Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Jul 1979

Vol. 92 No. 8

Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Health (Mr. Haughey)

This Bill comes to Seanad Éireann after an exceptionally long and detailed debate in the Dáil. Members of the House will be aware of the form of that protracted discussion and the range of views expressed. I think, however, it may be helpful if, at the outset, I outline for this House certain principles which underly the provisions of the Bill and which, I suggest to the Seanad, give it a coherent structure.

When the Government decided that family planning legislation should be enacted and that it should be sponsored by the Minister for Health, I arranged to consult a wide range of people and organisations who would, I felt, have views on the form and content of an appropriate Bill. These consultations were lengthy, detailed and constructive. They embraced a very broad spectrum of views. From them there emerged clearly a general view that legislation was needed to provide a comprehensive family planning service and that such a service should be provided in the context of family medicine, involving the general practitioner as part of primary medical care for the population as a whole.

The family doctor is the person who knows most about the health of the ordinary family and is best fitted to advise in a situation where fundamental decisions are being taken about matters governing the health and welfare of the family unit. I was satisfied, following on my round of intensive consultations, that it was desirable to place the responsibility for advice and guidance on family planning in the main on the general medical practitioner who occupies a special position in relation to the family, who knows all the circumstances, who understands the many different medical, social and psychological factors which may have a bearing on the very intimate, personal decision of the husband and wife about their family. I believe my approach, if not inevitable, was certainly the one most appropriate to the provision of a family planning service for the people of this country.

The second point that emerged from the consultation was that there was widespread agreement that artificial contraceptives should not be available on an unrestricted basis. With very limited exceptions, all those bodies which I consulted felt that it was desirable that in legalising the sale of contraceptives here for the first time, action should be taken to ensure that contraceptives would not be available on an uncontrolled basis to the entire population without regard to age or circumstance.

I accepted the reality of this universally held viewpoint, that it is neither necessary nor desirable that artificial contraceptives should be widely available without any restriction on the place or manner of their sale. Accordingly, the legislation is based firmly on this principle.

These two decisions are given effect to in section 4 of the Bill. This section, which deals with the sale of contraceptives, provides that they may be sold only by a pharmaceutical chemist to a person named in a prescription or authorisation of a registered medical practitioner. The practitioner issuing such prescription or authorisation must be satisfied that the contraceptives are sought bona fide for the purpose of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances.

This section, involving the medical practitioner in the issuing of a prescription or authorisation, and restricting to pharmacists the right to sell contraceptives, is supported by section 5 which, apart from an exception relating to persons entering the State, restricts the importation of contraceptives to persons licensed by the Minister to import specified quantities of specified contraceptives. These two sections, 4 and 5, are the core of the Bill and they have attracted considerable attention, both inside the Dáil and outside it, from people whose views on the availability of artificial contraceptives are widely different. I consider, however, that the proposals which are contained in this Bill are broadly acceptable to the majority of people who recognise that we have a practical problem to resolve and who want to see it resolved in a practical way as quickly as possible.

There are some other sections of the Bill to which I should like to refer briefly. Section 1 contains the definitions for the purposes of the Bill. In connection with the definition of family planning services, I should like to make it clear that this phrase, where it is used throughout the Bill, means the provision of information, instruction, advice or consultation but does not include the provision of artificial contraceptives. The sale and supply of contraceptives are dealt with in section 4 and are subject to the conditions which I have already outlined.

Section 2 imposes on the Minister of the day the obligation to secure the orderly organisation of family planning services and to provide a comprehensive natural family planning service. Section 3 provides that the Minister may, by regulations, provide for a health board making available a family planning service and, if he is satisfied that there is a need for it and that it is in the public interest for him to do so, to give a licence to a person other than a health board to make available a family planning service. Family planning services which do not relate to artificial contraceptives may continue to be provided without reference to ministerial regulation.

Section 7 of the Bill provides for control of the advertising of contraception or contraceptives. In the course of my consultations with the many interests concerned, there was unanimity of opinion that it was undesirable that there should be widespread advertising of contraceptives and I have indicated elsewhere that it is my intention that the regulations which will be made under this section will confine the advertising of contraceptives generally to persons such as doctors, nurses and others involved in the provision of family planning services.

I should like to make it clear in relation to section 9, that this section has been included in the Bill because it was doubtful whether, without it, I could assist research into methods of family planning not involving the use of contraceptives. There are a number of organisations within the country at present who are engaged in a study of these methods and their research is of great interest and practical importance to a wide sector of married persons. I believe they should, accordingly, be assisted in their work and this section makes it clear that it will be in order to make public funds available for research into natural family planning.

Since the matter has been raised elsewhere, I think it well to make clear that the absence in this section of a reference to research into any other forms of contraceptives does not preclude assistance for this. The Minister for Health already has powers which would make it possible to assist, through the Medical Research Council or the Medico Social Research Board, research into other methods of contraception.

Section 10 makes it clear that nothing in the Act shall be construed as authorising the procuring of abortion or the administering of drugs or the use of instruments to procure abortion or the sale of abortifacients. The principle here expressed, I should mention, was endorsed on all sides in the Dáil. It is fair to say that it represents the overwhelming body of public opinion in this country. It is important, in dealing in this Bill with family planning and contraceptives, to restate, clarify and strengthen the law prohibiting abortion.

Section 11 makes it clear that nothing in the Act shall be construed as obliging any person to take part in the provision of a family planning service or to give prescriptions or authorisations or to be involved in the sale and importation, manufacture, advertising or display of contraceptives. This section is needed to recognise the conscientious objections of many to being involved in certain aspects of family planning and to the sale of contraceptives.

Section 14 of the Act contains the penalties for those guilty of offences under it. As we are now, for the first time, legalising the sale of contraceptives, it is important that the conditions under which contraceptives may be sold should be complied with. There are powerful commercial interests active in this field and the penalties stipulated are merely to ensure compliance with the new Act. There is, however, provision for minor offences to be tried summarily in District Courts.

So much for the provisions of this Bill. Its introduction was, of course, made necessary by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the McGee case in 1973. That judgment, given in the context of the family provisions of the Constitution, made it clear that married couples had a right to make their own decisions about the size of their families and that the implementation of these decisions could not be frustrated by legislation. Section 17 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, was thus declared unconstitutional and, since then, the importation of contraceptives, otherwise than for sale, has not been prohibited. Legislation to deal with this situation was clearly necessary.

Furthermore, the absence of a readily available system of advice and consultation in relation to family planning and reasonable access to the means of implementing decisions in relation to family size, have been a feature of the general health services available in this country. This legislation will, for the first time, seek to remedy that deficiency and to provide a legislative basis for the provision of a satisfactory family planning service. The service will provide access to advice and information about all methods of family planning and, for those who wish to use artificial contraceptives, a reasonable method of access to such contraceptives. I hope that, with the passage of this legislation, we will both remedy a defect in our existing health services and effectively meet the requirements of the Constitution.

Senators have their own views about family planning and artificial contraceptives. I respect those views but I ask each individual Senator to take an overall view of the situation, of the diversity of views held throughout the community on this emotive matter, of the compelling need for the Legislature to deal with the issue in a way that will win general acceptance from the public.

In the Dáil, the views held at both extremes were cogently expressed. To some, the legislation is unnecessary and irksome; to others, it is inadequate. There is no conceivable legislation which would be acceptable to both these groups. I accept that their views are genuinely held but I do not think we should look for guidance to the extremists on this highly controversial matter. I have, therefore, sought the middle ground. I have tried to put forward legislation which would meet the requirements of the constitutional situation and, at the same time, be broadly acceptable to the majority of reasonable people who wish to see this problem, which has been far too long with us, resolved. This Bill contains what I regard as such a solution. It is one which has been endorsed by a large majority of Dáil Deputies. I hope that it will similarly recommend itself to the Members of Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I must apologise to the House in so far as I am suffering from an ailment, which is non-venereal in origin, which has affected my vocal cords. My usual demented emphasis will therefore be absent from what I have to say. It may also, alas, mean that I will be slower in saying it.

I have analysed this Bill with as much objectivity from a professional point of view as it was possible for me to do so with total disregard for any party political consequence, as will be evident from what I will say. To summarise the result of my analysis and then to develop the reasons for the conclusions I have reached, I would say that the Bill, if enacted, will make available contraceptives to any person in Ireland who seeks them whether married or not. This is indubitably and inescapably the meaning of certain sections of the Bill. The pretence is otherwise. The pretence is that there is to be a control which will effectively prevent or restrict this availability.

Secondly, I have concluded that a right which the Supreme Court held by majority decision was vested in the parents of the family jointly is, by virtue of this Bill, to be vested as to its exercise in one of the parents in this regard and, indeed, in some cases, without the knowledge of the other. Thirdly, I have concluded that the right of marital privacy which was found to exist by the Supreme Court is, in fact, infringed by the provisions of this Bill. Fourthly, I have concluded that, despite the fact that the law has never, so far as I know, attached criminal sanctions to sexual intercourse, save in the case of immaturity, there is not in the provisions of this Bill any recognition of the criminal sanctions which at present exist with regard to premature immature sexual intercourse.

Fifthly, I have concluded that there is an interference of a questionable character in the parental control of families and in their authority to determine the moral education of their children which is to be found in Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution. I have enumerated 23 offences in this Bill for which people can be prosecuted, 23 offences to be treated, I think, uniquely in pari materia, that is to say, each offence as if it were as grave as the other. I have concluded, seventhly, inescapably this legislation is discriminatory in favour of one ethos, in favour of one set of values against those who bona fide belong to another ethos or hold another set of values.

This nation has a big choice to make with regard to this whole matter: to go one route which in its ultimate would seem to involve the people's reversal of the Supreme Court finding in the McGee case, or the other route of crucial openness, and frank and open and honest selection of the course which is the alternative with regard to contraceptives. I will not conceal from the House my own view as to what ought to be in the legislation, but I must say in advance of expression of what that view is that I have reached it after much anxious consideration with some diffidence and with recognition that the chosen course will have risks, will have a cost, will involve certain losses.

I now take up the points I have sum-marised in the foregoing words. The first is that due to the construction of the Bill inescapably contraceptives are now to be available for sale at chemists' shops in every part of this State to any person who seeks—who seeks I repeat—them from a doctor. I refer to in particular section 4 of the Bill. Section 4 (2) authorises a registered medical practitioner to give "a prescription or authorisation for a contraceptive to a person if he is satisfied that the person is seeking the contraceptive, bona fide, for family planning purposes....”

A family planning service by definition means "a service for the provision of information, instruction, advice or consultation in relation to any one or more of the following: (a) family planning, (b) contraception"—which is presumably the prevention of conception by contraceptives—and "(c) contraceptives." A contraceptive is defined as "any appliance, instrument, drug, preparation or thing designed, prepared or intended to prevent pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse between human beings." Any person may seek the contraceptive. All the doctor is required to do is to exercise his discretion bona fide and he is singularly free from any possibility of prosecution for an offence for family planning purposes. By virtue of section 2, a family planning service must include contraception even if it is only by the implication of subsection (2) (b) which reads: “provide a comprehensive natural family planning service, that is to say, a comprehensive service for the provision of information, instruction, advice and consultation in relation to methods of family planning that do not involve the use of contraceptives.”

Let us leave open the question as to whether or not what I say is the inescapable construction of this Bill, is the right course for this Legislature to follow or for this people to choose. Senators will note in particular that in section 4 (2) there is absolutely no reference to marriage or to marital condition. They will further notice with regard to the control of the importation of contraceptives that the restriction on importation merely requires the traveller to establish that they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State, and their quantity is not such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use. More about that in due course. The particular point is that there is no obligation whatever on the importer, the traveller, to establish whether or not he is married. What I have said, looked at with detachment by any lawyer, must be the conclusion arrived at as to the meaning of this Bill.

There are various overtones, the reference to family, the incorporation of "family planning" in the title of the Bill and in the Long Title, the gesture I should have thought with regard to the provision of grants for research, the savings in relation to abortion. There is no attempt to face up to whatever may be involved in the question of what is or what is not an abortifacient. As far as I can see the peculiarly lengthy number of offences relates only to the sale, importation and manufacture of contraceptives. There are the special provisions with regard to family planning clinics and what is called the natural method. I contend that what this Bill really means is, by these devices and with this language, attempted to be concealed from the people.

I am not such a fool as to think that sometimes it is not judicious to muffle political action to secure what may be determined to be the desired effect, to wrap it up and release it like a loud sounding Christmas cracker, because the matter would not go through without otherwise waking up the neighbourhood to what was, in fact, being decided when what was being decided was beneficial in effect. The decisions here are of such a kind—not merely because they relate to sexual things—that they should not be muffled. Everybody should know what the decision is and what is likely to be, in my view, inescapably found to be the meaning of what we are proposing to enact.

The basis of the McGee case was that the decision of the pair to use the contraceptive was a joint one. Mr. Justice Walsh in his judgment said it was a matter particularly within the joint decision of the husband and wife and one into which the State cannot intrude unless the intrusion can be justified by the exigencies of the common good.

It can be argued, with considerable force, that this Bill, if enacted, will amount to legislative contempt of a right vested in both by attempting to vest it in one or other of the two. Exigencies of the common good entitle an intrusion to such a right. I do not think, if this represents such an intrusion—this point arises again in another context—that the exigencies have been demonstrated. I should like to refer again to section 4 (2) which gives the discretionary power to the doctor to prescribe or authorise for a person, without any evidence or any requirement that that person's spouse should be consulted or have agreed.

I draw the attention of the House to the matter of importation. Whatever one's view with regard to this—I shall express my view with regard to it in due course—I should like to draw Members' attention to the fact that the requirement in section 5 (1) (a) is that "they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State and their quantity is not such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use". With whom or other is left open.

My next point concerns the right of marital privacy. One of the last things I would like to do would be to criticise any one of the four eminent judges who gave their finding with regard to this. All I have a right to do here is reserve my view on the jurisprudence which led them to the conclusions which they reached. What is significant for our purpose is that however they were led there they established as a right the right of marital privacy, a right which can only be intruded into in accordance with or because of the exigencies of the common good. I do not know how a right which is a right of privacy can be regarded as preserved when, if a method of contraception other than that which is described as natural is the bona fide choice of the pair—let it be noted that it was just such a choice in the McGee case that led to the finding of the right of marital privacy—to obtain these contraceptives, whether they are of a medical or a non-medical kind, one can only do so after discussion with a medical practitioner. How else can the medical practitioner become satisfied—that is the word used in the subsection? Furthermore, even after the medical practitioner is satisfied and decides to issue the prescription or the authorisation, that prescription or authorisation must bear an indication that it was sought for the purposes of section 5 of the Health (Family Planning) Act. That must then be presented to the chemist, or his agent—of any age, incidentally.

