make that case. Out of the many thousands of our medical people not one would support that letter. Instead, that letter was sent to each Deputy and it was sent to parents. It raised false fears and inculcated more misconceptions about sexually transmitted diseases. For example, Deputy Glenn and others said that automatically it had a concomitant development of cervical cancer, which created unhappiness and tragedy for young women, married women, fearing that sexual activity within or outside marriage automatically creates an incidence of cervical cancer. This is an escalation of fear which is basically wrong. I, as a lay politician, have only a rudimentary medical knowledge. Not professing to have any more than that, when I get that type of data I go to my chief medical officer and deputy chief medical officers and ask if there is any sound medical back-up to that assertion. The answer that I get is that there is not. An axe is being ground.
Look at the figures for the other countries, which have been quoted over the last three years.
I am surprised that a distinguished member of the medical profession, Deputy O'Hanlon, should advance this case, because he did not put forward that argument on Second Stage.
It has been put forward, and unfortunately Deputies of tender years have been taken in by that pseudo-religious medico nonsense which has been brought into this debate.
On a point of order, I resent the statement by the Minister that this is based on any religious or other non-medical conviction. What I said in this debate is based on my knowledge, both as a medical doctor and from the figures and statistics available to me.
As I have already spoken, I will be more than pleased to give way to Deputy Flanagan.
I will be calling on Deputy Flanagan in due course.
I have been here since 11.30 this morning.
I call Deputy Barnes.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as one who has already spoken, I shall be more than pleased to give way to Deputy Flanagan.
Deputy Flanagan has only come in. We are here since 11.30 this morning.
I call Deputy Barnes.
I shall be brief, so that it is hoped, everybody will get a chance to speak and I hope everybody else will be equally unselfish. Listening to the debate today I note that the phrase, an Irish solution to an Irish problem, was bandied about; but from the attitudes exposed in the debate I decided to change that phrase to the following, it is an Irishman's solution to an Irishwoman's problem. That is exactly what has been ignored in the House during this and other debates about human sexuality and the consequences of human sexuality, which are that babies are born of woman, planned or unplanned, wanted or not. When we talk about the great traditions here, family values and the standard of morals which have declined so much from our heavenly times of the forties and fifties, it is forgotten that it is woman who has carried the responsibility of the babies.
I should like to ask the House to consider what the position would be if we were talking about the biological needs of the majority of the Members and the responsibilities asked of them for years. How would the males like it if the numbers here were 152 women and 14 men and, worse still, if during the short debate four of those men were not allowed to speak? Four of the women in the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party did not speak during this debate. It may be difficult— possibly it is not within the imagination of the Members opposite to do so — to consider the position if the figures were reversed and then try to realise the position women are in in this Chamber and in the country.
Consistently we have only had insulting concern for young girls with no minds, no wills, no choices of their own, pressured by the manly desires of 19 and 20 year olds, with the devastating result that as secondhand articles they will not be married by the same men. Is that our perception of women? Is that the final objectivity we give to women, shop-soiled articles?
When using contraceptives.
We have not debated what Minister Desmond spoke of with passion this morning. I wish we heard more of that in the Chamber. He talked about the real status of women which has never been faced until this morning. I was glad to hear Members opposite saying "Hear, hear". I want those members to follow that. I should like Deputy Treacy to answer the question put by Deputy De Rossa: how does he define traditional family life? How does the define the deterioration of the normal high standards of motherhood and the traditional life that is so much under threat at present?
The ICA's definition is good enough for us.
Deputy Barnes is in possession and allowances should be made for that.
The Deputy opposite should be a member of the ICA.
I am glad I am not a member of the Deputy's organisation.
This is typical of the Irishman's attitude and reaction to some honesty from women. No more than women's sexuality, they cannot take it. We are talking about values of our society that have long gone. When we talk about glorious motherhood we are not talking about maidens gambolling on the village green and rosy cheeked children. We are talking about bleak, guilt ridden repressed times when a women had no say, no income, no right to work away from the home and no choice as to how many children she would or would not have. I am talking about the period when if she did not get married and did not have children her value was even less.
Hear, hear.
