Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1977

Vol. 86 No. 10

Family Planning Bill, 1974: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. M.D. Higgins

On the last occasion I drew attention to a number of points. I suggested that the discussion of family planning and its necessity had to be considered in the wider context of our unwillingness as a people to afford basic rights in terms of housing, in terms of basic economic necessity to all our children, wherever they might be born. I also said that the failure to legislate in this area was a failure by people who had some of the advantages of society, particularly in relation to education. Their failure was visited upon the most vulnerable section of poor people, who often did not have the same educational advantages. I suggested also that in our consideration as to the necessity for legislation such as that proposed, we would inevitably make a comment on the relationship between church and state. In that respect I said that as a legislature it was our inescapable duty to legislate for the public in general rather than to impose a section of morality on people in general.

I had begun to call into question the definition of life used by those who were opposing the legislation proposed by Senator Robinson, a narrow biological definition of life, which was to miss the point altogether. A progressive political attitude was to sustain life culturally and in fullness. I also said there was a dishonesty, too, in that the very people who were making excessive emotive arguments in favour of narrow biological life were often precisely the same people who through conservatism were refusing life to be expressed fully and adequately in its full potential.

I was questioning a number of statements made in terms of the argument that had been prosecuted over the years, ones upon which I might have some competence to speak, certain matters which are sociological in nature. For example, there was the suggestion that a liberalisation of the law in this respect leads automatically to an extension or a kind of social practices of other kinds. It has been suggested that if the law is changed in this respect the incidence of venereal disease will change and so on. If one needs to take these arguments seriously in a reply, one needs to invoke as much evidence as one is able to muster.

When we adjourned the last day I had said that in many cases fundamentally there is the question as to who is primarily concerned, the married woman. This inevitably raises the position of woman in Irish society. Because such a position is being revalued, it is that that has probably created the greatest public interest, apart from the distress of the people immediately involved in this debate. On the last occasion a suggestion was made to me by another Senator, in the form of an interruption, that I should address myself to the side effects of the pill.

Professor Quinlan

I repeat that.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I was being courteous and I hope it will be reciprocated. Is it not more responsible for people in public life to address themselves to the medical profession on the matter of the side effects of the pill? I am concerned about these side effects. I am also worried about some of the more recent findings. Is it not a different argument altogether? Is this piece of legislation not merely creating a number of options? When those options are created in terms of legislation it is the duty of the medical profession to advise the public as to the implication of exercising those options. We, as legislators, have to legislate for the freedom to exercise options. There is a crucial distinction. It is wrong to throw that kind of distinction away. It is wrong to suggest that someone who is in favour of changing the legislation so that freedom might be exercised has a vested interest in any one of the options which that legislation will make possible. That is not only confusing the argument but it is almost a dishonest suggestion.

Since this Bill was discussed earlier there have been two sources of good evidence on the debate. Dr. David McConnell, in a number of articles in Hibernia in 1973 and David Nowlan in a number of articles published in The Irish Times in the same year did us a great service. In The Irish Times article of 26th November, 1973, David Nowlan, writing on the English experience of sex education asked:

Is it true that liberalised education in relation to sexual matters leads to increased marital infidelity, leads to an increase in the number of illegitimate births, leads to an increase in the number of abortions, leads to the increasing incidence of veneral disease or indeed leads to increased promiscuity?

In a later article in The Irish Times, of 12th December, 1973, he offered us evidence drawn from the United Nations Demographic Year Book. That evidence did not sustain a single one of the allegations which would suggest that changing the law would automatically connect with these happenings. We should draw a distinction between a fact and what is a scare. For the most part, when there has been a suggestion that if we change the law to making family planning possible it will automatically lead to all sorts of other social practices whereas what one is offering is a hypothesis, not a fact. There is not one whit of evidence to sustain such an allegation. There is a highly selective use of fact to distort an argument being made to the public.

Professor Quinlan

Four years ago, in 1973, it was selective too.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I hope Senator Quinlan is not suggesting that sexual attitudes in the western world have changed radically in the four years since the Coalition Government came to office.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Garrett

Everything has changed for the worse.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

If I will be permitted to continue, I know the meaning of the word "selective"—it is used in science. It means detracting deliberately. It means taking a particular item and claiming generality for it. In no sense am I suggesting that the findings that Dr. David Nowlan quotes were confined to 1973. Professor Quinlan, as is usual for him, knows that he is making remarks that have no substance but that might succeed.

Professor Quinlan

I know as much about city slickers as the Senator does, or more.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

The Senator should teach and practise such knowledge.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Higgins should be allowed to speak without interruption. I would also ask Senator Higgins not to look in Senator Quinlan's direction when making certain remarks.

Dr. West

I hope the Senator will look across the floor at some of the good-looking people over here.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

To continue my point, in an Irish Times article by the same author of December 13th, 1973, the year of the article not of the statistic, Dr. Nowlan extends his sources and examines a proposition made by Dr. Cathal Daly about the same thing, that legislation in this area would lead to a loosening up of attitudes in relation to sexual behaviour and I think makes a suggestion, plausibly to me, that the use by Dr. Daly of Dr. R.S. Morton's, a distinguished British venereologist, writing had been wrong. That being so, the general finding would be as follows: despite the fact that the most horrific connections have been suggested by the opponents of changes in the law, no connection can be demonstrated through an examination of any society using the statistics which are acceptable internationally. That point is important if we are unemotively to examine this question.

I want now to raise a question that bothers me and that is the force of another argument. The appropriate Catholic attitude on a Bill of this kind is to oppose it. It can be suggested that such is not an appropriate Catholic attitude but is a predictable Irish Catholic attitude. There is a distinction there. Many people will have to make up their minds as to how to vote on this legislation. Those people can take comfort from the compassion which Dr. James Good has been able to offer to people in response to the attitude taken by the Irish Hierarchy. In Dr. Good's article in Hibernia, 30th May, 1973, he was able to make the suggestion that it was the concern of Christians and Catholics to be compassionate. He did not see the interpretation which the Irish Hierarchy had made in their directions in this matter as compassionate. I quote from his writing:

In recent years a large number of Irish Catholics have to come to accept a liberal interpretation of Humanae Vitae. In this they have been encouraged by an ever-growing number of sympathetic priests, tolerated if not officially blessed by some individual members of the hierarchy. Now we find ourselves faced with a harsh and compromising document totally remote from pastoral concern and couched in terms that are condemnatory to a degree that Humanae Vitae never was. Human Life is Sacred is a totally unpastoral document. In recording the statistics of abortion it is reflecting the results of the anti-sex pastorals of the past. In repeating that same teaching in other areas it is sowing disaster for the future.

I link that to my previous concern for the adequate proof or rejection of the previous statements that liberalisation of the law would lead to other kinds of social practice. It is unfortunate that when statistics, for example the reference by Dr. Good to abortion statistics, are used they are used wrongly and to create concern and terror rather than to help people. I commend publicly Dr. Good for his immense courage in writing that article at that time. It was a reminder to many of us of the essential humanity of Christ's message and of the necessity of asserting that essential humanity is something quite different and more important from intolerance, terror or misunderstanding.