If there is a right of marital privacy which this Legislature must respect in the legislation it enacts how do the exigencies of the common good justify an intrusion on this right? According to the Oxford English Dictionary“exigencies” mean “circumstances stringently required, pressingly needed or demanded”. That was what Mr. Justice Walsh said in his judgment but, perhaps, the language of the Preamble to the Constitution might be thought to go even further because that Preamble, whatever one may think about the Preamble, contains some key words of very considerable importance, referring to the people's resolve and so on. Those words are: “seeking to promote the common good”. Members will note that it is only the exigencies, the stringencies, the special needs, the pressing circumstances of the common good which, as expressed by Mr. Justice Walsh, would justify an intrusion into this right of privacy. However, the language of the Preamble puts it slightly differently, “seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity”.

If marital privacy is a right in justice, as the court has found, the common good, if the language of the Preamble is correct according to my understanding of it, cannot be sought at the expense of not observing duly those rights which are held in justice. It is the old concept that justice must be done though the sky falls. Incidentally, on telling one's doctor, on telling a chemist, on telling the Revenue Commissioners and on telling everybody that under this Act one has to tell that one wants a handful of whatever it may be, reminds me of a story which I am sure is well known to many Members and is one of the few things that remain in my mind from lectures I got years ago. It is the story of Labhraí Loinsigh who had ass's ears and had to slaughter every barber who made this discovery. Finally, he found a barber whom he compassionately spared but the barber told one rush, that rush told another rush and all the rushes told each other and all the fields shouted it and, very quickly, what was private between him and the barber became public.

Professor Murphy

Point taken.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Point taken by one Senator anyway and I am grateful for that. I want to draw attention to the fact that in recognition of the limited function of law to enforce public order, secure what is socially good, or maintain standards of peace and unity, it has not ever, so far as I know, attached criminal sanctions to free congress between a male and female who have attained sexual maturity. There have been interventions, theoretically justifiable, but depending on circumstances as to the wisdom of the intervention, where the congress in question had such a public aspect as the operation of brothels or the carrying on of the trade of prostitution. Otherwise, there being absent this public element in only one type of case has the law intervened. Much though all Christendom in its formal teaching and recommended practice frowned on fornication criminal sanctions were not attached to fornication.

There have been interventions by the law, interventions caused by a desire to preserve the immature. Indeed, to preserve the immature even in cases where there was biological maturity but not full development of the psyche. The common law was that one could not have, without being in danger of criminal consequences, intercourse with a girl under 12 or could a boy engage in like operations if he was under 14. What is relevant for our part is the present law under which it is a felony to have carnal knowledge—using old lawyer's language—with a female under 15, a misdemeanour to have carnal knowledge if the female is between 15 and 17.

Before I develop that point any further I should like to say that I believe that the increased knowledge of psychological and medical science generally in regard to certain types of diseases, not necessarily venereal, provides strong reinforcement for the view embodied in this law though that knowledge should have a very real examination as to the age in question where one of the established facts is the decline in the rapidity with which the age of menstruation is reached. What is the position with regard to this felony, or misdemeanour, of the registered medical practitioner who prescribes a contraceptive for a female under 15 years? The ingredient of the offence—I invite specialists in this field to correct me if I am wrong—is the carnal knowledge and the age. Those facts being proved then the accused is guilty of the offence.

If I am correct in my view, what is the position of the registered medical practitioner who equips the female of 15 years to engage or to be facilitated in the matter of imparting the carnal knowledge? It is possible that in the case of the female under 15, the registered medical practitioner, or the clinic, might be accessories before the fact of the felony with all the other horrible consequences for them of being such assessories, or, in the case of the girl between 15 and 17 years, being capable of being charged as principals in the misdemeanour. It is hardly to be thought that it would be open to the doctor to claim that he was making a sort of god-father's wedding present not to be used until after the photographs were taken as the happy pair emerge from the church. It would have to be inferred that if these fittings were made that they were intended for use.

Whatever may be thought of the criminal aspect and what that ought to be, and whatever it may be thought is the position of the doctor in the first case, or the clinic in the other, it is surely right that if it is desired to maintain that law in its existing terms the attention of those people should be drawn to other legislation which contains such sanctions.

Members of this House have not sought to establish the facts, whatever they may be, with regard to teenage sexual activity. Let us assume that it is desired to maintain the present law. Surely the attention of the doctors, no doubt a learned lot who hardly carry the criminal law in their pockets, should be drawn to other legislation which contains such sanctions? Surely a Bill which we are proposing to enact which casts such a discretion on them should at least draw their attention to the age of the female seeking the contraceptive?

It is of some significance to note that this is not a matter, as the Bill now stands, that the Minister can put right. Section 4, unlike a lot of other sections, does not give any power to the Minister to make regulations. We either have it in the form it is in the Bill now, or we amend it or we give the Minister the power to make regulations if we think that is the right thing to do. Incidentally, it is an odd situation, if my reading of this is correct, that the Bill proposes to give to strangers the power to authorise, prescribe or facilitate what at the moment is not in the power of the parents, jointly, or otherwise, unless the position is that being under 21 and not under 16 they are consenting to the marriage of the female, or male, in question, but female is the criminal matter here. If one is under 16, even with their consent the marriage is not valid unless the President of the High Court, or some judge authorised by him, approves. That is the law. It seems strange that the law should create these crimes, give no permission to parents to prevent them from being crimes and yet we enact legislation which would facilitate their committal. There is the whole question of parental control. In a speech one cannot fully communicate how one sees the whole thing. One says what one selects and seeks to give as balanced a view as one can. I focus on this question without too much of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand".

In the McGee case, on which this right is founded, there is repeated emphasis on the authority in the family being vested in the parents. In Article 41.1.2 of the Constitution the State guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority. In Article 42.1 the State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right of parents to provide according to their means for the religious, moral intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

In sections 1, 2 and 3 there is reference to the provision of information, instruction, advice and consultation. I would be very interested to hear from some Senator how one can provide information, give instruction, offer advice and make oneself available for consultation on a matter where knowledge is sought from one as an expert in the field without being an educator. How can this be provided under State auspices or by State institutions without the provision of education or being a breach of the inalienable right and a subtraction of that authority in the parents that the State has guaranteed to protect, where the Bill does not provide that the parents should be informed the child is receiving the education under State auspices with State blessing, permission or whatever word one likes to use?

This is not a question of the unhappy corruption of good apples by bad apples that arises through ordinary social contact, that is to say, according to the view that parents may have about apples —perhaps bananas would be a better example. Some people like them yellow and some people like them black. All too significantly I like them black. The objective view of the banana determines the quality of the banana in question. This is not a question of the consequences of ordinary social contact. This is not a cause of the kind of education which Newman said was the best part of the university—your education from your fellow students, if that is your age. We are not talking about that. It is not caused by a responsible parental decision to seek to rear children in a judiciously open manner in the knowledge that virtue is not cloistered. To quote Shakespeare: "Wholesome berries thrive and ripen best neighboured by fruit of baser quality".

Having regard to my own choice in this matter, the question of what the parents rights are may be crucial. My very strong bent of mind is that that authority of the parents with regard to this choice of education should not wisely be undermined. On the question of the age appropriate to attach criminal sanction, it is clear that all the facts of modern knowledge and of the existing Irish situation should be dragged out to the extent that they can be.

There are four offences under section 3, five under section 4, three under section 5, two under section 6, five under section 7, four under section 8 and my tot is 23 without aid of a computer, or anybody's counterchecking. As has been pointed out, the offence is of varying gravity. We can deal with that on Committee Stage. The offence merits the same penalty and the same sentence as arises with wife battering or drunken driving. This is either for real, in which case we should be extremely apprehensive of it, or it is all cod, in which case we should throw the cod away.

I have a much more important point to develop. This Bill can be demonstrated as not treating all citizens equally and as not treating the consciences of people of different views with equal respect. When we begin to disrespect other people's consciences we should begin to question our own. I would argue that tolerance is a high virtue and freedom a most important value. As Mary Redmond put it, the freedom which is the most valuable is the freedom yourself to discern between good and bad and do one or the other. It is wrong for the State to legislate in a way in which it appears to be determined in its legislation by the particular formulations at this time of the Church of the majority of the people of this State. It is not to say, because it is not a matter appropriate for this Assembly, that the views of that institution so ancient and so experienced, to which the Irish people even on the secular plane owe a great deal, should be ignored. It is simply to say that it is our conscientious duty to act as legislators. That is the point at which conscience comes into this. It would be an intolerable nonsense for any Irishman who is not subject in his religious or moral life to any obedience to that authority or subject to any sense of loyalty to it or for members of that Church which makes the profound claims that it does, which I accept and according to which, more by falls than by successful walks, I adhere—it would be contradictory if, as a member of that Church and forgetting about legislation, I felt called on to confirm something that I thought was nonsense. I do not do so on this matter because, on that final issue, intellectually I am open. What I am concerned with is that it is wrong for us as a State and it is a breach of justice by us to have a legislation which describes one method of family planning as natural and, by implication, describes every other method as unnatural.

There are a number of sections in this. There is one thrown in, the authorisation for research. I beg leave to differ with the Minister that there is the slightest necessity to have a section providing for special authorisation for the granting of research in relation to that matter. There is no evidence that the bishops of that Church, the only persons with appropriate institutional authority, have in any way invited this legislation or its particular expression. If they did and if I got it wrong, it will be my conscientious duty to say so. There is a long and good Irish tradition on that matter where our practice preceded the development of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to tolerance, democracy and respect for justice.

Tolerance is not merely a virtue; it is a virtue which comes very close to Christianity and it may be thought, despite all the ambiguities of history, owes a great deal to Christianity. Its public demonstration is required here. Section 3(2) provides for persons other than a health board to provide a natural family planning service, without the Minister's consent, without being subject to any ministerial regulation, with no requirement as to the general direction and supervision of a doctor, all of which are required where the other methods are involved. What he does if he is faced with the problem that arises in relation to a "do-the-girls-ball" kind of situation, I do not know. He ought to have power to regulate. In the other case where contraception is involved requirement for ministerial consent cannot be given unless the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give it and that the service is reasonably required to meet a particular need. It is subject to both a ministerial regulation and the supervision of a doctor.

With regard to family planning clinics, the debate on all sides has been full of a curious combination of both conviction, passionate intensity——

Mrs. Robinson

And humour.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

It sounds like somebody who is hoping to get reelected by everybody the next time. I have sympathy with both sides because at any given moment during the course of this I was for locking everybody up whether on one side or the other. In other words, I went the whole range of positions with regard to this. I know a number of people who work in family planning clinics and I have the greatest respect for them. I have absolutely nothing against any of them. They are subject to a lot of abuse. I note that all the information that seems to be available to us on this subject has come from the work that they have done. One sobering fact was given to me in the course of the last week. When we talk about Christianity, Christ was not rejecting the sin but his message was purity of heart. He condemned the others because they had already lusted after the "her" in their hearts. At present, 4,000 smear tests per year are submitted by the family planning clinic to St. Luke's Hospital with the highest detection rate of early cervicular cancer. I do not know what we are doing if we are approaching that fact in our legislation without discerning where we are going or with contempt for the activity of those who have lead to this.

In Dr. Eimer Philbin Bowman's published contribution to Bio-social Science 1977—sorry I should have clarified that, everyone thinks I am educated, which is frightfully embarrassing from time to time——

Dr. Martin

Is that the Cervicular Society?

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

No. It is stated:

In 1975 both clinics between them received a total of 22,940 patient visits; 7,319 of these were new patients. A comparison of the 1975 Annual Report with those of the preceding 4 years (Irish Family Planning Association, 1971-75) shows that one of the most notable changes in the patient characteristics over this period was in the marital status of those visiting the clinic for the first time: in 1971, 25% of first attenders at the clinic on the south side of the city were unmarried as were 10% of those attending the clinic on the north side; by 1975 these percentages had risen to 48% and 30% respectively.

It is obvious that these statistics show a bias in this matter from the nature of the service being rendered but the question must be asked: to what extent in this area supply creates a demand? To what extent is a conscience affected by other people's activities, not merely our laws but our songs and those that our young listen to and look for and then get? The figures must be taken account of and indeed if it was possible to update these figures they should be under our consideration. They affect the consensual basis for effective law.

There is a choice before the people. The choice is between closing the doors to the extent that we can, battening down the hatches, saying how horrible this world is, let us chuck it off, let us stop it encroaching on us, let us withdraw, our values are so much to be cherished—and indeed they are—that they need laws of the most severe character openly enacted to protect them. A sort of modern Catholic version of what Maryland became when it ceased to be Catholic and became Calvinist. That is one course but is it the course of prudence, one of the virtues referred to in the Preamble which preeminently involves an assessment of the facts as they are now and as they are likely to be in the time that lies before us, an assessment one makes having regard to what has been the experience up to the time one makes one's judgment?

No matter how highly you hold the virtue of chastity, how desirable purity of life is in all its aspects, no matter how hostile you are to a civilisation which must be among the first, since man began to live in a civilised way, which contains no repeated moral message to the members of that civilisation, is it prudent to think that life need not change? What messages do we get from the television programmes that beam into our houses but, which, as Damon Runyan says, "git the money"? If you want to be surrounded in your last days by your nearest and your dearest, the really important thing is the materialistic. Can anyone seriously believe that, with the equivalent of fertility dances going on in this screen, our people are not going to respond, not going to be affected? What is the use of involving ourselves in erudite speculation as to the relationship between contraception and abortion in another country and as to whether the increase of one increases the other, when there is a common factor which is not under our control at all, which is increasing both of them? Who can say in his heart that it should be a matter of our imposition that the girl who becomes pregnant has to choose to become pregnant out of wedlock and then be in wedlock with the emphasis on the "lock", or produce an illegitimate child, or go out and abort—an action which probably revolts her heart and deeply upsets her nature, independent of the Christian faith which in truth inspires her and to which she wishes to adhere—that we should impose these choices as the alternative to her free choice of abstinence or contraception?