Before the debate ends I ask Members to apply their minds, their intelligence and their morality to the needs of women who produce children and the responsibility we have to the children they bring into the world. I am amazed to hear of the dreadful figures and the permissiveness, promiscuity and depravity in other countries when I think of the bleak fifties when I, and boat loads of Irishmen and women who did not have sex education or a recognition of what we would meet in those permissive times, were shoved abroad because nobody could offer us employment at home. All we had to rely on was what we were taught by our parents, our own choice miles from home and our own sense of personal responsibility. We survived. But in 1985, when young men and women have open communication, thank God. have outlets like windows that showed us light out of the dark tunnel we were in, when they have education beyond what we could hope for or could pay for, it is different. What is being said to the millions who were shipped from here and lived valuable lives away from here? I resent what has occurred here in recent days and more than anything, I am angry at the way women once again have been ignored.
I am calling Deputy Flanagan.
May I bring something to the attention of the Chair?
Will the Deputy resume his seat?
I have to bring something to the attention of the Chair. How can I bring a matter to the attention of the Chair if I am sitting down?
If the Deputy resumes his seat I will give him an indication of what the position is.
It is likely that the speaker called will take the next half hour. I have been waiting in the Chamber since 11.30 this morning to get in on the debate.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Where is the order of speakers?
If the Deputy permits me to speak I will tell him, but he is not inclined to do that.
The Deputy called was not here for the last three hours.
The Ceann Comhairle indicated to me before he left the Chair that the following speakers from the Government side had offered, Deputies Brendan Griffin, Monica Barnes and Oliver Flanagan.
The last speaker was not here at 2.30 when Deputy Kelly adjourned the debate and I have been here since 3.30——
The Ceann Comhairle indicated to me that the third person to offer on the Govern-ment side was Deputy Oliver Flanagan and I am calling him.
That could not be true because he was not here.
The Ceann Comhairle indicated to me that Deputy Oliver Flanagan had offered and I am calling him.
That Deputy's influence on the debate so far has been two hours and 20 minutes. I object strongly and I am leaving the Chamber. Deputy Flanagan has spoken for two hours and 20 minutes on this Bill and, although he has not been here all day, in the half hour that remains for the debate he is being given more time to speak. We know what his opinions are.
Deputy Skelly was here for most of the morning.
I am well aware of that. Members need not indicate to me who was here because the Ceann Comhairle indicated to me that Deputy Oliver Flanagan was third on the Govern-ment side. I am adhering to the Ceann Comhairle's indication.
I will not detain the House because I have a brief observation to make. The House is considering an amendment to the Bill that was agreed last night. That amendment deals with the age at which contraceptives are to be made freely available. All the efforts made by way of amendment will not in any way improve this Bill. First, the Minister is not prepared to accept amendments. Second, it is a Bill which cannot be amended without taking away the whole of its principle, which is to make available contraceptives to all over the age of 18, married or single. This is the first time in the history of this House that a Bill has been passed with the waving of the red flag and the clenched fist outside the gates of Leinster House which, to me, constitutes a most serious problem. Despite the fact that the red flag and clenched fists were waved at Leinster House, with abusive remarks from the crowds outside about members of the Hierarchy and others — which was despicable to listen to — we come in here today to endeavour to amend a Bill in relation to contraception.
We are not responsible for loonies.
No matter what amendment is put down, no matter what suggestions the Minister may make he can never make contraception right because it is wrong. No amount of debate or law passed can make a wrong right.
Listening to the Minister drawing comparisons with Northern Ireland — and the references that have been made to Northern Ireland — one would imagine that the passage of this Bill would solve all of the Northern problems, that the British were delighted with it, that the Northern Unionists and others were delighted also and were applauding the Bill. I want to place on record the fact that I have received from the British House of Commons today a note of congratulation from a leading member of the British Government which states:
Please accept my congratulations on your justified stand against the party line on contraception.
That is signed by a prominent member of the British Government whom I know well personally.
Who is it?
One cannot make a wrong right.
Could the Deputy tell us from whom he received the letter?
I said a prominent member of the British Government.
On a point of order, is it in order to ask Deputy Flanagan to indicate the author of the letter he has just read to the House? He said it was a member of the British Government.
No, I do not have to.
In fairness, if he wants to quote——
He does not have to identify it.