In considering this legislation, at all times we have to bear in mind the position of the people who benefit from it. This morning I made reference on another piece of legislation to some misconceptions we had concerning our institutions. Sociologists are now coming to the question as to whether the Irish family as we have known it was such a positive warm thing that many of us were led to believe. People are no longer quite so afraid as they were to hide the fact that within the family there is often a great abuse of the more vulnerable partner—the woman. Because the abuse of women in our society is now becoming more public, it can be examined and we are probably able to consider legislation like this in a different atmosphere. Very often, too, we have problems with a family which is under pressure. A family can be under pressure economically and psychologically and culturally. The husband in a situation where his economic situation is not very good has an escape from the household because the household is the location of the economic deprivation. It is within the household that the deprivation is acted out and assessed. What was a very promising union in marriage can deteriorate very rapidly because of economic circumstances and the social strain that derives from it. In such a situation the woman who has produced some children, who has tried to manage for them, often desperately against the odds, often deprived of psychological and warm support because of the culture in which we live, is often deprived of the right in which she may plan an addition to her family?

Professor Quinlan

She will be deprived by this Bill of her health.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Quinlan should allow Senator Higgins to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

It is not a matter of health, as I use that word, but seeing that I have been encouraged, I will expand on that. It is a matter of according rights. Is life something that is proscribed narrowly by the prejudices of a few people from a narrow component of one culture at one period of history, or is it something that we all have to make the best of, living as well as we can in accordance with principles of dignity and justice? What have the people who take a reactionary position from the religious perspective to say to the woman who is in terror and often weak? What they bring her is a message of terror rather than of help.

As we may not be discussing this for some time again I wish to refer to another aspect of it. Is it not a reflection of us as legislators that one woman's name, Mrs. McGee, occurs again and again. Are we not totally ashamed that the Supreme Court had to give a decision which forced us to have a debate on the rights of women in our society? Is this not a matter of total disgrace for us? We reel along from one reaction to another to a court decision. Many have sat here and listened to people defending the institutions of the State and the separation of the powers of the State and yet we have to rely on the courts to put us in the direction we are morally afraid to move in politically. We have every reason to be ashamed.

I do not support the Bill for narrow legal reasons, and if this Bill meets the approval of the Seanad I would hope we would begin to face our responsibilities in a more general and human sense. We need to educate people in the positive management of their opportunities in relation to sexual and reproductive matters. It is extremely important that young people should have an opportunity to acquire information. Once that had been acquired it is up to them. I have every confidence in the people to establish an ethic to which they are committed in the use of that information. It is this atmosphere of something hidden, proscribed of terror which is ruining the inter-atmosphere of the prosecution, exercise and consequences of love in our society. Such an atmosphere has brought love, marriage and the reproduction of children into the terrible business it is. David McConnell, in Hibernia on 19th October, 1973, in reviewing our lack of ability to legislate in this matter, said:

A collaboration of design, ignorance and silence amongst the medical profession, the churchmen, the lawyers, the politicians and the teachers ensured this lady had to suffer.

He was describing the position of a battered wife arriving at the out-patient department of a hospital which he had visited. He also described a battered wife as follows:

The ignorance and drunkenness of a husband, the real brutality of sex in a setting of poverty and fear of childbirth, the complete absence of tenderness and gentleness, the taking of a woman as an animalistic deed for recounting at pub-counters and street comers, a savage ritual to be done at will and usually drunk for the male to enjoy and the woman to endure.

This is a sordid example of relationships between man and woman in Ireland in the 1970s. What are we to do? Can we change the attitude of the sexes towards each other overnight so that they might have a relationship which would accommodate the virtues of gentleness and tenderness? Obviously not, although we will have to face up to it sooner or later. It will have to be built into our educational system that we have a greater respect for each other, particularly between the sexes. While we are waiting for this educational overhaul in this most superlative of conservative nations can we stand in the way of legislation which would provide a right of protection for the woman. Or are we middle-class people with access to the educational resources of the State to put the luxury of our conservatism between working class women and their rights?

There is the argument: Is there not a natural family planning system? Unfortunately, Senator Quinlan is not here, but I presume any Member will receive free of charge an extended lecture from him on the Billings Method. I have found The Lancet and the Irish Medical Journal to be a little more impressive in their assessment of the system than the pamphlet circulated free by Senator Quinlan and his clerical friends from their box number in Cork. On the one hand the Billings Method is difficult to understand and there are aesthetic arguments about its procedures. In the average situation of a family under economic pressure where there are real difficulties it is presumed there was complete knowledge and competence to use reasonable alternativies. Recently I discussed this legislation with my wife. Another aspect is the hypocrisy which surrounds that particular attitude of the legislation, that is, that there is an alemative method available, which is false, and that there is literature available. The Censorship of Publications Act, 1946, section 6, made it illegal to sell:

Any publication... advocating unnatural prevention of conception. What was the effect of that on bookshops? Do you think they took on an additional assistant to pick up books and say "This is natural", or "That is unnatural" and decide, "We have taken this or that"? The net effect of it on balance was that no literature was available. The substitute which was offered to the woman instead of a right was a position of forced ignorance not of her choosing—no information offered at all. At the Teheran Conference on Human Rights in 1968, Ireland was one of the countries who sponsored a motion:

Couples have a basic human right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their families and a right to adequate education and information in this respect.

This legislation is to enable a facility for the options to be offered. It is up to the couple then to exercise these options as they wish. Our economic failure, our inability to provide houses and our inability to keep wages up to a level, will make it necessary for options to be exercised. I am in favour of a political system which would take action to relieve strain on families.

Should this Bill fail today and if we defer once again the possibility of the necessity for legislation in this area, is it just the defeat of a few Senators who have a particular leaning in politics. If that were so it would be all right, but it is not. At my political advice centre last week a woman visited me suffering from a lack of iron, one child in the Regional Hospital in Galway, another child just out of hospital with an ear infection, four children born in just over three years. She was underweight and for the first time she was being given treatment of a vitamin kind. I mention this woman because it is not a matter of a few Senators who feel in a particular way who will be done down should this legislation not succeed. It will be a slap in the face to women like the one I mentioned who need the legislation almost to survive in disadvantaged circumstances. I urge the people who are thinking of voting against the Bill to bear that in mind. I also ask them to bear in mind that if one wanted, to take up Dr. Good's phrase serious pastoral concern, is the position of that woman not serious? I should like to quote from our Constitution, Article 15.2.1º:

The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State.

We are at a time when people say that —I do not share the opinion—the survival of our institutions is the single greatest political purpose. Yet we find the legislature discussing measures as a result of decisions in the courts. That is hardly showing initiative. Can the legislature not even show concern? A great case was made earlier by Senator Robinson in what is hardly a radical speech. It was, indeed, a very careful and temperate speech in favour of this legislation.

To change the law in relation to family planning is a very specific piece of legislation. It is specific, narrow and is aimed at a particular purpose. That we have had to spend so much time on it is necessary because we have not the larger circumstances in our society which values life adequately. The necessity of making that specific legislative change now is brought about also by conditions that we have been reluctant to expose publicly. In addition, the legislature can show its maturity by invoking a higher responsibility than a particular version of religious practice on this occasion. It is a time to give back some dignity to a group of people here who have had a great deal of dignity stripped away from them through economic deprivation and otherwise, the women of Ireland. For that reason I ask my colleagues in the Seanad to support this Bill.