It is my view—but, of course, it does not have to be anyone else's—that we act with courage and we only hedge in freedom to the extent required for public order and peace; that however we respect the rights of parents and encourage them by our messages that there is no substitute in our actions for their duties and that we tell all the Christian Churches, "We treat you all equally", there are Christian Churches who do not think that a fertility thermometer is any different, in terms of its naturalness, from the various other methods which are described as unnatural and by our action we force a greater sense of responsibility on our people, that we respect their dignity and we encourage their responsibility. Not merely is freedom a virtue—and now I end—but it actually suits pragmatically the Irish people. They have sensed liberation in the past when they got out of Ireland. They should have a sense of freedom encouraged in Ireland and be encouraged responsibly to consider life in all its proper meanings and to view, with great respect, the insight, the teachings of the Christian Churches, which have come closer and closer together as embodying a great deal of human wisdom, apart from the peculiar revelation they all stand to communicate. Of course there is risk in this, but there was risk in creation; there was risk in the creation of the human being, free to reject.

I have faith in the future, as a Christian, because I believe a proper and reasonable credo re-statement of that Christian position is that the ultimate future is God. On that basis I act that freedom is so to be cherished, that reality is benignant, and now I let the benignant reality of my silence greet you.

Mrs. Honan

I welcome this Bill and the great courage of the Minister. In 1979, the year of the child, we in this House must have a positive attitude towards family-making, being aware at all times of the possible bad effects of legislation regarding contraceptives on the future children of this great nation, and must provide such social aids as this Bill is trying to do. It would be good for the people of this House to remember that.

The Bill deals with a very private, personal subject—something, indeed, that I was asked about after my election to this House. I said that I would have to think about it and the interviewer said, "But you are elected now; you should not be thinking, you should know the answer". I gave the wrong answer and he said, "No legislation is bad legislation". There has been a lot said by so few—heated and extreme, might I say. No matter what Bill the Minister brings in here, or to the other House, it would not suit all of us. This is the ideal way of dealing with the many extreme views. The people in this House know well that something has to be done and the Minister is facing up to that situation. I do not know Dublin very well but I am speaking, and I can speak, for the rest of the country. They know what they want and they want some control; this is what the Minister is doing. He has given us a practical solution, hoping for the support of the mature people of this country. So far, he has not got that support, only a fair bit of lashing. It was an ideal time for that; we were facing elections. "Hammer Fianna Fáil and hammer any legislation they might be trying to put through the House so that they may lose seats". They succeeded in doing it, but I have been a long time in the party and I hope I will be for nearly as long again. The few defeats and the few seats we lost, we will regain, no worry.

There is only one solution, and that is some ordered measure; I believe this Bill meets that need. It puts family planning firmly in the field of health, where it belongs. Remember, it is a Health Bill, not an Environment Bill, not an Education Bill. It is a Health Bill, which is where it belongs. It is a pity that some of the people in the other House did not remember that when they were rampaging around the place. We as legislators have a responsibility to give a lead in law and I hope that, regardless of all the criticism, we will do this. This is not the first time that Fianna Fáil gave the lead when it was needed and they were thrashed. We now do it again and we will carry this Bill through this House, please God.

I just ask one question, "Why so much noise and writing and talking about a Bill, when the pill has been going around for years and there is no talk about it?" Indeed, ask some doctors who know the effects of the pill, if you have not talked to them, as I have gone to the trouble of talking to them. Just ask them, and then wonder why is there such excitement about what the Minister is trying to do.

I found no bashing at doors. I headed the poll as a Fianna Fáil candidate, and it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who was bringing in this Bill. I saw recently letters saying that if the Chief, the late Eamon de Valera, were here today he would not let this Bill go through the House. Let me put it on record that I had the honour of being a close friend of the Chief, and I say that he would have put this Bill through the House. There may be people on my right and my left saying, "Oh, she had to bring it in" but the Chief would see that control had to be brought in and where he was concerned, it was Ireland and its people first and always. I think that ideal is still uppermost in the Minister's mind.

It is very easy to speak on a Bill that has no backlash. This Bill has had backlash and this is the day to stand up and be counted. I made it quite clear from the beginning that I was going to support it. I have spent nine days in hospital and even if I had to come here on a stretcher I would be here to say what I feel about this Bill. I repeat that the Minister is doing his own thing for this country in his own fashion and not copying our neighbours, or even our EEC colleagues. Perhaps, if we did likewise in other departments, suited the Irish nation and were not led by the ear, or by the nose, copying everybody, we might be better off in other fields as well as in health.

I congratulate the Minister and I welcome and support this Bill here today.

Mrs. Robinson

The Minister made an unusual plea for this Bill, when he introduced it last February in the other House. He said that: "This Bill seeks to provide an Irish solution to an Irish problem". My first comment would be that they are hardly the words of a Minister who is taking a courageous stand; who is grasping nettles; who is really facing up to a problem and introducing a genuine reform. My second comment is that the reality is that we already have an Irish solution to an Irish problem; that has evolved over the period since the enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1935. Prior to that, contrary to what the Minister said in his opening speech, the sale of contraceptives was not prohibited, was not a matter of any criminal sanction. For a number of years after the establishment of the Free State, it was not a criminal offence to sell contraceptives. Then the relevant section of the 1935 Act was introduced and we have since achieved an Irish solution to an Irish problem. This is not, by any manner of means, a perfect solution and is full of anomalies, but this is the kind of situation that results when legislation does not reflect the social, moral or political values of the community.

I would say about this Bill that it is not an Irish solution to an Irish problem, but rather a retrograde step taking us back into an era of prohibition, of excessive regulation and, ultimately, into an era of hypocrisy, when the law is not enforced to its full because it does not, in fact, reflect either a common-sense or an acceptable solution to the problem. The Minister is not taking a courageous stand; he is not advancing the cause of the family in Ireland and he certainly is not meeting the many criticisms either of the present situation or of the lack of proper legislative initiative.

The reality is that we already have an Irish solution to an Irish problem because of the anomalies in the present situaton, in particular the anomaly that the pill is not prescribed as a contraceptive but is referred to and prescribed as a cycle regulator. You therefore have tens of thousands of Irish women, many of them Catholic, who have this strange Irish disease of the cycle regulation problem, a phenomenon which must have something to do with our weather. This allows a very substantial inroad into what appears to be the letter of the law, and there are other inroads, such as the fact that although there is a prohibition on sale, there is no prohibition on supply, or on distribution of contraceptives, which allows a certain level of access to contraceptives under the present system. Since the McGee case, to which I will return later, there is also legal importation for private use. Again, there is no control over the quantity being imported. We have the establishment of the family planning clinics and the service provided by the students' unions, a situation which has evolved, in the absence of a successful attempt by the Legislature to provide the necessary measures.

We do not agree on the kind of family planning service that ought to be provided for this country. What is required after all this time is that we do define clearly what we want to provide and then seek to provide it in the legislation.

I would agree with a great deal of the meticulous analysis carried out by Senator Alexis FitzGerald and I look forward to reading his contribution to this debate. I agree with him that it is strange and wonderful, in 1979, to see a Bill introduced into this House, called the Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978, which contains, in his estimation, 23 separate offences—I think that is an under-estimate; you can refine down some of the offences and get more than 23. It also contains six sections which do not tell us very much about what they mean. These are the six sections where the Minister can make regulations; we do not know the scope of these regulations. It is very difficult, indeed, to have a realistic appreciation of what this Bill is all about because it gives such wide and vague power to the Minister to introduce regulations.

I thought my analytical powers were diminishing to some extent when I had great difficulty in trying to ascertain precisely what this Bill meant and precisely what the different sections were about. I was greatly heartened by the fact that a colleague, another lawyer, had similar difficulty. The colleague is Alan Shatter, who is an expert in family law and has written a book on family law in Ireland. He was attempting a legal analysis of this Family Planning Bill from the position of somebody with expertise in this general area. He found that he just could not do it and ended up publishing a book called Family Planning, Irish Style which ridicules this Bill from beginning to end. I recommend this book to Senators and hope that they will have the opportunity of reading it before we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill. It is worth noting that a lawyer, who sits down to do a serious task, ends up writing a skit and pointing out that the Bill, on the face of it, has so much vagueness in its language as to be unintelligible. It talks about “bona fide” without defining it and about “family planning” without defining it, but a more important matter is the very wide and indiscriminate power of the Minister to make regulations relating to the operation of six sections out of a total of 17, some of which are purely technical sections, and this makes it extremely difficult for the Houses of the Oireachtas to understand the real scope of the Bill. I shall deal later with these six sections, one by one.

We have a situation where we are forced to look at this Bill and ask ourselves, as Senator FitzGerald did, is it for real or is it all cod? I would echo his question and I hope the Minister will give us some insight into his attitude towards it. Is it for real? Are we genuinely going to have the network of offences, the network of regulations, the effect on bodies like the family planning clinics, the role of the doctors as the moral arbiters of the country? Are we going to find out what is meant by bona fide family planning and the effect on young people and couples generally in this country, or are we to take it all with a grain of salt? There was a manifesto commitment by Fianna Fáil, somebody had to meet this commitment and it had to be either the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Health; it was decided that it should land in the lap of the Minister for Health. He had the job of doing it and this is his offering. We are not to take it too seriously because it is only to discharge a political commitment and perhaps the Minister at this stage is feeling he has paid a high price for trying to discharge that political commitment and is wishing he were elsewhere, or steering another Bill through the House.

It is sad to have to speak about a measure in such scating terms. As a member of the Labour Party and a Member of this House for nearly ten years, I never really thought that it would be sadly necessary, in 1979, to oppose, with every breath in my body, a Bill introduced under the heading of Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978. There is no doubt at all that the present Irish solution to an Irish problem is infinitely better than what is proposed in the Minister's Bill, whether it is for real or whether it is all cod. That is a very sad and disappointing thing to have to say, but I say it with total conviction.

It is the responsibility of myself as a Senator and of the members of the Labour group—and I know we all share this view—to oppose this Bill on Second Reading and right down the line, and to show, in so far as we can, the way in which it will very substantially worsen the situation, which is at the moment a very imperfect Irish solution to an Irish problem.

The present situation is not a satisfactory one, for the reasons given. It is worth looking briefly at the previous attempts to take action in the matter and to introduce legislation. In that context, let us bear in mind that this is the sixth measure introduced into the Oireachtas in the last nine years to attempt to legalise the sale of contraceptives and to regulate the present situation. The previous five attempts were opposed by Fianna Fáil who, until this measure, were not prepared to vote in either House in favour of a measure to legalise family planning. The Fianna Fáil attitude prior to this measure has, at least, been consistent, although I do not think it is one that has shown any great merit or sense of the need for the provision of a comprehensive scheme of family planning; the need to allow access by couples in Ireland to education and to medical advice and help and choice of methods of family planning and that that access would not have any discrimination on the basis of property. This would have to ensure that persons of low income had a full range of family planning services, could make their own choice and decide for themselves whether they wanted, and if so, in what way, to regulate the number and spacing of their children.

Let us look at the legislative record. The first Bill introduced in this House was the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1970. It was introduced as a Private Members' Bill, which I moved, and it was supported by Senators John Horgan and Trevor West. It was a short Bill and had three operative sections. The first section proposed to amend section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, by providing that it would not be lawful to sell, or offer for sale, any contraceptive, except in certain defined places. These places were defined in the section to include chemists' shops, hospitals, health boards, family planning clinics. Then there was a further catchall section referring to any other place in respect of which permission had been granted in writing by the Minister for Justice to the person or persons in charge of such places. Sections 2 and 3 of that Bill proposed to repeal the relevant sections of the Censorship of Publications Acts of 1929 and 1946 by deleting the words "unnatural prevention of conception" in the relevant sections. This Bill was refused a First Reading by the Fianna Fáil party at the time and, on 7 July 1971, almost eight years ago to the day, the then Leader of the House, Senator Tomás Ó Maoláin, stated as reported at column 968 of the Seanad Official Report:

I said that the Bill, in its present form, is unacceptable. The Government are considering the situation and when the time arrives will take appropriate steps to deal with the matters concerned.

I wonder if the ghost of Senator Tomás Ó Maoláin is looking down at us now, eight years later, as we face what he described as: "The Government are considering the situation and when the time arrives will take appropriate steps to deal with the matters concerned".

That was the first attempt. The Bill was then attempted to be moved in the Lower House by Deputy John O'Connell and Deputy Noel Browne and it was dealt a similar fate. It did not get a First Reading there and the net result was that both Houses of the Oireachtas, in the space of about 12 months, censored themselves and refused to consider a measure which proposed changes in the Criminal Law Amendment Act and would have authorised the sale of contraceptives in a manner which controlled the venue and gave certain jurisdiction to the Minister for Justice.

The next legislative measure, again introduced in the Seanad, was a Bill called the Family Planning Bill, 1973. Once more it was a Private Members' Bill introduced by the same three Senators, myself, Senator John Horgan and Senator Trevor West. It received a First Reading in November 1973 after a vote. At least at that stage it was circulated and could be examined by Senators. It differed from the first measure in several important respects. First of all, it proposed to transfer the jurisdiction from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Health. This might be of interest to Senator Honan because she referred to the fact that this particular measure is a measure introduced in this House by the Minister for Health and that the emphasis is on the health aspects of family planning.

As long ago as 1973 there was a Bill before this House called the Family Planning Bill, 1973, which proposed to transfer the jurisdiction from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Health. It can fairly be said that, because of that particular measure and the following Private Members' Bills which kept emphasising that this was a health matter rather than a criminal matter and that the Minister for Health was the appropriate Minister to steer such a Bill through the House, this eventually came to be accepted. It was accepted by the Tánaiste in the Coalition Government when he came into this House and sought to get an all-party solution to this problem, and it is accepted now by Fianna Fáil through the Minister for Health who is in the House today.

The Family Planning Bill, 1973, apart from the major issue of principle of transferring jurisdiction from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Health, would have given the Minister for Health power to make regulations governing the availability of contraceptives by allowing the Minister to legalise the venues where contraceptives could be offered or kept for sale. Once again, these were set out as chemists' shops, family planning clinics, the health boards and other premises prescribed by the Minister for Health. It also amended the Censorship of Publications Acts in the manner I have described.

That Bill received a Second Reading in the Seanad in March 1974 but, before a vote was taken on that Bill, the then Coalition Government published their Bill, the Control of Importation, Sale and Manufacture of Contraceptives Bill, 1974, and it was against that background that the Family Planning Bill, 1973, was defeated by 32 votes to 10 on 24 March 1974. The action then moved to the other House. The Coalition Government's Bill received a First Reading in the Dáil on 21 March 1974. It was entitled the Control of Importation, Sale and Manufacture of Contraceptives Bill, 1974. There is no doubt that a great deal of the emphasis in that Bill was very strongly on control. The Bill was introduced shortly after the Supreme Court judgment in the McGee case, and the major concern of the Minister for Justice at the time appeared to be to ensure control over the situation following the McGee case, rather than to place the emphasis on the provision of a comprehensive family planning service in Ireland.