Normally we are asked to give references of any quotations we give to the House. I am asking whether or not on this occasion a Deputy can quote, as he has done, from a document which he has said has emanated from a member of the British Government and not give its reference.
It is a matter for the Deputy himself if he wishes to do so.
Surely the approval or otherwise of the whole of the British Government has nothing whatever to do with what we are doing here.
I fully agree with Deputy Kelly but there are Members of this House who endeavour to make this an issue in regard to Southern/Northern co-operation and I want to say "ballyhoo" to that.
In regard to the availability of contraceptives, with particular reference to the conscientious objection people may have to handling them, dealing in them, distributing them or passing them on, there is contained in this Bill the right to conscientious objection on the part of people who may have strong moral and religious problems in so doing. Those who administer the law, in health boards, chemist shops or elsewhere may resort to their consciences but the Members of this Dáil passing the Bill may not. That is a very clear distinction. My conscience in this regard is very clear. I went home last evening knowing I had acted in accordance with the God-given right of my conscience and intelligence. My conscience was very clear when I was getting up this morning, knowing I had done my best to impede what I might describe as a very bad Bill for the common good. We are not supposed here to legislate for 5 per cent of the people, or for 40 per cent, our job is to legislate for the common good of the majority of our people. I am quite satisfied that the provisions of this Bill are not in the interests of the majority, that the common good has not been served but rather that an effort has been made to destroy the common good.
I hold extraordinarily strong views with regard to the amendment of the Bill which no amount of talk or persuasion could change. Nothing in this world could change my views. I hold the same views in relation to anti-life measures, abortion, divorce, euthanasia and the death penalty. I feel extremely strongly on these issues.
In regard to the amendment which deals with the question of the provision of contraceptives for those over 18 I equate my position, in relation to euthanasia, with those over 70 whose lives may be put at risk by the waving of the red flag and the clenched fist in another ten, 20 or 30 years.
Hear, hear.
The same goes for divorce which smashes up family life and it must be admitted that there are people in great haste to smash that family solidarity. I will never stand for that, I shall never vote for it. Never will I be found in a division lobby in which an effort is being made to undermine the family——
Deputy, we are not discussing divorce we are discussing amendment 5a.
At 5 o'clock this evening the motion will be put: "That the Bill do now pass". I hope there are people in this House who at least will consult the President in relation to this. This is something in which the President should actively interest himself with regard to the article of our Constitution which guarantees the protection of the family. This Bill does not guarantee the protection of the family. Rather it is the very opposite, an effort to undermine the family, taking away from that unit the guarantees provided it under our Constitution.
This is one of the most disastrous Bills that has come before this House in my lifetime in regard to the common good. It will help to bring about a state of permissiveness among young people already battling strongly against drugs, alcoholism, unfavourable media and many other serious problems all of which place tremendous strain on them. This section gives the stamp of approval, of decency, of respectability to contraception which is wrong morally, in every respect, which has been condemned, and which can never be made right. The State, this House, the Oireachtas are now giving the stamp of approval and respectability to contraception. I hope some consideration will be given to the question of whether all of this is constitutional having regard to the safeguards contained therein for the family.
I strongly object to this Bill. I have voted against it, I am happy I did so and can go home happy in that knowledge. I must live for the rest of my days with my conscience. I do not know how I could live with myself, having walked into the division lobbies and voted for this Bill when I know I could never be happy again, I could never smile, I could never say I had done everything I could to safeguard our people from the provisions of a Bill which is not for the common good.
I shall vote against its passage, as I voted yesterday. If the opportunity arose 50 times over, I would do so because no amount of talk on the part of the Minister, the Opposition or any Deputies — particularly those who appear to speak with legal or other type of authority — can make it right. I never heard any of them contend they could make a wrong right. Contraception is wrong and no ramount of poppycock talked here can make it right. I am consistent, I am voting against something which I know is wrong and which the majority of people in this country also know is wrong.
I asked the Minister earlier to indicate to the House whether he had had consultations with representatives of parents in regard to this legislation. That was a fair and reasonable question but he has not answered it.