Mr. Deasy

This could well be termed the Bill that politicians would prefer not to vote on. Most Senators and TDs would prefer if they did not have to vote on it and in my opinion that is a thoroughly dishonest attitude. As politicians we should be the leaders of public opinion and not be trying to avoid it. There is a clear avoidance by a considerable number of people on this issue. I have no doubt if the vote to be held later were a secret ballot the Bill would be passed by an overwhelming majority but, as things stand, the likelihood is that it will be beaten.

Mr. Garrett

That is a very funny attitude.

Mr. Deasy

That is my view.

Mr. Garrett

What gave the Senator that idea?

Mr. Deasy

I will speak to the Chair. That is my honest opinion and I will express it as I wish. A number of people make the case that by not having family planning we are going to keep a very holy and honourable society here. They produce statistics to show that events in other countries bear out this assertion. In my view permissiveness has come to every country in the world and no matter whether there are contraceptives or not it is going to increase in its intensity. It is like trying to stop the tide from coming in; one cannot do it. The only honest thing to do is to do the best to see that people know what sex is all about and that we do not bring up people in an enclosed atmosphere and leave them to find out the facts of life in an undesirable manner. There is a great need for sex education among our young people. It is something that has been swept under the mat over the years, completely avoided and is taboo.

As part and parcel of family planning we should tackle this problem. Many parents tell their children about the facts of life, but many do not and these children are often prey to very sinister individuals who thrive on the ignorance of others. On that line, I presume we would pretend not to know that a major proportion of prostitutes in Britain came from Ireland originally. We let these youngsters go abroad without knowing the facts of life and they became very easy victims of touts, pimps and others who make vast sums of money out of this vice trade. Are we prepared to allow our young people to be used in this manner? It is about time we faced up to the facts.

Surely the use of contraceptives or any other devices is a matter for the conscience of the individual. The court decision referred to previously, where Mrs. McGee won her case, proves that the importation of contraceptives is legal. How can we not legalise the use of contraceptive methods while the importation is legal? There seems to be a clear contradiction in this regard and the sooner that anomaly is cleared up the better. I support the Bill. It is about time we stopped being dishonest with ourselves and faced up to the facts of life.

Mr. McAuliffe

Before the McGee case I would certainly have voted against this Bill but since then I have made up my mind that I must support it. I might not support all sections of it on Committee Stage. It is open to amendments which I am sure the movers of it will be prepared to accept. It is a terrible state of affairs that any person, irrespective of age, may purchase and import contraceptives and are free to distribute them provided they do not sell them. On 25th November, 1973, the Irish Hierarchy issued a statement to the people of Ireland. The secretary of the association was Most Rev. Dr. McCormick, my own bishop in Meath. It stated:

The proposals which are currently being made to change the law on the sale of contraceptives in the Republic of Ireland raise an important issue for the people and for their elected representatives.

The real question facing the legislators is: What effect would the increased availability of contraceptives have on the quality of life in the Republic of Ireland?

It went on to say:

That is a question of public, not private morality. What the legislators have to decide is whether a change in the law would, on balance, do more harm than good, by damaging the character of the society for which they are responsible.

There is a good deal of evidence that it would. Experience elsewhere indicates that where the sale of contraceptives is legalised, marital infidelity increases, the birth of children outside of wedlock (surprising as it may seem) increases, abortions increase, there is a marked increase in the incidence of venereal disease and the use of contraceptives tends to spread rapidly among unmarried young people.

The influence on young people is of particular significance because it affects the next generation of fathers and mothers. Legislation about the sale of contraceptives often contains provisions to safeguard against this and other abuses but experience shows that it is only a matter of time until such safeguards are eroded.

Young people in Ireland have high moral standards but it may be felt that legislators ought to think very carefully before making the environment for moral living more difficult for them.

We emphasise that it is not a matter for bishops to decide whether the law should be changed or not. That is a matter for the legislators, after a conscientious consideration of all the factors involved.

That is what we are trying to do here today. We are taking responsibility on ourselves as to whether there should be a change in the law governing the sale and distribution of contraceptives and so on.

The issue before the legislators and the people is therefore a grave one. People must try to weigh up all the issues fairly in their own minds, asking themselves what kind of society do they want, for themselves and their children.

That is a fair comment. The McGee case was an extraordinary decision and we must face up to the realities of that decision and legislate to prevent abuses of the distribution and sale of contraceptives, irrespective of age, sex, marriage.

I agree with what the last speaker said in connection with sex. We have no sex education and sex is a dirty word. My view is that sex should not be counted as a dirty word. It was God's way of giving life. Our young people should not be allowed to go to England without being educated in this regard. There is evidence that more Irish girls in England are involved in prostitution and in having illegitimate children than English girls. We should face up to that and have sex education in schools. I have no idea whether the Bill will go through but its acceptance would be a move in the right direction. I am sure that if there was a secret vote we would have a different result from what we will get today.

Mr. Brosnahan

What I have to say is completely devoid of any political content and I would say it in respect of any Government. I shall not enter into the moral debate arising from Humanae Vitae; that is not even settled by theologians. Some accept the teaching of the Church as outlined in Humanae Vitae, others do not. I shall concern myself in my capacity as a member of the Legislature. The Supreme Court, the personnel of which were appointed by a Government under Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution and received their powers under those Articles, found that the law dealing with contraception was wrong, that it was repugnant to the Constitution. There was a direct responsibility on the Government which appointed the personnel of the Supreme Court to introduce corrective legislation. They have failed to do so. We must put the responsibility back where it should be. This is a clear legislative issue and we must face the cold facts of the situation. Corrective legislation must be introduced by somebody.

We all admire the efforts made by Senator Robinson, her courage and determination and the contributions of the other speakers here who have stepped into the breach to fulfil a function of Government. There has been a complete dereliction of the function of Government in what is going on here today. We are all asked to be part of the charade that is going on. When Senator Robinson and Senator Horgan were independent Members of this House they introduced this Bill but they are now sitting on the Government side of the House. They are allowing the Government to get away with this dereliction of their duties, their clear obligation under the Constitution, their clear obligation before the community. The Government should have accepted the responsibility and introduced this Bill. However, we accept this Bill today, any other two Members of the House can bring along a Bill at a later stage and if a Government and others step back, it will sail through. That is a wrong legislative precedent and I will not be part of it. I do not oppose it for any other reason.

If a Government, following consultation and study with responsible people in the community, ecclesiastical, social workers, sociologists, educators, doctors and so on, introduced legislation I would look at it in a different way but I am not going to be part of a charade that is going on here today with two of the main speakers, sitting on Government seats and allowing the Government to let legislation go by default. It would be a wrong legislative precedent to establish and for that reason, and that reason only, I oppose this measure.