It was a complex measure provisions of which are well known to the House. The most controversial provision was in section 5, which proposed to prohibit the purchase of contraceptives by unmarried persons. The section is worth quoting at this stage for the record. Section 5 (1) provided:

A person who is unmarried and who is not the holder of a licence granted under section 2 shall not purchase a contraceptive.

Subsection (2) provided:

A person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

There were also very detailed provisions relating to the prohibition of the importation, sale, and so on, of abortifacients and other provisions relating to the control of advertising, and so on. The prohibition on the sale of contraceptives to people who were unmarried came in for a great deal of criticism at the time. In retrospect when one looks at the Bill before us today, at least it had the merit of honesty; at least we knew what the provision was. It did not contain this nebulous and undefined concept of bona fide family planning. When one has a section which at least states clearly what is intended, the legislative purpose is clear. The Bill before us today does not have the same clarity and, therefore, different people draw different conclusions from it. We will have to tease out at considerable length on Committee Stage just what conclusions we can draw from provisions of a Bill which are either not defined at all, or are very ambiguous in their scope.

The Coalition Bill was given a Second Reading in the Dáil in July 1974, and it achieved a certain place in Irish legislative history when it provided the unique spectacle of the Taoiseach and the then Minister for Education joining other Coalition Deputies to vote against the Government Bill, thereby ensuring its defeat.

The next legislative attempt was made once again in this House. It was a Private Members' Bill, this time called the Family Planning Bill, 1974. This Bill, still with the original three sponsors, was given a First Reading in December 1974. Its provisions were both more detailed and more elaborate than the two earlier attempts. It retained the important point of principle which had been contained in the Family Planning Bill, 1973. Once again it proposed to confer jurisdiction on the Minister for Health rather than the Minister for Justice. The sponsors felt it would be worth attempting to stay with the system of licensing of venues for the sale and manufacture of contraceptives which had been contained in the Coalition Government's Bill. We felt that if there was a very strong view that there must be a control exercised through a licensing system for the sale and manufacture of contraceptives, this type of control would at least allow for the situation to evolve, would allow the demand to be met by further licences being issued, would allow the whole system of licensing itself perhaps to become obsolete when it was clear that people just wanted to have a choice about whether or not they wanted access to contraceptives.

Therefore, we felt that this framework would allow for a natural evolution, would not be discriminatory and would not have all the other serious defects of either trying in the legislation to confine contraceptives to married couples, or entering into the nebulous world of "bona fide family planning” which we will discuss later. There were sections in that Bill on the control of the advertising of contraceptives, and sections on the amendment of the Censorship of Publications Acts. Then there was a new measure which again sought to achieve a very important objective, an objective which is central to providing a comprehensive family planning service in Ireland. This was the provision in section 8 of that Bill that the health boards would become actively involved in the provision of a family planning service, meaning a genuine family planning service, which included the supply and sale of contraceptives.

This was achieved by proposing to amend section 59 of the Health Act, 1970, and to provide that a contraceptive would be deemed for the purposes of that Act to be a medical appliance. This would have enabled the health boards—not in a compulsory way, of course—to supply medical card holders who sought contraceptives in the same way as other medical appliances were supplied under the Health Act. The health boards would not have required licences from the Minister for Health under the terms of the Bill. This would have been the basis for a comprehensive family planning system where persons with full eligibility, medical card holders, would have access to contraceptives if they wanted them in the same way as they would have access to other forms of health care and other medical appliances. At the time this was an important step forward in the kind of legislative proposal which would meet the particular needs of the country and meet the problem as it was identified.

This Family Planning Bill, 1974, took a full two years before it got its Second Reading in the Seanad. It started in December 1976 and carried on into the early part of 1977. The then Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Brendan Corish, came into this House and made what in retrospect was a very interesting contribution in which he sought to get political support for a measure which contained controls, but also contained the basis of a comprehensive system of family planning which would ensure that there was no discrimination on the basis of property; that the low income groups would have access to a system of family planning; and that the health boards would play a central role. However, once again the Fianna Fáil Party, who made a single contribution in this House in the debate, indicated that they would oppose the measure and it was ultimately narrowly defeated in May 1977.

The next legislative initiative was taken following the General Election in which the Fianna Fáil Government came into office. It was taken this time by the Labour group in the Seanad who tabled the Family Planning Bill, 1978, which received its First Reading in November 1978. The text of this Bill has been circulated to Senators in the House so I do not think I need to go into its provisions in detail. It is very similar to the Family Planning Bill, 1974. Again, the jurisdiction is with the Minister for Health. There is a considerable control of the venues, and a licensing system under the Minister, and there is the important role for the health boards in the provision of family planning service including the provision of a comprehensive service to medical card holders.

We come then to the sixth measure, the Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1978, which was introduced at the very end of last year. When we examine this Bill in detail, one of the things we will have to ask ourselves is: how many of the things that are lawful at present will be offences under the new legislation? When we start to catalogue those, we will have an appreciation of the effect of the Bill which I believe has not penetrated to a great many people in Ireland. There are a great many young people in Ireland who are unaware of the scope and impact of this Bill. There are a great many couples in Ireland of differing ages who are unaware of the scope and effect of this Bill.

One of the things we will have to do is to show how much more restrictive it is of the present situation, and restrictive in a way that creates a network of criminal offences. First of all, it takes away the freedom which came as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the McGee case. The McGee case struck down subsection (3) of section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, as not being in accordance with the Constitution, as being a section which made inroads into marital privacy, and which did not allow access to contraceptives which was the right of married couples in Ireland. An analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court, and of the judgments given by the four judges who voted in favour of striking down that subsection and the Chief Justice who voted against it, bear out the argument that the Supreme Court decided a case in relation to an action by a married woman who sought to have an artificial contraceptive, and who has very strong medical grounds for so doing and who had, as Senator FitzGerald said, fully discussed the matter with and had the support and agreement of her husband in what she was doing.

The Chief Justice at the time was the one who most strongly made the point that, if the decision was taken in relation to a married couple, it also applied to any other couple seeking access to contraceptives and seeking the advices and help Mrs. McGee was seeking. The freedom that resulted for couples from the McGee judgment was that they could import contraceptives for private use. There is considerable evidence that couples and individuals have imported contraceptives for private use and it is possible that many people still think this will be the situation when this Bill is passed. Of course it will not be the situation. It will be an offence to import contraceptives by post for private use. It will only be legal to import if you are the kind of person who can travel out of the country. If you are well enough off to go away on holiday, or if your business takes you out of the jurisdiction, then you will be able to bring back in your personal baggage the quantity that reflects your sexual prowess, or your stamina, or whatever it may be. We will have a look at that section in more detail.

That is an interesting restriction on what the Supreme Court decided in the McGee case. It will also be an offence to manufacture contraceptives, which is not an offence at the moment in Ireland. It will also be an offence to supply contraceptives, which is not an offence at the moment. It will be an offence to distribute contraceptives. Perhaps the most serious matter will be that it will be an offence to obtain contraceptives unless it is done through a prescription or authorisation from a medical practitioner based on his opinion.

Mr. Haughey

There is no such offence.

Mrs. Robinson

There are penalties for attempting to do this by forged prescription or authorisation, or attempting to circumvent that situation. If you state a position, and that is the only way you can get access, and there are offences for getting around that effectively you create a situation where it is not possible to get access to contraceptives in any other way without committing an offence.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

You could steal them.

Mrs. Robinson

That is an offence. It is worth cataloguing the restrictions which will be imposed by the Bill on the situation as it exists at the moment, where we have achieved a certain level of tolerance. There is a good deal of discrimination against lower income groups in that tolerance. There is an absence of proper educational facilities, an absence of proper training of doctors, an absence of access by medical card holders to contraceptives if they wish to use them in the regulation of their families. These things are lacking. This Bill will not provide them, but it will introduce a much more substantial degree of criminal prohibition and regulation.

Senator FitzGerald dealt at some length with the changes made by the Supreme Court in the position regarding access to contraceptives. The situation was one where, in the absence of willingness by legislators to assume their responsibiliy, individuals had to have recourse to the courts. Mr. and Mrs McGee had to disclose the most private and personal aspects of their marriage and of their private morality in order to vindicate what the doctor had advised as the necessary course for them to take. They had to fight their way up from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

There was another case under the Censorship of Publications Acts where the Censorship of Publications Board banned the family planning booklets produced by the Irish Family Planning Association. These were explanatory booklets. They were straightforward in setting out the various types of contraceptives. One or two of the booklets contained very minimal diagrams. It is still difficult to credit that the Censorship of Publications Board would ban the booklets, but they did so. Once again an action was brought in the High Court by the Irish Family Planning Association and Dr. Joan Wilson. This succeeded in the High Court and succeeded on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the appeal turned on the question of whether there had been an adequate opportunity for the author or publisher of the booklets to make representations to the Censorship of Publications Board before the booklets were banned. It was on that ground that the case succeeded.

The spectre this Bill unfolds is one of throwing people back again on seeking access to the court to protect and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen and to tease out whether or not the provisions of the Bill erode or unduly proscribe or circumvent the rights of citizens, the rights of couples and the rights of the family. It looks at the moment as though we are going to see litigation on the provisions of this Bill. We may see this litigation sooner rather than later if one is to believe the brave defiance of the family planning clinics and some other groups who are prepared to treat this Bill as the second of the two alternatives put forward by Senator FitzGerald, as a cod rather than a reality. It remains to be seen what the outcome of their defiance may be. It seems as though the prospect—if this Bill goes through in unamended form— must be that there will be early and perhaps considerable litigation on its terms.

It is sad that individuals should have to suffer the considerable strain, risk, tension, pressure, and indeed the expense of litigation—in the absence of any system of civil legal aid and advice—in order to defend and protect their personal rights and their sense of freedom and responsibility for decision-making about their families as they see it. So much for the legislative record and the intervention by the courts to date.

Before turning to the details of the Bill, we must look at the problem to which we are seeking to find a legislative solution. What is the nature of the problem? If every Senator who spoke in this debate were to define his or her perception of the problem, we would have a better sense of what we should be doing as legislators. I do not want to be unfair to or harsh on Senator Honan. She travelled at considerable personal inconvenience to take part in this debate. She has spoken out and expressed her view unequivocally on it, but it seemed to me that, rather than deal with the details of the Bill, she was intent upon giving it the seal of the chief, the imprimatur of de Valera, and that would be sufficient to ensure that it got a welcome. It probably ensures that it gets a welcome in certain quarters. We have a greater responsibility than that. We have a responsibility to identify what the problem is, and then to see whether this legislative proposal goes any way, or half way, or even all the way, towards coping with the problem.

The basic principle we should try to achieve in a Family Planning Bill is to ensure the right of couples to regulate the number and spacing of their children which was recognised by Ireland when we signed the Tehran Convention as long ago as 1968, the right to adequate information and medical advice to help them to understand, to help them to come to decisions, to give them a genuine choice, not to put pressure on them, not to narrow that choice, not to give them a type of contraceptive which is not called a contraceptive but rather called a cycle regulator as the only legal type of contraceptive that can be sold and have them using this type in a way which at times can be medically damaging.

In this regard I agree with Senator Honan that it has been one of the worst aspects of the anomalous situation which has evolved that the pill is the contraceptive which has been prescribed sometimes in circumstances by doctors who do not have any training in family planning. It is the one they can prescribe legally, the one that causes least problems for them. They can give a prescription and the woman can seek renewal of it and go on being on the pill for months, even years, without a checkup or a responsible follow-up to see whether she has medical indications that make it dangerous for her to be on the pill. I have come across an alarming number of women in my constituency who have been on the pill for years and have back-aches, have problems of depression and may have varicose veins or thrombosis but have not had a checkup. There is a serious problem there. There is also a serious problem in the types of the pill which are still in circulation in Ireland which do not conform with the standards required in other countries.

We have shown a lack of concern to ensure that the health aspects are fully catered for, properly thought through and provided for. These include a substantial investment in the training of the medical profession, and those in paramedical services, to ensure that they understand the kind of medical advice they should be supplying. There is a right to adequate information and medical advice and a right to have the medical advice from people who are trained in providing that advice. There is the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of property, not to have the access to family planning advice or family planning methods become prohibitively expensive or costly on those in the lower income groups or exceptional in that although they are medical card holders and can avail of other medicines that they cannot get medical contraceptives which are properly prescribed by prescription.

This is the basis from which we should start. We should also bear in mind the importance of some of the values that Senator FitzGerald identified and about which he spoke with such feeling and such eloquence. I would agree with him that we have not as yet begun to understand or appreciate the value of tolerance in our society, in our laws and in our own attitudes. Like Senator FitzGerald, I see it as a very high virtue. I do not believe that tolerance is indulgence nor that it should be confused with a lack of caring about a particular subject matter. It is a deep respect for the views, moral values, perspective and religious convictions of others. Sadly, we are a considerable distance away from achieving that kind of tolerance in our Constitution, in our laws or in our general attitude towards policy considerations such as those which are before the Seanad today.

I read through the debate which took place in the Seanad on various measures in the last nine years and I read there the statements placed on the record of the various Churches in Ireland, the Catholic Church at different stages and the other religious denominations, expressing their views. It is interesting to see that as far back as 1973 there were unequivocal statements from the Protestant Churches—to use that general categorisation of them because there were different statements from the different leaders of the Church groups— calling on the Government to provide for a system of family planning, welcoming the legislative initiative that had come by way of Private Members' legislation and, obviously, supporting the approach and attempt to legislate in this way. I believe that those of the minority religions in Ireland must view with ever-deepening cynicism the faltering approaches by the Oireachtas and the present compromise measure placed before us by the Minister.

The Minister has managed to prevent us from forming a clear impression of who will have access to contraceptives because we have not been able to ascertain so far in the debate in the other House, perhaps we will get a clear idea in the debate here, what the phrase "bona fide family planning” actually amounts to and who it includes. The Minister has dodged this in various ways by saying it is a matter for the general practitioner, for the conscience of the general practitioner or that it is a matter for the clinical privacy of the doctor and patient and so on. One of the major weaknesses in the approach is that the Bill is not providing for the kind of comprehensive family planning system which allows access to methods of family planning on a basis of equality and objectivity which would meet the very differing views, not just among those of minority religions, but also among those who have different views but would nevertheless describe themselves as members of the Catholic religion.