I listened with great surprise and disappointment to Deputy Barnes. I heard her yesterday on the radio with representatives of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the federation of Irish women who are non-denominational and representative of all women. Their views were at variance with hers and I am not making little of women's views by saying that. Deputy Barnes is making little of the views of women who represent a great cross-section of women. It was also the first occasion that we heard girls of 16 being referred to as women. If girls of 16 were capable of looking after themselves in the fashion of their mothers, there would be no need at any level for anxiety or concern regarding the behaviour of our offspring. Girls of 16 are not women.
You can get married at 16 years of age.
They can also do a whole lot of other things at that age but perhaps Deputy Molony is familiar with the situation in Tipperary where girls of 16 years of age are regarded as being capable of looking after themselves in every respect.
They can get married at that age.
That does not disprove the case I am making that in every generation since the world began it has been accepted that girls of 16 years of age are not as mature as the female who would be described as a woman.
They are young women.
Yesterday Deputy Barnes said that this legislation was being introduced because in certain parts of Ireland, women did not have contraceptives available to them. Today Deputy Shatter and Deputy Bell made the point that the country is flooded with them. They cannot have it both ways.
As the record will show, I did not say that the country was flooded with contraceptives.
Deputy Bell said that about ten or 12 years ago his son had two pocketsful of them so I thought that that suggested they were available. I do not know.
I did not refer to ten or 12 years ago. I said: "Two years ago in Blackpool".
When Deputy Bell reads the Official Report he will see that he advised the House that his son was bringing home pocketsful of contraceptives. However, it is only a small point. Deputy Shatter is familiar with the situation where a boy of 13 had a load of them. Deputy Kelly treated us to the normal, professional ramblings which are very interesting at the L and H——
Deputy Bell got very poor thanks for his frankness.
Deputy Kelly castigated this side of the House for not having the same expertise in matters of jurisprudence in which he is an acknowledged expert but he was getting away from the statements which he expressed in the House yesterday in which he expressed concern, disappointment and disapproval of a situation where condoms would be made available to the young people of his constituency. He was very concerned and also expressed parents' concern. He developed that at great length yesterday but, for some unknown reason today, when an amendment which would give him an opportunity of being forthright and honest with his conscience and constituents was introduced, he decided to entertain the House with his ramblings and elucidation of the bona fide drinking of years ago, the brass necks, hard necks and rubber necks——
(Interruptions.)
He entertained the House but, when an opportunity came for the great Deputy Kelly to do what he regretted he could not do yesterday, to indicate his disapproval of that part of the legislation expressed on behalf of his constituents, he did not have the courage to do it.
This is the Committee Stage of the Bill although most contributions are more like Second Stage speeches. One feels a little inadequate speaking after some Deputies because it is obvious that some of them have a hot line to Heaven and seem to be in direct contact at all times with the Almighty.
And the British Govern-ment.
We would need a Summit to contact the British Government.
I congratulate Deputy Barnes on her contribution——
The Deputy will be expelled.
That has happened before. As far as I know, 13 of the 14 lady Deputies support this legislation. I found it offensive on Second Stage to hear a Deputy referring to the ephemeral desires of the young men of Ireland, giving the impression that the woman must give in to these uncontrollable desires. It was further said that although a young man would satisfy his lust with this young woman, he would not go back to her when he wanted a marriage partner. I found that statement grossly offensive. As they say in my part of the country, "it takes two to tango".
The attitude that has permeated this debate is that women are somehow at fault for any sexual encounter. We have been brought up to believe, mostly at our mother's knee, that you can flit around as long as you like but when you get married you look for a virgin.
This debate reminds me of the old missions in the fifties. I grew up in the swinging sixties, but I remember some of the great missionaries we had in our local parish. The big night of the mission was always the night the missioner spoke on company keeping. The debate in this House is absolutely ridiculous, I suppose it goes back to Adam and Eve, but Ireland has grown up in the meantime. Apparently the only sin here is sex. The media focuses on anything to do with sex, every Member of the House focuses in on it, and so does the Catholic Church. There are many other issues of far more horrendous proportions than the question of sex and morality. Is anyone suggesting that the people in Northern Ireland who have had these devices, as they were referred to, for many decades are any more degenerate than the people down here? We are denying the right to freedom of conscience. The Catholic Church have voted no confidence in the young people as have practically all the bishops. Many Deputies have also done so.