Mr. Butler

I am speaking to show which side I am on. I am totally against this Bill. Human life is the most important thing on this earth and anything that would prevent human life should not be accepted. I do not care what religion one belongs to, human life is all important and but for human life this earth could not function. If we are going to allow the sale of contraceptives openly then we are preventing human life in some form or another. The first step is the sale of contraceptives and the second step will be the doing away with the human being. We had it in countries where contraception was introduced in the same form as is proposed here. The same type of arguments were put forward when contraception was accepted in those countries. The second step is either sterilisation or abortion. I plead with the Senators not to take the first step. Let us uphold the creation of the human being. When a man and his wife wish to have a child let not one or the other prevent that child being born. Without children, without human beings, this world could not function. Let us be very careful about what is before us and consider what will be before us if we take the first step. I am, in conscience, bound to oppose the sale and use of contraceptives. People using contraceptives should be more careful. No matter under what circumstances a human being is born he does not wish to do away with his life. If there is something that prevents a human being from living the type of life he should be living, let us do something about that but let us not allow any situation to develop that would prevent a human being from being born.

Mr. Kilbride

I do not intend saying much on this Bill. It is a matter where each Senator has a responsibility to speak out and say what he feels he should, irrespective of whether it is for or against the Bill. As I see it, this Bill asks us to pass a law enabling the use of contraceptives. When we hear the word "contraceptives" we regard it as the pill or certain other appliances. It can be associated with making it easier for people to have free access to sex. That is the view young people have. But, the real view is that any form of contraception is a means of preventing life. At best it is that but it is not always so. No lay person is capable of making explicit the extent to which the use of contraceptives affect the being that the parents have the right to call into existence in the act of procreation known as the marriage act. Those who are anxious to have this legislation passed do not seem to take into account that in addition to calling that being into existence they are also calling into existence an immortal soul. Life must be respected at that stage just as it is when one comes to have the responsibility of living, or providing for a family, or being able to come to this Legislature to make decisions upon national issues.

The Constitution was quoted and it was stated that only the Oireachtas had the right to make the laws of this land. However, more than the laws of the land are involved where some right, action or power conferred on two beings is exercised to call into being the existence of a human with a soul. Everyone of us, with our understanding, will, memory and all the gifts God has given us, came into existence through this means. If our parents had been selfish and had felt that they could not have their drinks, go to dances, or take the opportunities that life offered them and have sexual pleasure and everything else but forget about the responsibility of parenthood cast on them what would have happened? A serious responsibility is cast on every man and woman.

An argument advanced here was that a young girl should get the complete package of contraceptive appliances, the pill and so on and go to England or wherever she liked and do what she liked. That is not the answer. It is a contradiction of what our people and our society want. We are obliged to stand up and be counted and say we stand for life and the right of people either to procreate or desist from it. If the act of procreation is interfered with it is a contradiction of human nature, of God's law and all the things our people fought for.

There are, of course, other aspects to this matter. There are good friends of mine, of a different creed to me, people of the Anglican or Church of Ireland faith, and they argue that it is their legitimate right to have contraceptives. That is accepted. Before the Lambeth Conference at which their creed accepted this nobody could stand up in the British Parliament, or in this House and suggest that. These people are honest and decent enough to recognise that the creed which represents 95 per cent of our people still holds that this is not in the best interests of our society, that it will lessen the quality of life of the Irish people and we should not have it foisted on us. We should not have to accept this because the other 5 per cent claim it is their right. I hope they will consider and recognise that it is not bigotry and it is not religious prejudice. It is in the best interests of the people that those of us who are charged with this responsibility will stand up and say we do not want this.

Ruairí Quinn

A Catholic State for a Catholic people.

Mr. Kilbride

In reference to that interruption, however Senator Quinn may brand my statement, it is a statement of fact. Before I referred to the 95 per cent, I made the point that the adherents of other creeds did not want it either. If we accept the responsibility that we think is ours it should not be played on as political, religious or any other kind of prejudice. I have the greatest respect for the views of others. If this legislation were to be passed then 95 per cent of the people would have to accept an outlook to which they do not subscribe.

Much has been said about the women of this country and the responsibilities of people generally.

I hold the view that the people should have the right to vote in a plebiscite on whether they want contraceptives. That is a purely humanitarian approach. The people should have the right to decide and not the judge being quoted here. His judgment is not an absolutely sanctified decision that must be accepted by everybody. The judge's decision was on the issue of whether there was a legitimate constitutional right to purchase and use contraceptives. That is all he was deciding. It does not follow that we are bound to legislate, advocate and provide for the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives in this country. In my opinion this is a situation in which there is a need for the people to be given an opportunity to say what they think. If the majority of the people say they want it, then the rest of us will have all the responsibility taken from us. If the majority of the people say they do not want it the moral responsibility on those of us who would legislate to provide it would be all the greater. Our obligation to answer to the Creator will be all the greater and all the more difficult.

On all the grounds I have enumerated the people should be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion by way of a plebiscite. All the arguments which have been put in favour of this Bill could be settled with respect for everybody's personal responsibility and everybody's right. I am opposing this Bill because I believe it is not in the best interest of the people of this country.

Mr. O'Toole

I should like to make some brief comments on what I have heard when this Bill has come up for discussion. There is gross oversimplification of the issues involved here. There are also vague generalities being trotted out on both sides. On the one hand, we have the so called ultra conservative who will stand here and object to any tampering with the present position. On the other hand, there are those who are branded ultra liberal who would seem to support the proposals in this legislation. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between the ultra conservative and the liberal. That is where the grey area exists and that is the large area so far as I am concerned.

There is also the question of Church and State. This Parliament has had experience—and in my opinion, sad experience—of a controversy between Church and State which should never have happened. But it did happen and hopefully the experience of that will have taught us a lesson. We are discussing a subject which is by its very nature emotive, and the strange thing is that the people who are accusing other speakers of being emotive are the very people who themselves add to the emotive discussion.

We are not discussing the availability of contraceptives. We are discussing their advertising and sale in this country. This is the issue we should look at fairly and squarely. No one can deny that there is a problem. It is a question of identifying that problem, of finding a means to solve it and of ensuring that the means found to solve that problem do not make the problem worse. If we look at all the aspects involved in this, the matter is not as simple as one might think at first sight. While everyone must be guided by some form of morality, we are talking about a very private matter which impinges on the private morality of all the people of this country.

We have a duty in both Houses of Parliament to stand up and be counted. It is not sufficient to vote either in favour of or against this legislation without making some effort to back up one's action. In standing here one is taking a certain risk that what one says might be misinterpreted. Let us be blunt about this. We are talking at a time when there is the air of a general election around this House.

What one says here might well be thrown in one's face on a platform in the next six weeks or six months——

Mr. Garrett

The Senator is safe enough.

Mr. O'Toole

I am just making the point that these are the facts of political life as I see them at the moment. There is no point in hiding them.

Ruairí Quinn

Also its virtues.

Mr. O'Toole

And its virtues, possibly.

Dr. West

And that is why the Independents caused the row since Christmas.

Mr. O'Toole

The point I am making is that people ought to back up their convictions by making a statement, however inadequate.

This question does not concern the availability of contraceptives because as we all know, contraceptives are available. The question relates to how people can obtain contraceptives. This Bill might go some way to solving a difficult problem and also salving some consciences, but at the same time it could cause more problems than it would solve.