I agree with Senator FitzGerald that to continue to highlight the word "natural" and the provision of grants for research only into natural family planning—the implication being that any other method is somehow unnatural or non-natural—in 1979 is an insult to the moral and even religious convictions of a substantial proportion of our population and is a further reason for rejecting this measure as unacceptable in 1979. I have often heard the view expressed very strongly, and with great feeling by members of minority religions and by Catholics who have made their own decisions in the matter, that to distinguish between the so-called natural methods of the thermometer and the chart and other methods of artificial contraception is totally, hair-splittingly, unreal. They have expressed the view that to do so in legislation is to adopt a particular religious denominational approach to our legislation cutting right across the notion that we respect the views, moral standards and opinions of all our citizens and will give them equal respect in our legislation. That is part of the basis of the problem we are facing in this legislation.

Another part is the whole impact of the criminal prohibition first introduced in 1935 and the status of the law since on the position of women in Ireland. It is correct to say that family planning, and access to a choice of method of family planning, is the right of couples, that men should involve themselves and be concerned as much as women, that it is a matter for families and is not an exclusive reserve of women. I agree that it is not just a woman's subject. However, something which we must bear in mind in this debate is the impact on the status of women of section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, of the legislative inertia over the number of years up to early 1970's, of the consistent refusal of the Fianna Fáil Party and the lack of commitment of politicians generally to introduce legislative reform. That has had a substantial impact on the role and status of women in Ireland.

I believe that the lack of access to a comprehensive system of family planning is one way of keeping women as second class citizens, is one way of ensuring that they will not have equality in employment, will not be able to play the kind of part that they may wish to play in the life of the nation, in access to jobs and in taking on positions of responsibility. It has resulted in trapping a number of women in a family situation where they have one or perhaps a number of unwanted pregnancies. It has led them to a situation where they cope as deserted wives with children where, if they had had fewer pregnancies, they might have been able to keep their marriage alive. The wife feels that the husband has left because he could not tolerate the situation of being in cramped housing conditions or a cramped single room with a number of small children and he, therefore, left her with the baby or babies. This is a consistent pattern in Irish life and a very serious problem.

Of course, we can place against that picture the number of happy families, the number of women who are happy to have several children and those couples who do not have any children but would dearly love to have some. We can refer to all those situations, but it does not detract from the reality that the absence of a comprehensive system of family planning, the absence of access to advice and education, has resulted in the degradation of a great many women in Ireland down the years. It has resulted in them being subservient to a situation over which they have not had proper control, has resulted in them suffering the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy or pregnancies, has increased their family tension and prevented them from being able to exercise a genuine choice in this matter.

We should remember that the Supreme Court in the McGee case said that there must be this right of choice in methods of family planning and that that is the right of our citizens. The highest court in the land has affirmed that value in our system. We have to be aware of the impact down the years of the absence of the kind of legislative base which would have provided access to a comprehensive system of family planning and given women and men the possibility of choice, of getting advice and of educating themselves.

I should like to turn to another aspect of this problem which we must consider as legislators. It is the whole sorry spectrum of our attitudes towards sex and towards the relationship between the man and the woman. This is improving, particularly among younger people; it is improving in urban areas and it is improving in the higher income groups. At the same time there is still a very serious ignorance of the physical attributes of the man and the woman. There is a lack of genuine self knowledge among so many men and women in Ireland of their own sexuality. As a result there is a very unhealthy relationship between far too many couples. Those problems are well known to a lot of general practitioners and are certainly well known to family planning clinics who have found that sometimes the initial interview at the clinics begin with a most basic task of explaining the functioning of their bodies to people.

Immaturity in the approach to human sexuality of a considerable number of people, men and women, in Ireland has been a feature down the years. It is something which the family planning clinics have to deal with on a much wider scale than they expected. They find a basic ignorance of the male and the female cycle, a lack of understanding of their own sexuality by a number of the women who come to the clinics and they find a strong puritan streak in many of those who call.

A number of factors in our general social history may contribute to this immaturity in our approach to human sexuality. There has been the Catholic domination of secondary schooling and the emphasis on single-sex schools that is changing slowly but it is still a feature of our education system. We have had the authoritarian structures at various levels in Irish society which tends to diminish the role of personal responsibility and personal awareness. One of the factors which has influenced attitudes is the low status and lack of confidence of women in Ireland down the years and the general lack of ability and lack of encouragement among couples to communicate and, in particular, to learn together and discuss their sexual problems in a way which helps them. That may sound a very wide generalisation, but it is a factor that we have to bear in mind in talking about the kind of family planning service we should be providing.

We are not a Scandinavian country—I am not saying that we should be—but we are not a country which has an aware and confident attitude towards personal sexuality which may stem from different values and different moral attitudes. I am not suggesting that they are the kind of attitudes appropriate to us here, but we should be ensuring that the type of family planning service we provide copes with some of the basic underlying problems. One of those problems is a lack of awareness and ignorance of human sexuality, a lack of communication and a lack of responsibility. We should therefore place a great deal of emphasis on sex education, not purely in a narrow clinical sense but based on the whole value of human relationships, on creating confidence, a sense of awareness, a sense of pleasure in sexual relationships, a sense of ability and willingness to communicate in deepening those relationships. We should have a great emphasis on this kind of sex education in Ireland and on preparation for marriage. Part of that preparation for marriage should be an education in relation to family planning. This should be a comprehensive type of education to create a sense of personal responsibility, to help young people, those preparing for marriage and married couples to have a much better capacity and ability to take the decisions which will be best for their family in their particular circumstances. This is one of the important background factors to considering a proposal for a system of family planning. It is related to other broader environmental factors which we should also bear in mind.

As has been said with increasing frequency in this House, we are a very young country. We are the youngest country in the European Community. We have to come to an understanding of what it is to have 50 per cent of the population under 25. We have to come to an understanding of what it is to have an increasing number of young people who are faced with enormous pressures from the consumer society which we live in, of seeking jobs when they are not available, and those that stem from the present housing crisis. There is undoubtedly a housing crisis. We are in the middle of it and it is worsening. There is considerable evidence of young people seeking both advice and availability of contraceptives. This is a situation which we must not dismiss by expressing strong moral condemnation of the attitudes, relationships and views of young people in our society.

There is an extremely important responsibility to be aware, to understand and to see the reasons for this changing situation and to face the fact that a considerable number of young people today avail of contraceptives, intend to continue to do so and come to their own decisions in relation to their relationships. At the same time, there is no evidence of any striking promiscuity by young people in this country. It poses a particular responsibility for legislators in examining the terms of this Bill.

Senator FitzGerald referred already to a study by Dr. Eimer Philbin Bowman which was published in the 1977 issue of the Journal of Bio-Sociological Science. She begins the study by giving a summary of the survey that she carried out. The title of the paper is "Sexual and Contraceptive Attitudes and Behaviour of Single Attenders at a Dublin Family Planning Clinic". I will read the summary of the data of her survey because it focuses on as aspect of the whole problem that we tend to see swept away by moralising and by saying we must not let our young people drift towards promiscuity, we must not open the flood gates, we must not do this, that or the other. Instead, let us look at the situation as it is, understand many of the reasons for it and then decide on that basis whether or not the legislative proposal which is before us today is adequate or whether it will lead to very serious problems.

Dr. Bowman in her paper began with this summary:

A preliminary breakdown of the characteristics of all new attenders at a Dublin family planning clinic during the first 6 months of 1974 showed that just under half of those attending were unmarried at the time of their first visit. Of these single women, three in five planned to marry shortly and two in five had no marriage plans. The main part of the study concentrates on this latter group. A sample of 50 women was interviewed and the results provide some factual data on their family and educational background, their sexual and contraceptive behaviour and their attitudes to related issues. They came mainly from upper-middle class income groups and had a high standard of education. Although they were, almost without exception, born into Roman Catholic families, only just over a quarter were regular church attenders. All but 6 per cent were already sexually experienced at the time of their first visit and most were now involved in a stable sexual relationship which involved having intercourse at least once a month; while well informed on contraception, only a small minority had always used a reliable method. Since the mean interval between first intercourse and their first visit to the clinic was over 2.2 years, the majority had been at risk of becoming pregnant. One in six of those interviewed had experienced pregnancy and half of those had sought an abortion. While 76 per cent of the sample considered abortion acceptable in at least extreme cases, only 12 per cent were without strong moral reservations; in the event of pregnancy 32 per cent would consider seeking an abortion. A correlation analysis of some of the results is presented.

She then carries out a scientific breakdown of those figures and explains the type of survey, the questions asked and the type of responses given in much more detail.

This summary of a survey carried out in 1974 at a Dublin family planning clinic, far from bringing outraged moral denunciations, should open our eyes to the situation in Ireland for a very considerable number of young people. If this legislation goes through the Seanad between now and next month that does not mean that the attitudes and responses of these young people will change automatically. One cannot legislate for morality in that way. We ought to realise that. If there are, as there are, a considerable number of young, unmarried people using contraceptives, visiting the family planning clinics, getting contraceptives abroad by writing away for them, getting them in the students union offices of their colleges or universities, what are they going to do when this legislation is passed? There is no credibility in saying that overnight the situation is going to change for those young people or they are suddenly going to change their own attitude.

As I travelled to the Seanad today I had my radio on. There was an interview being carried out by the programme "Women's Day" with women who were attending a family planning clinic in Dublin yesterday. The first point that struck the interviewer was that most of the women there did not know about the provisions of this Bill. A number of them were unmarried, said that if necessary they would continue their relationship even with the risk of pregnancy, were outraged and surprised with the idea that they would not be able to visit the family planning clinics and have access to contraceptives. There was clearly a lack of awareness of the provisions of this Bill and of how it might affect them.

This leads me to another very serious underlying consideration in any attempt to examine responsibly a proposal to legalise family planning in Ireland—the very depressing and inexorable rise in the number of abortions performed on Irish women, married or unmarried, in Britain each year. As I understand it, there is general acceptance among doctors, social workers and statisticians that the official figures are a serious underestimate of the actual figures. These are confined to the abortions performed under the health services in England and do not account for private abortions or for illegal abortions. They do not account for the Irish women who go to England and give an English address and, therefore, do not come under the category of Irish resident. Given all these factors which make these figures an underestimate, there is no doubt that the figures are very alarming and have been increasing inexorably each year. The figures that I quote are from a newspaper report in November 1978. Under the heading "More girls seeking abortion" the report states:

The number of Irish girls seeking abortions in Britain is increasing. In the first nine months of this year, a total of 1,838 women had pregnancies terminated.

This is an increase of 248 on the same period last year, according to the Irish Medical Times who have quoted the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in Britain.

In the first nine months of last year, 1,590 women travelled from the Republic to Britain to have pregnancies terminated. For the September quarter of this year, 632 women had the operation, which compares with 545 for the same period last year.

In the March quarter this year, the figure reached 572 and for the June quarter the total was 634. This compares with 501 for the March quarter last year and 544 for the June quarter in 1977.

The census indicates that numbers have increased steadily since 1974 when the total for the year was 1,406. In 1975; the figure increased to 1,562; in 1976 the total reached 1,802 and 2,183 was the total figure last year.

That would have been 1977.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could the Senator give the source of the quotation?

Mrs. Robinson

The Irish Independent, November, 1978. The Minister may have more up-to-date or comprehensive figures on the abortions on Irish women who have gone over to Britain. There is a danger that if we close off the possibility of young people in Ireland having access to contraceptives and to advice on contraceptives, we risk increasing very substantially that sad and lonely abortion trail to Britain. This is a very grave responsibility indeed.

Young people will take risks and girls will become pregnant. They will be faced with the reality of Irish society and with the reality of what it is to have an illegitimate child, to try to cope with all the economic and social problems of being an unmarried mother in our society, to be a woman in any case looking for employment, to be a mother with a young child looking for a flat or for housing and to be a young person with this kind of responsibility in our society rather than be free of it as so many of the young people in her company would be. The pressures are enormous. We underestimate the great psychological damage that can be done to young Irish girls who, despite strong religious convictions, feel that they have no option and feel personally pressured by these various aspects of our society to take the lonely boat or plane to Britain.

We do not, as a society, provide after-care of any discernible nature for the thousands of Irish women when they return to Ireland following an abortion in Britain. Some of them are, I understand, cared for on an ad hoc basis by the health boards, but it is not done in a conscious way of seeking out or attempting to provide an after-care service and follow-up to ensure that the girls involved do not suffer more than is necessary from the step they have taken and come to terms with themselves and that they are able in broad terms to cope. We must bear in mind the reality and urgency of this problem, and the fact that if you close off access to contraceptive advice and contraceptives and make it impossible for young people in our society to have the kind of access which they have at the moment, there is a very real danger that the only solution which they will have will be to increase the abortion rate and to take the only option which our society appears to be ready to give them. This is not something which it is sufficient to express strong moral views on. It is a question of looking at the reality, looking at the figures, understanding young people, understanding the very considerable pressures that they live under, their differing values in many instances from the values of their parents, their attitude towards sexual relationships and towards life in general.

It is a pity that we have not, in the Seanad, a possibility of sitting as a committee and interviewing these young people and getting a first hand account of their attitude to this measure. If anybody were to go down to a discotheque or dance hall or pub in Dublin which caters for young people, he would find an appalling ignorance of the provisions of the Bill and a distressing tendency to say: "If we cannot get access to contraceptives that is too bad, we will have to take the risks". This will be one of the major problems which may stem from this Bill if it goes through in its present form.

Lest anyone feels that the views I have been expressing and the criticisms that I have made of the Bill are coming from one extreme end of the spectrum, it would be useful to relate the various values and principles that I have been identifying to an actual suburb of Dublin and to refer to the attitude of that suburb to the question of whether they wanted to see the proposed health centre in their area incorporate a family planning clinic. I am referring to the Ballinteer family planning survey. It is one that got a good deal of publicity at the time and was mentioned in the Dáil during the debate. It is worth referring to it as representing a sampling of a Dublin suburb which had a real alternative being put before it and which responded to a survey carried out. I will refer to the summary of the results of that survey. The press release states:

The Ballinteer Group of Contraception Action Programme undertook a survey in their area in October 1977 to ascertain the need for a local family planning clinic to be incorporated into the new Ballinteer Health Centre, now near completion, and to be run by the Eastern Health Board. Ballinteer was a particularly suitable area to survey as it contains many young families. The survey was scientifically carried out and was monitored by the local TDs, John Horgan of Labour and Niall Andrews of Fianna Fáil. Five hundred and forty completed questionnaires were returned out of a total sample of 648. The most relevant results were as follows: 93.7 per cent were in favour of the health board providing a family planning clinic; 55.7 per cent were in favour of the service being free to everybody; 32.4 per cent wished the service to be free to medical card holders only with others paying the minimum possible cost; 71.9 per cent said they would attend such a clinic; 35 per cent were not satisfied with the family planning advice offered by local doctors; 17.6 per cent were satisfied with the above; 40.6 per cent had no experience. The most frequent reason for dissatisfaction was that people felt that the doctors had insufficient time to discuss family planning. Ballinteer CFP feel that the results obtained in this survey show overwhelming support for the idea of a locally based fully comprehensive family planning clinic run by the Eastern Health Board in the new Ballinteer Health Centre.