I should like to have spoken on Second Stage and made my views known. I am only sorry I did not come in earlier to hear the pontifications of many Members in this matter. Although I voted against the measure last night — it was decided by a majority decision of my party that we would oppose this Bill — I regard it purely as a political matter of no great moment, good bad or indifferent, and I abide by the majority decision. This Bill is much ado about nothing and if I was not under the Whip of Fianna Fáil I would support the Bill, even though that would have led to further matters which would be extraneous to this House.
We cannot legislate for goodness. We cannot legislate for one kind of morality or another. We live in a normal western democracy and like old King Canute we cannot stop the tide.
It is interesting to note where we have come to since this morning. When I was speaking this morning I raised certain issues on the proposed amendment which Deputy O'Hanlon, presumably in all seriousness, has presented to us. He did not respond to some of the questions I raised. He indicated to us that in his view not merely married couples but other couples should have access to contraceptives. Taking into account the amendment he has made limiting that access he has not yet clarified what other couples he has in mind.
There is an aspect of his amendment which seems to have got lost in the context of the debate. What most Members do not realise is that this amendment is not merely concerned with age but seems also to be concerned with amending the Bill as it passed on Second Stage to reinstate the position of the "prescription" in the context of non-medical contraceptives. My reading of the amendment — the Deputy can correct me if I am wrong — is that it seeks to reimpose the requirement of a prescription for non-medical contraceptives. I presume the Deputy wants to return to the situation which my colleague, Deputy Kelly, illustrated so effectively in the context of the importation of luggage. Presumably he agrees that it is for the common good that people seeking non-medical contraceptives go to their doctor, who looks into the whites of their eyes to determine not merely their bona fides but how many non-medical contraceptives and condoms they should have access to. It is interesting to see how important Fianna Fáil seem to regard the retention of the prescription.
I welcome Deputy McCreevy having an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I regret that other Fianna Fáil Members did not have an opportunity. One absent friend from this debate, who has been noticeable outside the House at all stages except to vote, is Deputy Noonan, Opposition spokesman on Agriculture. On 9 February 1985 in The Irish Times, when dealing with the issue which is of concern to Deputy O'Hanlon and the position of the prescription, he said:
As ever, we in Fianna Fáil represent the values and traditions that make us Irish and we will continue to do so on your behalf.
Is one of the things that make us Irish the necessity to acquire a prescription for condoms? Where is the Deputy? Has the type of speech he delivered on 9 February resulted in the leader of his party warning him to stay outside——
We do not have a situation like that.
He is not here.
(Interruptions.)
He was so concerned about this matter that he went to press. Within a day or two of the Bill being published he rushed into print.
The Deputy is a good man to go into print himself.
He predicted apocalyptic reactions. It is interesting that Deputy O'Hanlon has not really explained what the amendment before us is about. He has not explained that he wants to reinstate the necessity for a prescription not only for single people but for married couples to obtain non-medical contraceptives, apart from the nonsense of the other aspect of this amendment to which I have referred.
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the manner in which they conducted this extremely difficult debate. I thank the Taoiseach and Tánaiste who led their parties with determination to bring about this particular change as part of the Joint Programme for Government. I thank The Workers' Party and Deputy De Rossa in particular for his outstanding sensitive statements and contribution to the debate. I thank Deputy Gregory for his support for this measure. I thank Deputy O'Malley for a contribution which, in retrospect, will be reminiscent of the Treaty debates of this House. The debate has been a watershed in many respects.
What about Deputy Treacy?
Time will judge if we have acted in the best interests of the people. As far as I am concerned, in conscience I have endeavoured to act in the best interest and, if some Members on the Government side have been unable to support me and the Government in this regard, their decision must be and will be respected. We are elected in public life to so act.
I thank Deputies for the tolerance they have shown to me in trying to explain the exigencies of this legislation. I thank my colleague, Deputy O'Hanlon, for the very difficult role which I am sure he found himself in. It has in no way impaired our constructive relationship nor will it in the years ahead.
In accordance with an order of the House made this morning, I now put the following question: "That the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby complete and the Bill is hereby passed."
Before the Chair puts the question I wish to know if we are voting on the amendment.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 79.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- 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.
- 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, Willie.
- 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.
- 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.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.