Mrs. Robinson

It could be amended on Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Toole

I say this because many people take a very simplistic view of this issue. Sex education in this country has not been all it should have been. We are dealing with a certain amount of inbred fear from many sources which I shall not go into now. At the end of the day this Bill will not come to grips with the problem. I am talking about a situation where contraceptives might, in the possession of certain people, do more harm than good.

There is a need for family planning and there are ways and means of achieving this without using the mechanical or pharmaceutical devices being advertised at present. Inadequate though the system might be, it has its uses. What we need is a programme of education to promote the use of what I would describe in layman's terms as natural contraception, which would benefit all the people and would not in any way cause adverse effects. From what I gather from experts in this field—and I am not a medical man—there is a diversity of opinion regarding the side effects of contraceptive devices and pharmaceutical agents.

It has been said that the practice of contraception, the use of contraceptive devices like the pill, is the only case where the natural functions of the body are deliberately interfered with by medicine. On the one hand, the medical profession say they are there to prevent disease and to ensure the body operates as it was meant to, but they tell us that the natural biological performance of the body must be interfered with if we are to achieve our objective in this particular issue. In other words, there is a blatant contradiction here which we should examine.

Recently, a certain section of the medical profession in this country proposed, and had a resolution carried, that contraceptives should be made available for sale. My view of that decision is that it was not their function to propose this. They have a very onerous duty in their own field to advise and instruct the public on the uses of contraceptives. They should not set themselves up—I am sure they did not intend this—as a pressure group, a very influential pressure group. People advocating contraceptives can point to the medical profession as a body, or a section thereof, and say "Those people must know what they are talking about and they have proposed the sale of contraceptives".

Mr. Garrett

On a swindled vote. It was contradicted in all the papers.

Mr. O'Toole

I am not prepared to comment on what vote was taken but the end result would seem to be that a certain section of the medical profession are and have resolved in favour of the sale and distribution of contraceptives.

Professor Quinlan

The Irish Medical Union is opposed to it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Toole without interruption.

Mr. O'Toole

I did not intend speaking on this matter today but, having given this matter some thought, I felt that, as a Member of the House, I had a right and in this case, a duty to back up my action with what some people might regard as a very simplistic approach.

We have approached this issue in an emotive way. I suppose by its nature that is to be expected. We find ourselves in a very invidious position in that we have been branded before we start being one type of person or another. As I said at the beginning, it is obvious that many Members—I expect we reflect the community outside—belong to a large grey area somewhere in the middle, uncertain, not knowing all the facts. People might say that if we are discussing this matter we should do some research and find out the facts. I admit that, but I am not a medical expert. I am no expert on sociology or theology. Many people think we are jacks of all trades. We are supposed to know something about everything. We all know the result of that approach. Still, we should make our voices heard on this issue.

If I were convinced that contraceptives were needed and that the use of contraceptives was safe and did not prove abortifacient, then I would have no moral objection to supporting a Bill of this type. But I am not convinced that the use of contraceptives is safe and that they do not act as abortifacients. I am convinced that for sociological reasons there is a need for family planning. That need can be met and fulfilled by methods which have possibly been known to men for thousands of years. Reference to contraception and the problems it was causing can be found in the Book of Genesis or in some other part of the Bible.

There is a need for family planning. The only way that need can be met at present, until science and medicine can give us something better than heretofore, is by the natural methods of contraception. These are obviously the safest methods and possibly the most effective methods if we were told how to apply them.

Professor Quinlan

Even the WHO supports that.

Mr. O'Toole

These are my convictions, I am not a stubborn person. I am prepared to accept knowledge if it is backed up by scientific proof.

Until a convincing argument of that type can be put forward. I would not be prepared to lend my support to this Bill.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to thank the Senators who contributed to the debate on this Bill. It was a serious and thoughtful debate and included a number of very courageous contributions. The debate on Second Stage has taken three days, beginning on 16th December last and continuing on the 9th February and today. In all, 23 Senators contributed to the debate, eight of whom spoke against this Bill and against changing the law on contraceptives. It was a very encouraging debate. Fourteen Senators spoke in favour of changing the law. A number of them made it clear that they would like to see certain amendments to the Bill. This would be open to them on Committee Stage. These amendments would be carefully considered and could be voted upon.

A number of Senators made reference to the fact that the Fianna Fáil group confined itself to one brief minimal statement which was read out by Senator W. Ryan. At the time I called this a total shirking of responsibility. I would agree with the many Senators who spoke, both for and against this Bill, and made the point that when a matter of this sort is before the House we all have a responsibility. We cannot dodge that responsibility by a face saving formula, saying that the subject is too important for discussion, and that it will be opposed simply because it is a matter for the Government.

Senator Brosnahan put forward this argument. He said he would be in favour of a change in the law but he thought this was the wrong way of approaching it and that it was the Government's responsibility. However, Senator Brosnahan, in coming to this conclusion, began by quoting the Constitution. I would remind him that the Constitution makes it clear that the Government do not have— and are not intended to have—a monopoly of the right to introduce legislation in the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a responsibility on Deputies and Senators as representatives of the people to use the potential of the Oireachtas. and that includes introducing Private Members' legislation or introducing Opposition sponsored legislation. The rules of both House make this clear. Standing Orders provide for Private Members' legislation. It is a poverty in our system that there has not been more use made of this way of getting debate and ultimately getting change in the law. It is perfectly democratic and perfectly legitimate to introduce a Bill into this House for discussion in areas of serious social concern. I am not at all impressed or persuaded by the attitude of the Fianna Fáil group. I am sorry that Senator Brosnahan has applied the same false logic. I hope that—if he accepts the weaknesses of his argument—he will go back to his original approach which was that he would be in favour of a change in the law and when the time comes to vote that he will vote in favour of the Bill.

The second contribution on Second Stage was a long and well-structured contribution from Senator Michael J. O'Higgins but it is one with which I take very serious issue. He spoke about the fact that we have a very substantial Christian population, virtually 100 per cent Christian and also a very substantial Catholic majority in this State, so that we should be considering the rights of the majority and rejecting the arguments put forward about considering rights of minority. At column 1095 of the Official Report of 16th December, 1976, he states:

If one accepts, as I do, the teaching of the Catholic Church as to the moral law on this subject, one must ask oneself whether or not this Bill or any similar Bill makes it easy for people to break the moral law.

He goes on to draw the conclusion that it would help people to break the moral law and that as a responsible representative he could not do it. Senator O'Higgins is a lawyer, and I would put it to him that his whole line of reasoning is not open to him as a lawyer because it is precisely the area that was dealt with by the Supreme Court, by the authoritative court in this land. The Supreme Court has identified the role of the State in relation to the right of married people to have contraceptives and to use them in deciding on the number and spacing of their children.

I would like to refer to some passages in the judgment of Mr. Justice Walsh to that effect. He stated:

The sexual life of a husband and wife is of necessity and by its nature an area of particular privacy. If the husband and wife decide to limit their family or to avoid having children by the use of contraceptives it is a matter peculiarly within the joint decision of the husband and wife and one into which the State cannot intrude unless its intrusion can be justified by the exigencies of the common good. The question of whether the use of contraceptives by married couples within their marriage is or is not contrary to the moral code or codes to which they profess to subscribe or is or is not regarded by them as being against their conscience could not justify State intervention. Similarly the fact that the use of contraceptives may offend against the moral code of the majority of the citizens of the State would not per se, justify an intervention by the State to prohibit their use within marriage. The private morality of its citizens does not justify intervention by the State into the activities of those citizens unless and until the common good requires it.