The press release also states:

It is to be regretted that the Minister for Health did not take account of the strength of this demand in his proposed legislation and has failed to ensure that a fully comprehensive service will be available in all Health Board Clinics throughout the country.

This is one of the interesting omissions in this Bill. It is very hard to see how the Minister decided not to have the health boards provide the advice and services of a family planning clinic which includes the supply or sale of contraceptives. This would have been the germ of a proper approach to family planning. It was the kind of provision incorporated first of all in the Family Planning Bill, 1974, before this House and then subsequently in the present Bill on the Order Paper proposed by the Labour Party, the Family Planning Bill, 1978. It is the clearest way in which one can meet the needs of a community. Unless the suggestion is that this Ballinteer survey is totally out of line with what would happen elsewhere in Dublin or elsewhere in the country, it is a very good sample of public opinion and of what families in the Ballinteer area want. That is not what they are going to get. They showed a high degree of dissatisfaction with the service being provided by family doctors. Far from welcoming a Bill which rests on the new extended role given to the GPs in the area, the people of Ballinteer must view this provision with surprise and disappointment because it will give the GP a dominant role as far as they are concerned in the access they will have to family planning and the way in which they can go about getting contraceptives if they choose to do so. The attitudes reflected in that survey are well worth examining and bearing in mind. I have given a summary of the survey but it is clear that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction about the lack of time and the lack of training in family planning methods which people in Ballinteer faced when they went to visit their GPs.

This comes back to the emphasis I was placing on the whole Irish problem of the immaturity of many people in their own sexual relations and in their knowledge of their sexuality. It requires patience, expertise, humanity and warmth in the clinic context to encourage people to disclose their difficulties, to speak about their private relationships and to discuss their own sexuality. In a busy GP's surgery this may not be the proper environment. He may have difficulty in having the time to establish the kind of relaxed atmosphere and confidence with the person coming in which is necessary in order to be able to give the full advice and help which is being sought.

The experience of the family planning clinics and of women who attended them is that they have been able to provide that kind of atmosphere and that kind of understanding of the problems and the needs of the women who came to visit them. They have been able to take the time. They had the expert staff and there has been a very relaxed and supportive atmosphere there. That is one of the reasons why tens of thousands of women have flocked to those family planning clinics. A lot of women who could have gone to their private doctor went to family planning clinics precisely because that is the kind of help, support and advice that they want and that is the kind of context they want it in.

The Minister had the benefit of a recent survey in a suburb of Dublin, of a high return on the original survey and of a really extraordinary degree of support for the idea of having a family planning clinic incorporated into the Ballinteer health service under the auspices of the Eastern Health Board. 93.7 per cent were in favour of this. The terms of the Bill, by confining the whole concept of family planning services to the offering only of advice and instruction but not including the sale or supply of contraceptives, negates that whole potential role for health centres and the whole contribution that the health boards could make. It gets us back to the artificial concept that unless one imports in physically a live chemist and creates for him a real chemist's shop or pharmacy one cannot carry on legally under the terms of the Bill. That is the view of their needs expressed by a subsurb of Dublin. That is what the families there think, that is what the people there wanted overwhelmingly.

Another view worth referring to in this area is the view expressed by the Irish Association of Social Workers. They circulated to all Deputies and Senators a copy of a paper which they prepared as their policy document on family planning. I am sorry that we did not get from the Irish Medical Association or the Medical Union a similar policy document on their attitude towards family planning, including their attitude towards the burden of responsibility or role which the Minister proposes to confer on them by means of this Bill. It would have been very helpful to Deputies and Senators to have had a document prepared in this way which reflected the views of doctors. We have had those views expressed in the odd radio programme or newspaper comment. There has been a good deal of contradiction and conflict in the views expressed and we still do not know—I still do not know although I have followed it fairly closely—what the present attitude of the medical profession in its collective capacity is towards being the moral arbiters of whether or not a couple or a person coming to them is engaged in bona fide family planning and whether they should get an authorisation or prescription depending on the kind of contraceptive which they are seeking.

In contrast, and to their credit, the Irish Association of Social Workers did sit down and prepare a policy document. In that policy document they referred to the code for social work practice. To a large extent they related the kind of family planning service that they would like to see provided to their own code of social work practice, to their professional knowledge, experience and to the standards governing social workers. Before going on to that, I refer to page 4 of the survey which comments in a summary way on the Bill before the House. It states:

In general, the main criticisms of the Bill relate to its unnecessary restrictiveness; its bias in favour of ‘natural'"methods of family planning; its restriction of services to the medical profession; its failure to make obligatory provision for a comprehensive family planning service as specified in the beginning of this section, on a countrywide basis; its restrictions on the existing family planning clinics which are run by some of the few personnel in the country with recognised training in family planning methods and expertise in this area; and finally, the ambiguous nature of the term ‘ bona fide’ family planning which would appear to restrict the provision of family planning services to certain citizens on the grounds of marital status and childbearing history, and to make of medical practitioners the moral arbiters of the nation in this important area of personal health, happiness and well-being.”

I would have thought that a very unequivocal criticism from the Association of Social Workers. They refer to the code for social work practice which governs their relationship with those with whom they come in contact. They refer to principle 2, which "declares the ultimate right of each individual to decide his own actions, provided these do not impinge upon the rights of others. It would seem that the individual's right to decide his/her own actions in sexual matters cannot be fully realised without the means to control fertility in the manner of his or her choice".

They refer to principle 4 which "obliges social workers to give priority to aiding the client over and above personal aims and wishes. This would seem to imply that social workers should neither impose their personal views regarding family planning on their clients by closing off options available to them, nor oblige clients to make use of family planning services if they did not so wish". They therefore relate their own views of the necessity for a comprehensive family planning service and the criticisms of the Bill to their work as social workers.

It would have been extremely helpful to have had a similar analysis done by the medical profession. The medical profession has failed, in a collective way, down the years to fulfil its responsibility in the area of family planning. It has failed to ensure that there is a proper training of all medical students and retraining of GPs and other doctors in practice. It has failed to ensure that the pill, prescribed in this anomalous way as a cycle regulator, was not over-prescribed. A number of doctors, down the years, have criticised the over-prescription of the pill, but we have not had sufficient concern expressed collectively by the medical profession and sufficient strong representations made in this regard.

I would like to refer to the views of one doctor who does have a specialist knowledge in the area—Dr. Mary Henry, who is the consultant at the varical vein clinic of the Rotunda Hospital and also Assistant Director at the varical vein clinic in Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital. She spends a great deal of her time as a doctor coping with women who have problems from varicose veins and related conditions; many of these problems are aggravated by the fact that a number of the women have been on the pill for a considerable time, have been prescribed the pill without proper medical diagnosis, by doctors who are not aware of the dangers of prescribing it in the circumstances and so on.

I will quote briefly from a paper which Dr Henry delivered to an IMA meeting in Waterford on 1 April, 1978, where she was commenting on a medical paper on the worrying side-effects of the pill. She says:

The "Pill" was a God-send for both Irish doctors and women because it is perfectly obvious that it had nothing to do with sex. It was even described as a "cycle regulator" rather than "oral contraceptive". But because of this hyprocisy women have suffered. Too many unsuitable patients were put on the pill in the past and are still on it today. I see these cases mainly from the point of view of deep vein trombosis or varicose veins and to see a case such as a woman of 45 with eight children who has had several deep vein tromboses associated with those eight deliveries on the pill really make one's hair stand on end.

She then goes on to make some medical comments on the paper. This is the kind of individual voice expressed by some doctors in the front line, in clinics such as varical vein clinics, who see, day to day, the very serious medical problems which have arisen from over-prescription of the pill. These isolated criticisms and independent views expressed are no substitute for the over-all responsibility of the medical profession. I do not make that criticism lightly. I realise that by criticising a profession in its collective capacity, you are doing injustice to certain individual members of the profession. Of course, there are individual members who have made a striking contribution in the provision of family planning services and who have, many times, drawn attention to the problems to which I am referring. They speak as individuals and have not had the necessary support and strength from the medical profession.

It would have been very instructive and helpful to have had a policy document from the medical profession on their attitude towards what kind of family planning system they would wish. It would equally have been instructive and helpful to have had their comments on the Minister's present proposals; neither of these has been available to us. One must wait and see what the attitude of the medical profession will be. It will be difficult to assess this, because the Bill seems to license the individuality of the doctor. The provision relating to conscientious objection in section 11 makes it clear that no person will be obliged to take part in the provision of a family planning service and no person will be obliged to give prescriptions or authorisations.

This may cause very serious problems in, for example, a small town or rural area where the doctors are very conservative in their Catholicism, or take a very strong view on prescribing any of artificial contraceptive, and may avail of this conscientious objection. What will the result be for the people of that area? Will they be in a position to travel elsewhere if they want to seek the advice? They will not have the option that they have at the moment. It is unlikely that they will be able to come and avail of the services of the family planning clinics in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Navan, Bray and so on. It looks as though they may have to go to some other doctor. We may have the kind of queues outside certain surgeries that one sees sometimes in churches at certain confessionals, and people will draw their own conclusion about the attitude of the individual doctor towards the prescribing of contraceptives. The absurd effect of the Bill is that availability of contraceptives will depend on the individual view of the doctor as to what constitutes bona fide family planning and as to whether he will, in conscience, engage in the writing of authorisations or prescriptions.

In the light of the very unusual, non-medical role being conferred on doctors by this Bill, it would have been very helpful if we had had a policy statement which we could have considered, to understand whether this section of the Bill is real, or whether it is another camouflage which will not operate in reality.

I would like to turn briefly to the individual sections of the Bill because this is clearly a measure which we will have to consider in detail in Committee in this House. Before I turn to the individual sections I would like to say that I listened with great interest and attention to the contribution by Senator FitzGerald. I find that a number of the points that he made required to be re-read and thought about. I would ask that sufficient time be given between the conclusion of the Second Stage of this Bill and the Committee Stage, so that we have the published copy of the Official Report and have sufficient time to study the contributions made by individual Senators and also the views expressed by the Minister in his reply to that debate, so that we can consider all these aspects when it comes to Committee Stage. There has been a tendency—and it is a weakness and a danger at this time of year in the Seanad—to try to rush through legislation, or to give very little time between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, but it is most important that Senators be afforded adequate time to read the published Official Report and to consider the sections which will be the subject of analysis on Committee Stage and any amendments which may be submitted.

Turning to the first section, the interpretation section, the major defect of this section—and it is a defect that runs through the terms of the Bill—is the definition of family planning service as confined to the provision of information, instruction, advice or consultation. This is not what the average Irish person, whatever his or her convictions, views or beliefs, thinks is meant by a family planning service. Family planning service, to ordinary persons, means the family planning service that they would get if they went along to the family planning clinics, or to their doctor looking for advice on either so-called natural methods or artificial methods of contraception.

The confining of family planning service purely to advisory and informational aspects is one of the major drawbacks of this measure; it flies in the face of all the calls for the provision of a comprehensive family planning service. The words are used in completely different senses. The Minister uses the word in a way that has not been the reality in Ireland, certainly for the last ten years, and people then misunderstand and think that a family planning service is being provided in this Bill because the words are contained in it and there is a section which gives the definition of them.

It is most important to emphasise, and drive home, the fact that "family planning service" is given an artifically narrow meaning in this Bill and is confined purely to advisory and informational aspects of family planning and contraception. That is a very serious defect which runs through the Bill from then on.

Section 2 provides that:

The Minister shall... secure the orderly organisation of family planning services.

I am not sure of the legal, whatever about the factual, meaning of this. The Minister is ensuring the deathknell of the family planning clinics as they exist at the moment. Whether that is securing the orderly organisation of family planning services is another matter. That is a platitude; it is something put in in order to have an (a) and (b) in this section. Paragraph (b) emphasises the divisiveness and the discrimination in this Bill by saying that the Minister shall "provide a comprehensive natural family planning service". This highlights the distinction which has been made between "natural" and what must inevitably be termed either "unnatural" or "non-natural", and it is committing the Minister to provide a comprehensive natural family planning service but not to providing a comprehensive family planning service in the lay understanding of that term.

We are not even talking here about the sale or supply of contraceptives; we are talking about a comprehensive family planning service as narrowly defined in the Bill, meaning informational, educational and so on. It seems again most artificial, given that it does not even include the sale or supply of contraceptives, that the Minister should commit himself in this Bill to providing a comprehensive natural family planning service but exclude the question of advice and instruction on methods of family planning which involve the use of contraceptives.

We come to section 3 of the Bill and, once again, it is very difficult to understand this section because of the very broad discretion it leaves with the Minister. This section provides that the Minister can consent to the making available of a family planning service which also gives advice on the use of contraceptives; that he will not give this consent unless he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to give it and that the service is reasonably required to meet a particular need. All of these things are undefined in the section. It means that the existing family clinics will not be able to continue to exist, even as purely advisory bodies, unless the Minister consents, but we do not know on what criteria he will exercise that consent. We do not know how he will assess need. He was not, apparently, impressed with the survey of the needs of the Ballinteer families. What way will that discretion be exercised? The future of the existing family planning clinics, even as purely advisory bodies, rests on the discretion of the Minister, and it seems to me that that is a very broad discretion.

It is quite clear, from the present terms of the Bill, that the family planning clinics cannot sell or supply contracep-medica tives, unless they have both a pharmacist on the premises and the pharmacist is there operating a pharmacy. That kind of overall investment is beyond the resources of almost all of the existing family planning clinics. Despite the Minister's rather obscure reference, in his opening speech, to the section dealing with the offences—section 14—containing penalties for those guilty of offences he say:

...it is important that the conditions under which contraceptives may be sold should be complied with. There are powerful commercial interests active in this field and the penalties stipulated are merely to ensure compliance with the new Act.

