Vol. 403 No. 3
10 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Health if he intends to take any steps to deal with the anomaly in the Family Planning Act, 1985, which prevents pharmacies owned by a company from selling condoms, especially in view of the fact that almost one-third of all pharmacies are owned by companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985, removed most of the serious anomalies relating to the provision of family planning services. I am aware of the remaining anomaly to which the Deputy refers. However, there is no indication that the outlets are inadequate to meet the public demand for condoms.
The Minister did not address the question posed, which was that, as such a large number of pharmacies, approximately 400, are owned by companies would the Minister clarify whether, under the provisions of the Family Planning Act, 1985, they are allowed sell condoms? Would the Minister also clarify the matter of advertising the sale of condoms by the same companies or pharmacists?
The question does not refer to advertising. I do not have anything on advertising in my brief but I will communicate with the Deputy in regard to that matter.
On the question of the anomaly, I can say that has obtained since the passage of the 1987 Act and, I understand, was discussed in the debate on amendments on the Family Planning Act, 1985. The point I am making to the Deputy is that there is no indication that the outlets are inadequate to meet public demand for condoms.
How many outlets are licensed to sell condoms?
I do not have the number of outlets licensed to distribute condoms. Certainly there are not as many as Deputy Fennell wanted last evening when she said there should be slot machines from which men and women could easily get them.
There is nothing wrong with that.
As I said last evening, Fianna Fáil wonder why they are the party of the hillbillies. They need not be up on the fifth floor; they need to be down here listening to their Minister for Health every day of the week, whose attitude demonstrates that he is living in the past.
When there was a contest the Deputy ran; he is a yellow belly.
In view of the epidemic of AIDS — a sexually transmitted disease — and in view of the recorded sales of condoms in the outlet subsequently closed due to court action, does the Minister not believe that those records of sales did in fact indicate a substantial demand for outlets beyond the level outlined in the 1985 Family Planning Act?
There has been no indication that the outlets are inadequate to meet public demand. I might add that a licence was issued in 1987 to import 51,439,248 condoms and, in 1989, a licence was issued for the importation of 40,320,000 condoms here.
I must dissuade Members from seeking to debate this matter now. There will be another time for that.
Will the Minister not agree that it is totally illogical to permit pharmacies that are one-man or one-woman pharmacies to sell condoms but to make it unlawful for pharmacies that are companies limited under the companies Act to sell condoms? What research has the Minister, or his Department, undertaken to indicate the degree of suitability of the current arrangements? Has he indices which satisfy him that the current position is satisfactory? If he has, can he tell the House of them?
I do not have the detailed information in regard to the research that has been carried out in this regard but my information is that in my Department there are no complaints about the inadequate outlets for the supply of condoms.
Question No. 11.
Talk to the Family Planning Association.
Nobody rings up the Department looking for condoms.
Question No. 11.
I had indicated I wished to ask the Minister if he is satisfied with the operation.
If Deputy Shatter, or any other Deputy, is dissatisfied with the Minister's reply they have a remedy.