The judge then went on to consider this issue of the common good. He said:

Counsel for the Attorney General did not seek to argue that the State would have any right to seek to prevent the use of contraceptives within marriage. He did argue, however, that it did not follow from this that the State was under any obligation to make contraceptives available to married couples. Counsel for the Revenue Commissioners put the matter somewhat further by stating that it was a matter for the plaintiff to prove that if she had a right to use contraceptives within the privacy of her marriage that it was for her to prove from whence the right sprang. In effect he was saying that if she was appealing to the right anterior to positive law that the burden was on her to show what was the source of that right.

At first sight this may appear to be a reasonable and logical preposition. However, it does appear to ignore a fundamental point, namely, that the rights of a married couple to decide how many children, if any, they will have are matters outside the reach of positive law where the means employed to implement such decisions do not impinge upon the common good or destroy or endanger human life. It is undoubtedly true that among those persons who are subject to a particular moral code no one has a right to be in breach of that moral code. But when this is a code governing private morality and where the breach of it is not one which injures the common good then it is not the State's business to intervene. It is outside the authority of the State to endeavour to intrude into the privacy of the husband and wife relationship for the sake of imposing a code of private morality upon that husband and wife which they do not desire. In my view, Article 41 of the Constitution guarantees the husband and wife against any such invasion of their privacy by the State. It follows that the use of contraceptives by them within that marital privacy is equally guaranteed against such invasion and as such assumes the status of a right so guaranteed by the Constitution. If this right cannot be directly invaded by the State it follows that it cannot be frustrated by the State taking measures to ensure that the exercise of that right is rendered impossible.

So there is a right to use contraceptives. The State cannot interfere with that right as exercised by married couples, and the State cannot frustrate that right of availability of contraceptives. All that long passage in Senator O'Higgins' contribution, where he spoke about an objective moral law endangering people by exposure to a breach of that moral law, is totally invalid as a legal argument. The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is a right to the availability of contraceptives by married people and that the State cannot intervene in preventing them from exercising that right and should not frustrate that right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This Bill does not confine itself to married people.

Mrs. Robinson

I am going to deal with that point. Another criticism put forward by Senator O'Higgins was that the Bill contained the same definition of contraceptives as the one in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935 and, as he was trying to maintain, did not specifically prohibit abortifacients. It is clear that abortifacients are prohibited, and remain prohibited, by the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. That was the position under the 1935 Act and that is the position under this measure. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is a dishonest failure to approach this Bill on its merits and examine it for what it is trying to do. Fuarthermore, the framework of this Bill ensures the greatest possible safeguards. It is the Minister for Health who would have responsibility. It is the Minister for Health who would decide on the proper restrictions, who can ban certain types of contraceptives, who has a strong controlling power. It is desirable that the Minister for Health should have jurisdiction in this matter and that we move away from the idea that it is a matter to be regulated by the Minister for Justice and governed by the criminal law. There is adequate safeguard in the framework of the Bill to avoid that problem.

Senator O'Higgins spoke about what he regarded as one of the worst aspects of the Bill, that it would involve the use of taxpayers' money by providing involvement by the health boards so that, for persons of full eligibility, contraceptives would be available on the health service. I was glad to see that Senator Alexis FitzGerald dealt with this argument very effectively in his contribution and refuted it as being a quite unreal argument. It is an invalid objection for another reason that Senator FitzGerald did not go into, that is, because taxpayers already support the availability and use of contraceptives in our State. They support them in two different ways: the pill, as many Senators said, is available in this State and, when it is prescribed to people who are eligible with their health cards, it is already a part of the health service if you like. Also where there are serious medical factors, where there is an illness or serious medical reasons why a woman cannot use the pill as a contraceptive or a cycle regulator, but who needs another type of contraceptive, there is authority under the existing Health Act for the health boards to give the medical care and service required in these cases. Therefore, where there are medical and serious health considerations the health boards are already involved. Again this is not a new departure, this is not a new dimension, it is a proposal to involve the health boards in the promotion of choice in methods of family planning.

The other substantive point raised in Senator O'Higgins' contribution, which he mentioned just a few moments ago, is the fact that the Bill does not propose to confine, in the legislation, the availability of contraceptives to married people only. No, the proposers of the Bill would be totally opposed to that as part of the legislation. Ireland has subscribed to a declaration, the Teheran Declaration of 1968, which made it clear that family planning is a right of couples, that they have a right to information and education on the number and spacing of their children. Particularly in Ireland we must be very careful not to try, in our legislation, to confine to couples in marriage the right to availability of contraceptives. This raises a very serious question about the recognition of stable couples outside marriage and of the family relationships which are established by those stable couples. It is inevitable in this country that there is a high incidence of extra-marital relationships precisely because we do not permit within our State the right of divorce and remarriage. Therefore there are more couples who have had to regulate informally their relationship; they cannot terminate the relationship and remarry so they are living with somebody to whom they are not married. When it is a long-term stable relationship, they are entitled to exercise the right to family planning and access to information and education about that. That is an important point of principle which the proposers would hold as being very crucial to the Bill as framed.

Senator Quinlan referred to what he called the contraceptive mentality. If I may say so, without wanting to appear too harsh, Senator Quinlan has contributed very considerably to whatever he means by the contraceptive mentality. We do tend to discuss the issue of the availability of contraceptives a great deal in this country precisely because we have not been able to assume our responsibilities in the matter and to change the law. If the law were fair and balanced, took into account the rights and humanitarian considerations involved we would cease to talk about contraceptives as often as we do; there would be no need to do it. It is because the legislation frustrates a need for information for medical advice in the exercise of a constitutional right to family planning that we have a lot of discussion about contraceptives. But that is different from the rather warped and distorted view which I would categorise as a contraceptive mentality.

The next speaker was Senator Horgan, a co-sponsor of the Bill, who traced the history of the legislation from the 1935 Act and then dealt very effectively with the hypocrisy of the Fianna Fáil Party in their approach to this issue from the first time that a Bill was introduced in this House. It was opposed on First Stage by Fianna Fáil who were the party in Government at that time, led here by Senator Mullins. The Bill was taken suddenly, voted upon and effectively censored. Nevertheless, when the Government Bill for the control of importation of contraceptives was being discussed in the Dáil, the Fianna Fáil spokesmen at that time made precisely the criticisms of that Bill which are catered for in this one, there was criticism of the Government Bill, which is in many respects the same type of approach as in this Bill—because we have borrowed many of the provisions from it—were inadequate, according to the Fianna Fáil spokesmen, because it did not have health board involvement. We have provided that. They said the Government measure was inadequate because it tried to confine contraceptives to married people. We have removed that artificial and unenforceable provision. Yet we see the hypocrisy of Fianna Fáil today who say: this is too important an issue for us to discuss, therefore we will not discuss it, which is a marvellously contradictory attitude. After a brief statement they have decided just to oppose the Bill and not make any contribution either for or against. That is very regrettable.