Perhaps, in his reply, he would indicate what these powerful commercial interests are? It might be that some Senators might think that he was referring to the family planning clinics, which are non-profit making bodies and are not threatening multi-national commercial bodies. Perhaps we could know what the commercial interests are, and in what way the Minister thinks that he has brought them under control by the terms of the Bill.

The section which will, presumably, be a subject of the most detailed analysis on Committee Stage is section 4, which prohibits the sale of contraceptives, except in the circumstances where the sale is by a pharmacist, operating a pharmacy, and with the amendment to allow that to take place in a place where family planning services are available, and that the person to whom the contraceptives are sold must be the person who is named in the prescription or authorisation in writing. The first practical feature of that is that only the person named in the authorisation or prescription can go along to the chemist shop, which seems to be a rigid physical restriction. If that person is ill at the time, but needs to get a renewal of the prescription, or is bedridden, or is unable to go along somebody else cannot go along with the prescription or authorisation.

Then we have these phrases:

who, in the opinion of the practitioner formed at the time of the giving of the prescription or authorisation, sought the contraceptives for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances....

and so on. On Committee Stage we will have to try to emphasise the difficulties associated with a term like bona fide. It is not defined in this Bill, and it is an entirely subjective term if it is not so defined because what is bona fide depends on the attitude and prejudices of an individual doctor. It depends on the doctor's view as to what is bona fide, and again we have no definition of family for the purposes of trying to ascertain what bona fide family planning may be. This particular provision lacks the necessary clarity to enable us to ascertain whether or not the term is confined to married people. I think the Minister has deliberately dodged this issue because he sees the complexities, he sees the great difficulty in Ireland in even talking about marriage and being sure that we have covered the various kinds of marriage in Ireland which are not a valid marriage in accordance with the laws of the State. When this section was being written there was a very deliberate attempt to choose a form of wording which would obscure the precise nature of the problem and by doing so leave this broad subjective discretion to individual doctors. It not only leaves them with the discretion but leaves them with the kind of responsibility and role which doctors should not be asked to perform in any society, the role of being the moral arbiters of the local community. I think it has been rightly said that this role can just as easily be carried out by the milkman or the local postman or the dentist or anybody else. They have as much to contribute in this area of morality, of what is bona fide, as has a doctor. Doctors have no special training in moral theology or in what would constitute bona fide family planning. We will require to have a meticulous analysis of this section on Committee Stage in which I would hope we will show up its unacceptability and its ludicrousness and the fact that it does place the medical profession in a non-medical role and places couples in Ireland at the mercy of the conscience and of the attitudes of individual doctors. I think that this is a totally unacceptable situation.

Once again, at section 5, we have a new restriction, and that is a restriction on the import of contraceptives for private use. At the moment it is legal to import them for private use, but this section would restrict that as follows:

A person shall not import contraceptives into the State unless they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State....

When is that quantity such as to indicate that they are not solely for his own use? That I think is a blatant discrimination. It discriminates in favour of those who can travel, in favour of the better off. It is the clearest example of discrimination on the basis of income and property that one could witness. It also means that we have got back again into the need for notices by the Revenue Commissioners as regards what are prohibited goods. That is very interesting, because it is not so very long ago that I raised in the Seanad the fact that even years after the McGee case which struck down the prohibition on importation for private use the Revenue Commissioners were leaving these notices at the airport called "A customs guide for residents" which under the section "prohibited or restricted goods" referred to "arms, ammunition and explosives, budgerigars and other birds of the parrot species, contraceptives, dogs and cats, from places other than Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."

After I raised the matter in the Seanad that particular reference to contraceptives was dropped and it is not in the later notice of the Revenue Commissioners. It is not in the present one, and similarly it is not in the one that we have specially as "A customs guide for visitors". But presumably now we will have to have that back again, and if you have conscientious visitors or indeed conscientious residents who pick this up and see that there is a restriction and they then conscientiously will inquire "What is the scope of the restriction?" I wonder what our credibility as a nation will be if the section of the Act is read out to them and they are told that they may bring in only such quantity as to indicate that they are for their own personal use. There is no time limit on that use. There is no way in which one can see the enforceability of it, but it does give a role again to the Customs officials in this area.

The other matter that I wanted to have clarification on is in relation to the amendments of a Censorship of Publications Act. There are very elaborate provisions there but it does seem as though section 12 does not cater for the particular problem which arose in the case that I mentioned, the Irish Family Planning Association (Dr. Joan Wilson) against the members of the Censorship Board—in that it does not seem to provide for the possibility of making representations to the Censorship Board if a book is being banned. The table amending the section seems still to provide that the Censorship Board having duly examined a book are of the opinion that it is indecent or obscene, or that there is a case of procurement of an abortion or miscarriage, or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of——

Mr. Haughey

That is for Committee Stage.

Mrs. Robinson

I realise that, but I think it is better to indicate what the problems are.

Mr. Haughey

The Senator is going to mention it twice, on Second Stage and on Committee Stage?

Mrs. Robinson

I am seeking clarification so that when I have had an opportunity of reading the Minister's reply I will know whether the matter should be amended or not. I think it is a reasonable and normal practice in this House for people to refer to matters like this as they choose, even on Second Stage, if they are matters which give rise to genuine problems. It does seem as though the particular problem that arose in that case required the giving of an opportunity for representations to the Censorship Board before a book or periodical was banned. But that does not seem to be catered for in that section and it would be appropriate to cater for it since the relevant section is in any case being amended.

Section 9 of the Bill provides for the grant for research. Here again as in the provision relating to the provision of a comprehensive family planning service in section 2 there is a discrimination against the broader range of methods of family planning and discrimination in favour of natural methods of family planning. Section 2 (b) provides that the Minister should provide a comprehensive natural planning service and then there is this reference to grants:

The Minister may, out of moneys supplied by the Oireachtas, make a grant to a person to finance or assist in the financing of, research into methods of family planning that do not relate to the use of contraceptives.

I think that this again is part of the padding of this Bill. It caters for the particular groups who expressed strong views on the matter.

The Minister would have been more honest if he had provided research grants across the board into family planning services, including natural methods. I fully approve of research into methods of natural family planning and I fully support such grants. But there should also be research into other methods and it should be contained in this Bill. There should be research grants available for the other methods of family planning, and this comes back to what I said earlier about the over-prescription of the pill as the only easily available so-called legal contraceptive as a cycle regulator under the present system, the lack of awareness of alternatives to the pill, of artificial methods which would carry much less risk, the availability of types of the pill which have been withdrawn in other jurisdictions. These very serious problems and matters that require research are not being given the same kind of support in the Bill as the commitment by the Minister to provide a comprehensive service and to provide grants for research into family planning services which are confined to natural methods of family planning. It is a sop by the Minister to the pressures exerted on him from certain lobbies and an attempt to pacify people who may think he has gone too far towards providing access to contraceptives.

I will be ending shortly, the Minister will be glad to hear. Perhaps, in his reply, he would give us a list of the persons and bodies he consulted. In his opening speech he referred to the fact that he had been involved in widespread consultation and that he felt it was necessary to contact certain groups and bodies for their views on the matter. It would be very interesting, and it might tell us a great deal more about the particular structure of the Bill, if he gave us a list of the persons and bodies he contacted and with whom he had consultations before drawing up the terms of this Bill.

I will end my contribution as I began it by saying it is very sad and depressing, in the second half of 1979, as somebody who has campaigned for a decade for a comprehensive system of family planning and for the legislation of the availability of contraceptives, for advice and education on the matter, to find myself faced with a Bill that totally fails to meet the problems, is so restrictive in its terms, creates so many new offences, gives such wide discretion to the Minister that its terms are not clear and contains totally unacceptable provisions in relation to access to contraceptives. It will lead to a much more restrictive and a much more anomalous position than the Irish solution that has evolved over the past few years where there has been an absence of legislation. It is very sad that this is the measure offered by the Fianna Fáil Government.

As I understand it, the Fianna Fáil Party sought and secured substantial support from young people in the last election. I hope young people will read the terms of the Bill and understand its impact and the thinking behind it, and will draw their own conclusions about the inspiration behind it. I still look forward to the day when we will have a genuine measure before us to help cope with the very real problems and challenge posed in providing a comprehensive system of family planning, the educational resources, the medical training and, above all, ensure that this service will be available to every citizen, including those holding medical cards, low income groups, and that they will have the full range of advice so that we will have the vindication of personal responsibility and the achievement of a genuinely pluralist society which respected and catered for the views and opinions of all citizens. This Bill is very far from that. It is a disimprovement, a retrograde step, and I have no alternative but to oppose it vigorously and to hope it will not secure support from this House or that it will, at least, be amended in such a way as to remove some of its less supportable aspects.

Mr. Yeats

I can assure Senators that I will be briefer than some of the Senators who have spoken up to now. The details of the Bill are essentially matters for Committee Stage. On Second Stage it is a relatively simple matter of principle that we all have to decide. It is relatively simple but nonetheless extremely difficult. There is no chance of satisfying everybody on a Bill of this kind. The Minister in his introductory speech said:

To some, the legislation is unnecessary and irksome; to others, it is inadequate. There is no conceivable legislation which would be acceptable to both these groups.

That is clearly the position. My own view on the question of principle with regard to legislation of this kind is that the question of family planning or contraception is not a matter for the State.

Mrs. Robinson

Hear, hear.

Mr. Yeats

One must accept the sincerity of those who think differently. There are a large number of people in this country and in other countries who hold most sincerely views based on religious beliefs to the effect that what is described as artificial contraception is contrary to those religious views and therefore is not acceptable. My own view is that this is a matter for the individual to take up as between himself and his religious advisers. It is not a matter he should seek to impose on other people and, in particular, it is not a matter that he should seek to impose on other people by means of legislation. The view I am putting forward is accepted worldwide today.

There are about 130 sovereign States in the world. I know of none which has legislation, as we do, banning the sale of contraceptives. The universal view is that this is a matter for the individual, and not a matter for the State, not a matter for legislation. In these countries there are hundreds of millions of people who sincerely hold strong religious views against the use of contraceptives but it is accepted in all countries, other than our own, that it is a matter for the private individual. If there were no legislation on contraception here and it was proposed to impose legislation, this would be intolerable and quite unacceptable. I was astonished to hear Senator Robinson say that we were replacing a situation where there was no legislation on this subject with this Bill.

Mrs. Robinson

I did not say that. I did not intend to say that.

Mr. Yeats

It may be that the Senator did not intend to say that, but that is what she said. If she looks at her speech she will find that is what she said. We all know that for well over 40 years we have had an absolute ban on the sale of contraceptives. It is a criminal offence for a family planning clinic, a private individual, or anybody else to sell contraceptives in this country, and has been since 1935. That is the position we have to deal with and that is the position the Minister has to deal with. To look at this Bill in any other way is quite fallacious.

Some legislation is essential. Quite clearly we cannot continue a situation where people in this country, no matter what their religious beliefs may be, or no matter what their personal inclinations may be, are faced with an absolute ban on the sale of contraceptives. As a result of the McGee case it is now possible to import contraceptives freely, but not to sell them. Is this the right Bill? As the Minister has made clear, there is no Bill that would be accepted by everyone. Each one of us could write his or her own Bill. There is no serious problem in drafting a Bill. Anyone can draft a Bill provided he complies with certain technical formalities that are needed. If I were to write a Bill on family planning, and by some means were able to ensure that it was passed into law no matter what was in it, I would write a very different Bill from the one before us.

Mrs. Robinson

Hear, hear.

Mr. Yeats

While it is easy to draft a Bill, it is by no means easy to get majority support for it, and no one in this House is more aware of that fact than Senator Robinson. Senator Robinson, in the course of her speech, led us through the long series of Bills which dealt with this subject, a number of them drafted by herself. She said this is the sixth attempt to draft a Bill dealing with family planning. I would have thought this long and perhaps bitter experience would have taught her that the essential point in a Bill of this kind is to get a Bill which will obtain some kind of majority consensus and which has some prospect of becoming law.

Mrs. Robinson

This is the only Bill Fianna Fáil would support.

Mr. Yeats

I did not interrupt the Senator and I would be very much obliged if she would listen to what I have to say. Towards the end of her speech Senator Robinson almost seemed to suggest that the Minister's efforts to appease what she described as lobbies were in some way undesirable. Why people who happen to hold views with which Senator Robinson is not in agreement should be described as lobbies I do not know. The Minister has gone to endless lengths to consult everybody and try to reach some kind of a consensus which has some prospect of becoming law. To my mind that is not something for which he should be condemned. It is something for which he should be praised. Senator Robinson, with her long experience, should realise the problems of getting legislation through, and should welcome the prospect that, at last, after over 40 years, we have a Bill with some real prospect of becoming law.

Senator Robinson—and I regretted this very much because it seems to me this is not a subject about which we should play party politics—suggested time and time again that due to some sinister conspiracy on the part of Fianna Fáil legislation did not go through before this.

Mrs. Robinson

They opposed five Bills.

Mr. Yeats

She referred in particular to the second Bill that came up in this House in 1976 and said Fianna Fáil decided to vote against it. At that time the Fianna Fáil Party in this House had 13 seats out of 60. There were 47 Senators in this House who did not belong to Fianna Fáil, and yet did the Bill pass? Who was responsible for its not passing? Was it Fianna Fáil or colleagues and political allies of Senator Robinson? I am sorry for bringing in this political matter, but I have to.

On the first occasion Senator Robinson brought in a Bill to this House, as she herself pointed out, it got ten votes. After that in the other House the then Coalition Government brought in legislation dealing with family planning. I will not go into the inglorious details of that Bill. Although the Government had a majority, it did not go through. We then had Senator Robinson's second attempt in this House which was rejected on Second Stage in early 1977. At that time it was opposed strongly by the Leader of the House, Senator Michael O'Higgins. As Senator Robinson said herself, the then Tánaiste, Deputy Corish, who was also Minister for Health and Leader of her own Labour Party, came into this House and, among other things, said that in his view it was not possible in the foreseeable future to get legislation through because of the problem of getting agreement. All these factors should have led Senator Robinson to the inevitable conclusion that on legislation of this kind it is almost impossible to get a consensus let alone a legislative majority.

Mrs. Robinson

So much for an 84-seat majority.

Mr. Yeats

I have no doubt that I could draft a Bill which would make me happier. Senator Robinson could draft a Bill—she has drafted several—which would please her more, but neither my Bill nor her Bill would become law. Senator Robinson has said that in her view this Bill is worse than the present position. I do not know whether she is serious about that.

Mrs. Robinson

I am.