Senator Browne referred to his "overwhelming inertia" at the prospect of trying to get support for passing family planning legislation through the Oireachtas. I can understand his frustration and consequent inertia, but it is necessary and important to debate the issue and, if possible, have a Bill given its Second Stage today so that at least one House of the Oireachtas in the late seventies can pass in principle the idea of legalising family planning in the country.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald in a very brief but very pertinent contribution made the point that he was strongly in support of changing the law and he could not see what all the fuss was about; if you looked at the issue fairly and squarely why was it taking us so long; how shameful it was that we delayed and were unable to face up to our responsibilities in the matter.

He was followed by another Fine Gael Senator who supports the Bill, Senator Lyons, a member of the National Health Council, who spoke very eloquently about the real problems involved and said that he would favour a change in the law and the legalisation of family planning. The next speaker, Senator West, made a point which was echoed in subsequent contributions. He said the crunch issue is the issue of Church and State. I certainly felt that as I listened to the contributions of Senators Butler, Kilbride and to a lesser extent, Senator Paddy O'Toole.

Mr. Butler

I never mentioned the Church in my contribution whatsoever.

Mrs. Robinson

The Senator did not mention the Church specifically, but he mentioned an attitude towards the concept of life and of family planning which stems from an objective moral attitude which reflects the thinking of the Catholic Church. If that has not been thought through to being an issue of Church and State, then I would suggest that perhaps Senator Butler might think a little more about it.

Senator West then made what I thought to be a very valid comparison. He said we should not equate our situation with that in Britain or still less with that in America. If we want to compare ourselves as like with like, with a similar community, it is with the people of Northern Ireland we should compare ourselves. At a time when contraceptives are legally available there, there is no evidence of a high level of promiscuity there or the breakdown of family life. On the contrary despite all the trouble and heartache in the North there is evidence of a strong family life and tradition.

At that point in the debate the Minister intervened and made an attempt to break what he regarded as a serious and continuing deadlock in the discussion. I should like to deal in some detail with the proposals put forward by the Minister. He began by showing the total anomalies in the situation. Senators on both sides of the debate have conceded that the law, as it stands, is riddled with anomalies and does not stand up to examination. The Minister said:

As I have said, this set of contradictions makes for a completely unsatisfactory situation. It can be handled in one of two ways. Either the Oireachtas corrects these anomalies or else the courts may do so in a piecemeal fashion if various elements of the 1935 Act are contested by different individual citizens and are found to be unconstitutional. It is either a matter for the Legislature to assume its responsibility or you could have a succession of court actions.

Ironically today there is a constitutional court action, in which I am involved as a barrister, challenging not the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935 but the censorship provisions. The Censorship Board banned the family planning booklets last November. Obviously, I do not want to comment on a case which is at hearing in the High Court, but it was perceptive of the Minister to see there was likely to be a succession of court actions if the Legislature failed to assume its responsibilities.

Dr. West

It looks as if there are going to have to be more.

Mrs. Robinson

He went on:

I may be wrong but it is my opinion as of now that the disagreement within and between the parties will prevent any legislalation on this matter passing through the Oireachtas in the immediate future. I do not believe there is any point in pretending otherwise. But if we wish to eliminate the numerous anolomies I listed earlier, we must do two things—we must get all-party consenus on new legislation and we must permit all Members of both Houses to vote in accordance with conscience.

The Minister has been a Member of the Oireachtas for a long time and he knows the tradition and the attitudes of the political parties. That was a very courageous attempt to break a deadlock. It was an attempt to invite the three parties to come together and achieve a consensus. It was an attempt to get them to do what Senator O'Toole and others were talking about. Senators Russell and Boland endorsed it. An initiative was taken today to promote discussion and come forward with an agreed proposal to change the law and allow Deputies to vote as a matter of conscience on it.

When the invitation was issued by the Minister to the chairman of the other two parliamentary parties, the chairman of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party said his group refused and the chairman of the Fine Gael Party said it was not opportune at this time to discuss it. The initiative has not succeeded but it has already had an impact in a different way. It was the Minister for Health and the Leader of the Labour Party who was making a very serious attempt to achieve a political consensus and take it out of the narrow ball game of cheap political and party advantage. It was an effort to try to get a solution which would provide a good framework to regulate the position. The moral authority of that approach remains, because it showed a clear assumption of responsibility and jurisdiction by the Minister for Health which is one of the key aspects of this Family Planning Bill.

Mr. Dolan

He was looking for an escape route.

Mrs. Robinson

He was followed by Senator Martin who expressed disappointment at the lack of realism in the Minister's contribution. He thought this was not really adequate as a response. I hope Senator Martin is right when he thinks we can proceed by way of Private Member's legislation, that there will be support for it, that we can get this Bill through both Houses. I would like to see it and we should try to pursue it.

Professor Quinlan

Get him to join the Labour party.

Mrs. Robinson

I was very much in sympathy with the contributions which followed from Senators Quinn and Boland. They are worth reading, as contributions from young Senators who are going to be involved in a very serious way in the future of Irish politics. They were thoughtful and faced the real issues. They thought of the people who genuinely need help, of people who are not mobile or well educated. These are not people who can either travel or know where to go for advice, or have the services of private doctors. Senator Boland made the point that the Bill before us deeply affects women in their rights and their possibility of living without fear, tension and strain in their family life. It would encourage couples to live in a mature sexual relationship. These two contributions are well worth re-reading and are welcome as part of the debate.

Senator Russell endorsed the Minister's proposal and felt that this would be a very appropriate way of trying to resolve the deadlock. Although he made it clear he would vote against this legislation he would be in favour of an all-party attempt to achieve a framework for change in the law. Senator Harte reiterated the fact that the Labour Party have taken a strong stand on the issue of legalising the availability of contraceptives. In his own personal conviction he is in favour of changing the law but this must not be equated with somebody who does not have strong religious principles and values.

This is a very important point to emphasise. There is no question that people of strong religious convictions and a deep sense of Catholic moral values, can nevertheless accept the separation of Church and State, can accept the proper role of the legislature in the matter and can support this Bill.

The only other woman to contribute to the debate was the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Owens. She came straight to the point in a passage in her contribution when she said:

I should like to talk about what we are really concerned about—and the Tánaiste again used the phrase —a fundamenal human right. It is a right for a woman to control her reproductive capacity; a right for a couple to choose the number they will have in their family. I do not think it is for this Legislature to deny anybody that right.

She went on to give some very harrowing examples of the need to promote and create that right in our society. She was followed by another Labour Senator, Senator Ferris, who made a very courageous contribution. Senator Ferris, like a number of other Senators who took part, represents a rural area and knows the risk he takes in making a contribution to this debate during an election year. Indeed, he referred to that fact. He said at col. 153 of the Official Report for the 9th February, 1977:

The difficulty in speaking on a subject such as this, particularly for a rural representative, is that once one speaks for a change in a law of this nature one possibly will be accused by "the holy Marys" in the country of advocating the widespread use of contraceptives of all types, whether it be the pill or other mechanical devices. It is a pity that those who wish to contribute in an honest manner to this debate must be subjected to this.

It may be a pity that they take that risk, and I think in some areas they certainly are subjected to it, but it is all the more courageous of Senator Ferris to make his contribution and to come out in support of the Bill.

Senator Higgins has made a very forceful contribution in favour of change and a far-reaching assessment of our society and of the values of our society. I will not attempt to summarise his contribution which you heard today. Senator Deasy, another young Senator from a rural area, had the courage to come out and speak on this issue and he too pointed to the fact that he may be misrepresented and that it is close to election time. Senator McAuliffe also made a thoughtful and honest contribution in which he was willing to make it clear that he had changed his approach to some extent, and that he would support this Bill though he might be in favour of amendments on Committee Stage.

I have already dealt with the points raised by Senator Brosnahan, and I have to some extent dealt with the points made against a change in the law by Senators Butler, Kilbride and O'Toole. I would agree with them on one specific point. The important thing is that they said what they felt about it, said it honestly and made their viewpoint known. That is vital so that we can all learn from each other's contributions and know of some of the apprehensions that they have about various types of contraceptives. I would agree with one comment made by Senator Quinlan. It is good and desirable that the World Health Organisation have provided money for a research study in Trinity College of the Billings method. I am strongly in favour of that, and of very close scientific study and monitoring of the medical aspects of artificial contraceptives. That is properly a part of the concern of the Legislature and of the Minister for Health.

I would like to refer to two news items which arose since the House was last debating the matter in February. The first has been referred to, but I would like to put it on the record of the House. It concerns the fact that the Irish Medical Association at their annual meeting in Killarney on 14th April last resolved that a family planning service, excluding proven abortifacients, should be provided for all who wanted it; and the meeting further resolved that the IMA should press the Government to allow family planning services to be provided by the health boards. That reversed a decision which they took at their annual meeting last year.

Professor Quinlan

For the record, by 14 votes to 10 out of 70 present.

Mrs. Robinson

That figure is not accurate.

Dr. West

Senator Quinlan is an expert on statistics.

Mrs. Robinson

Senator O'Toole said it is not the business of doctors —at least I understood this was the point he was making—to start proposing what legislation we should have. I could not disagree with him more. It is the business of the medical profession to make clear statements about the medical factors involved, and if they think that it is necessary and desirable to change the law they should say so loudly and clearly. If they think the health boards should be involved they have a particular expertise, a particular contribution to make. My quarrel with the medical profession is that it has taken them a long time to take on their proper responsibility and to make this sort of contribution. I very much welcome it and I hope it will continue.

Ruairí Quinn

They are not slow to talk about their fees.

Mrs. Robinson

I would like to refer to another item which was reported in The Irish Times on 22nd April, 1977 under the heading “Poll Favours New Family Planning Law” and which stated:

The Council for the Status of Women in a poll of its member organisations, have found an overwhelming majority in favour of changing the law on contraceptives. The Council represents most of the womens organisations in the country, including the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the Irish Housewive's Association, the Widows Association, the AIM group and others. The Council is now calling on the Government, in the name of its 13 member organisations, to make the necessary changes in the law. In a statement, the Council says that it welcomes the recent statement of the Irish Medical Association and the Irish Association of Social Workers on the need for amending the law to allow a comprehensive family planning service. The Council says that its member organisations strongly stressed the importance of the relevant information and expert medical advice on contraception. It is urging the Government to immediately introduce legislation and is particularly worried by the fact that in the present situation there is no proper regulation of the provision of contraceptives. The Council's 30 organisations represent 250,000 women and has never spoken out in favour of family planning services. It has always feared that the issue could be divisive and some member organisations were strongly opposed to new legislation.

The poll, therefore, represents a significant change in opinion.

I think that there is in fact a significant change of opinion in the country. What is depressing is that that change is only filtering gradually into the Houses of the Oireachtas. I agree with those who feel that if it were to be a secret ballot we might have a stronger vote in favour of a change in the law. But I would hope that a majority of Senators—without needing to hide behind any formula or secret ballot—will vote in favour.

I would like to summarise now the basic reasons behind the thinking of the three sponsors of this Bill. First of all, because the right to the availability of contraceptives is a basic human right —identified by the Supreme Court in the McGee case and supported by this country in its external relations by signing the Teheran Declaration. Secondly, because there is a basic right to knowledge to have information and education on the matter and therefore it is necessary to amend the Censorship of Publications Acts—or it will be necessary if these Acts are not dealt with in the cases before the High Court at present. Thirdly, we see the need for health board involvement. There is no doubt that the present position on the availability of contraceptives is totally unacceptable not least because it has a strong element of discrimination against a significient proportion of the people. It is true that the middle classes are able to get them and do avail of the option in so far as they want in conscience to use contraceptives. It is now a class issue in that sense. It is those most in need who find it most difficult to get information, to get adequate medical advice and to get access to contraceptives if they wish to use them. Therefore we must have health board involvement in order to provide that those with medical cards will have a real choice. They must exercise their own conscience and not have anything forced upon them. But equally we must give them a genuine choice in the matter.

Finally we wish to promote and safeguard the basic right of freedom of conscience. Here I would like, very briefly to make an important distinction which was sometimes blurred in this debate. When we were discussing the last Bill, the Family Planning Bill, 1973, I spent a considerable time putting on the record of the House clear statements by different religious denominations calling for a change in the law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives and prohibiting information on methods of family planning.

There is no doubt about their views, and that call has been sustained since then and has become, if anything, more express and more pressing. So, minority religions, and those who do not belong to any Church in this country, feel oppressed by the law. However, that is not the full sense of what we mean when we say we want to promote freedom of conscience. We mean that we want to promote freedom of conscience for all citizens to exercise their individual conscience, whatever their religious beliefs and that includes also the Catholic majority—the right of private individuals' conscience to decide on the methods of family planning, having access to a choice of means.

These are the basic rights which the proposals in the Bill seek to attain.

It is clear that the Bill can be amended, and indeed may very well be dramatically improved on Committee Stage. The proposals in the Bill are more open to amendment than any Government measure. We cannot stop amendments if anybody want to amend the Bill so nobody can get out of supporting this Bill on the grounds that it does not in all its aspects represent his point of view on it, nor, on the other hand, does any Senator who supports this Bill necessarily support every aspect of it, every proposal in it. A Senator who votes for this Bill today is voting in principle for legalising and controlling the availability of contraceptives and for removing censorship provisions which prevent people from informing themselves about contraceptive methods. That is the issue before the House. I hope that it will be an issue on which Senators will be prepared to give a lead to the other House and that we will pass the Second Stage of this Bill.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl 23.

Tá

• Blennerhassett, John.
• Boland, John.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Connolly, Roderic.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Ferris, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Jack.
• Harte, John.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Horgan, John S.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• Martin, Augustine.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mullen, Michael.
• Owens, Evelyn.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Robinson, Mary.
• West, Timothy Trevor.

Níl

• Brosnahan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Daly, Jack.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Quinlan, Patrick Michael.
• Russell, George Edward.
• Ryan, William.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Whyte, Liam.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Robinson and West; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Butler.

Question declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10th May, 1977.