Mr. Yeats

I cannot conceive how she can be serious. It seems to me that the present position is both ridiculous and impossible. It is not, as Senator Robinson suggested, a case where there is no legislation. We are seeking to replace a situation where no sales whatever by family clinics or anybody else are possible without a breach of the law by a situation where, under certain regulations and restrictions in this Bill; they are made possible. For these reasons I will vote for this Bill. I would appeal urgently to those Senators who may feel much the same way as I do about this matter, or indeed as Senator Robinson does, to vote for this Bill—of course it has defects; any Bill on this subject will have defects—on the ground that it is the first time in 40 years that we have a real chance of having a family planning system.

Dr. Martin

I should like to make my comments on this Bill brief, as is the custom when it comes to the Second Stage of a Bill in this House. In other words, I should like to address myself to the general principles involved rather than the details of the individual sections and subsections.

I should like to begin by saying that I do not particularly like the Bill. I was a Member of this House during three of the previous attempts made by individuals and parties to get contraceptive legislation onto the Statute Book. I was particularly exercised to witness the shipwreck of Senator Cooney's Bill in the Dáil and I shared, to some extent, in the sense of national disgrace and disaster which we all felt when that very, very strange activity took place in our Parliament.

I should like to put it on record that I backed Senator Robinson's Family Planning Bill and, as far as it was within my range, I backed the Family Planning Bill of Senator Cooney when he was Minister. I should like to put on record my appreciation of their work in trying to get satisfactory legislation on to our Statute Book in regard to this very private and frankly, as far as I am concerned, very embarrassing subject. I agree with Deputy John Kelly when he says it is a very private matter and it is a bit of a disgrace and a disaster that we have to bring it into the open at all.

Senator Yeats is quite right in saying that there is no way we can claim that this is not a public issue. There is no way we can claim that this problem does not have to be solved legislatively. I am not the only one who has felt continual embarrassment at the public controversy surrounding this in our country for the past ten years. I have been actually embarrassed for ten years on this subject. I am saying it is not an important subject. The fact of the matter is that there are far more important subjects than this, but this one really has been screaming at us from the newspapers for a long time. I have thought: can we ever put it to rest, or how can it be put to rest?

I became aware of the difficulties and the complexities of it in a curious way. I suppose because I am a university teacher I live in a fairly rarefied atmosphere, in this sense at least, that I live among students and the most vocal of students tend to be those students in favour of permissiveness as they call it now, the libertarian view. Therefore, I suppose, there is a sense in which the air I breathe is one which would make me more libertarian than otherwise. Perhaps that had some influence on the fact that when Senator Robinson brought forward her Bill, and when Senator Cooney brought forward his Bill, I was one of the first onto the battlements.

I thought all "right-thinking people"—the inverted commas are essential when using a phrase like that—were on my side in that matter, but I went down to my home town, Leitrim, and on the way home from Mass I was twice powerfully confronted, not by the parish priest or anybody like that, or by any celibate. One of the people who confronted me was a woman who had about nine children. Maybe that was why she objected to the whole idea. Certainly I was made very much aware that what Senator Murphy once referred to as "middle Ireland" had different views from mine.

What is a legislator? Is he a leader, or is he a man who works in consensus? How far ahead of the public should he be? In the Seanad how far ahead, depending on how one defines progress and whether it is Left or Right, of the general public should one be? The answer to that question is rather difficult.

Senator FitzGerald said that in matters of this kind it is better to proceed slowly on this subject. I remember listening to a speech by Senator Halligan when he was leader of the Labour Party in the Seanad, in which he supported Senator Robinson's Bill but said emphatically, at the end of a brilliant speech, that he would unquestionably limit the supply of contraceptives to married people only. In other words, the problem is more complex than it might appear. I sympathise with the Minister in bringing forward this Bill which I do not particularly like and while I cannot read the Minister's mind I would say he does not like it that much himself. The problem exists that we have to have legislation on this. I passionately want legislation on the Statute Book. I want this ignoble, dreary and humiliating debate taken out of the public arena. If we do not deal with it it is going to go on.

I would have preferred Senator Robinson's Bill or Senator Cooney's Bill, but what happened to them? If this Bill is defeated what will happen? Senator Robinson's Private Member's Bill will come forward again, the dreary debate will begin again and the Bill will be defeated again. We will be as frustrated in two years' time as we have been up to now. The time has come for me to say—not that the world is hanging on my words—whether I am going to support this Bill or not. The answer is implicit in what I have been saying; I am going to support it. It is with considerable reluctance that I do that, but the Minister has tried as hard as he can to get the consensus of his party and pass legislation which is by and large acceptable to what has been described as middle Ireland.

The Bill is about a nose ahead of public opinion. It does not go nearly as far as I would like it to go but I was cheered to hear Senator FitzGerald make it clear that it goes further than I had thought. For instance, Senator FitzGerald, whose speech we will all look forward to reading, said that any person who seeks contraceptives, whether married or not, will be able to obtain them under the terms of the Bill. I do not know whether that is true or not. As I read the Bill that was not utterly clear to me. That Senator objected to the pretence that the Bill was being restrictive and objected to the lack of openness in it. I do not think he used the word hypocrisy, though he came very close to it, but he did concede that in certain kinds of legislation and at certain times in the legislative process it is necessary, it is exigent, "to muffle" or to "wrap up" political reality in order to deflect the full force of public attention from it. He did not think it was being properly exercised here, but he did admit, like T. S. Elliot's famous statement, that human time can bear only a certain amount of reality. This seems to be a fact of life, and if it is a fact of Irish life we have to live with that also because those who opposed Senator Cooney's Bill were voting for unreality. In fact, those who voted against Senator Cooney's Bill did so under the guise of being conservative, antilibertarian and so forth. They knew in their hearts as they walked into the lobby that they were leaving the situation much wider open than it would have been under that Bill. Within the Irish ambiance, which I am not condemning because we use the double standard with as much skill and style as most other countries, they were applauded for being defenders of the faith, but they were not defending the faith. Those who voted against that Bill left the situation open where a child of 13 years of age could write and get contraceptives from England and that is the situation as it stands now. Those who oppose this Bill know that.

I sympathise with the Minister in the sense that there is no question but that he will be attacked from the Right and the Left. However, his speech is at least realistic, and he is fairly close to the common ground in the middle. This could sound like a speech for expediency, and I am willing to live with that too, but the fact is that the Bill will put on our Statute Book for the first time legislation permitting contraception. From that point on in the debate the temperature will begin to decrease and the radioactive elements will begin to disperse. We will be able to turn our minds to things more important than this. It grieves me to use a phrase from one of my great heroes, Michael Collins, and say that this is not the freedom to which we aspire but it can be the means to achieve greater freedom. I misquoted that deliberately because I do not think any of the founders of the State would be particularly interested or edified to see us discussing this matter at all.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

There was no restriction in their time and it did not come about until 1935.

Dr. Martin

More the pity. One of the biggest mistakes one can make is to legislate too precisely, or as Hamlet said, thinking too precisely on the event. Legislation should be broad and wide, large brush strokes and not small prurient marginalia. The Bill which this sets out to cancel was of that kind and I understand why it was so. It came out of the society which bred it. We speak out of our society all the time and unless we are lucky we are slaves to it. In order to change it we must frequently, as legislators, be willing to compromise. My great mentor in the sole question of contraception from the beginning has been Sir Patrick Devlin, now Lord Devlin, who is a Catholic and one of the great luminaries of jurisprudence in Britain.

When I passionately supported the Bills of Senators Robinson and Cooney I found myself invoking his principle of the man on the Clapham bus, the man on the 46A. In order to make legislation one does not count heads, one does not have to call referenda to find out how many people are in favour of this. On the other hand, one is not an autocrat, one does not lay down the law and say: "This is how it has got to be"—by some kind of Divine fiat—"I am a dictator and when I open my mouth let no dog bark." It is our job to get a sense of what the people want. It is probably part of our job to move a little bit ahead but not too far ahead. When we are coming to our conclusion about this we think of the man on the Clapham bus, or the man on the 46A. It is difficult to interest those men in the subject now. It would have interested them intensely when Senator Robinson raised this before but it is a kind of dead issue now. I am not crazy about the Bill but it is reasonably close to what the plain people of Ireland at present are willing to endure, which is not a great deal of reality. If there is muffling or wrapping up in it in order to make it acceptable I do not think that is too damnable. With those reservations I welcome the Bill and declare my intention to vote for it.

Mr. Lambert

I was pleased to hear Senator Martin's artistic view of what legislation should be because I sympathise with those sentiments, being new to politics. We have matured as a nation both economically and socially in the past 60 years and our contribution to the European Community has already earned the respect of other nations in the short span of time which we have been members. Unfortunately, foreign assessment of all the controversial views, influences and comments during this debate is bound to misjudge our normal attitude to sex. To the outside world this Bill can only be described as a maze which contains a very large number of false paths which could mislead the unwary. Senator Robinson, with her superior legal knowledge, has described its circuitousness and its evasiveness as living up to the Minister's description of it as an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

The fundamental point at issue here is not contraception itself but what kind of society are we trying to construct. Should the society reflect one view, that of the Roman Catholic Church, or many? Are we to live in an open or a closed society? To me this is a crucial focus of this debate. My view is in line with that of Senator Yeats, that the State should play no part in issues of private morality. Attempts to do so can only be construed as an incursion on the rights of the individual, and on his rights to privacy.

I have carefully noted and read the barrage of propaganda to which Members of the Oireachtas have been subjected in the course of the Dáil debate on this Bill. I consider much of it as misinformed, much of it as hysterical in nature, and it has come as a surprise to me to learn that there are still so many people in this part of our country who wish to see the State as nothing more than a political reflection of the views of the Roman Catholic Church. This prospect has been widely covered by Senator FitzGerald. I am heartened by his perspective of the kind of open, Christian and tolerant society which he advocates with faith and, I am glad to say, optimism. The Bill has served one good purpose in that it forces into the open some extreme views, including those of an influential secret society. I hope the emotion surrounding this type of Bill will encourage more open and outspoken comments and public expression on other subjects from influential bodies which endeavour to dominate Irish public life from behind closed doors.

Two strands of arguments have become apparent to me. First, the limited availability of contraceptive devices as allowed for in this Bill is being interpreted in some spheres as compulsory contraception. Secondly, contraception is being presented as the forerunner of abortion, when all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion—that proper education and instruction together with the availability of contraceptive devices works to prevent the conception of unwanted children and, therefore, removes the terrible need which some women feel for abortion. We cannot overlook that the sad journey to Britain on which many of our young Irish women embark to terminate their pregnancy is an Irish problem too, even though its horrifying solution is found outside our territorial boundaries. Because this has been so it worries me that the problem of abortion—and it is a problem for many here—has effectively been swept under the carpet. Statistics continue to be distorted.

To those of all religious persuasions who may genuinely be worried by the availability of contraceptives I would say this, availability is not compulsion, it is a sadly debilitated faith that would be usurped merely by the opportunity to avail of contraceptive services. To those who argue that contraception is intrinsically evil, it must be pointed out that this view derives from a scholastic interpretation of life which is not universally shared. The promised natural law on which it is founded would similarly frown upon natural methods of family planning, since the natural object of the action is being frustrated. Indeed, this view was held by the Roman Catholic Church until the relatively recent past.

It should also be noted that Aquinas himself left some latitude for the exercise of conscience. The Summa points out: "The light of natural reason by which we distinguish what is good and what is bad—a distinction pertaining to natural law—is nothing other than the impression in us of divine light". I noted that last month the Roman Catholic Church appears to be reopening the debate on artificial contraception, as the Vatican is now to invite the views of the Church bishops on this question. To those who would associate the availability of contraception with a greater level of sexual permissiveness, I would also point to the evidence of Dr. Eimer Philbin Bowman. She found that while about half of those availing of the services of the two Dublin family planning clinics were unmarried the great majority were involved in longstanding stable relationships. Of particular importance in these cases was the fact that it was only after a considerable length of time, when the relationship was well established, that many of these women sought contraceptives. The simple point is that the unavailability of contraceptives is not a deterrent to sexual activity.

Contraception does, however, deter unwanted pregnancies. Naturally, many of the women interviewed by Dr. Bowman had become pregnant as they had engaged in sexual activity without benefit of contraception for considerable periods of time. For those who had become pregnant, half had procured abortions. This is the real problem which we must address ourselves to solving. I am concerned that the Bill may represent a step backwards from the de facto position which already exists here, without benefit of legislation. The whole bias of the Bill is against the use of or provision of artificial contraceptives. An individual or group can make available a natural family planning service quite freely, but only so long as it excludes contraceptive methods. In the case of a comprehensive family planning service, including contraceptive services, the consent of the Minister is required. He will only give consent if the service is in the “public interest” and is reasonably required to meet a particular need. It is the Minister who will arbitrate on those weighty questions. Whilst one can be confident that the Minister will take a liberal view, one must be concerned about what the attitude of successive Ministers may be.

Availability of contraceptive devices to a person will depend to a large extent on the views of the medical practitioner. As other Senators said during the debate, this places the doctor in the difficult role of being the moral arbiter for his or her patients. Patients may find this inhibiting, particularly if their doctor does not share their moral outlook. Where are they to turn to then? As I see it there is also the danger of exploitation by young doctors setting up as authorities on family planning just to make money out of the number of people who will come to them for prescriptions.

The Bill pays much attention to those who can and cannot sell and prescribe contraceptives. Far too little attention is given to the ultimate users. Little is actually said as to who can purchase contraceptives. There have been conflicting reports that the Minister is prepared to make contraceptives available to married couples only, or to married couples and those involved in stable relationships. I should like clarification of this point. Our country has held in high respect the position of bachelors and spinsters who have responsibilty to the living and not to possible posterity. It is worth remembering that there is no Commandment of God or of his Church that orders or compels anyone to marry for the sake of marriage but there is a Commandment to honour thy father and mother which emphasises looking after one's parents in their helpless old age. In all families there is the old parent, the crippled sister, the widowed sister-in-law and the young orphan, all living human beings dependent on the single person. In assisting the laws of civilisation I do not see that single persons, because of their particular vocation, should remain celibate. In fairness, they are entitled to form stable relationships and be entitled to the use of contraceptives without the fear and threat of legal punishment. The Bill also assumes that married couples are less promiscuous than single persons. If we open our eyes and ears we know in all honesty that this is not the case and that the Bill could encourage single bachelors to have affairs with married women and single girls to have affairs with married men in accordance with the availability of contraception under this legislation.

With regard to the importation of contraceptives and the fact that they must be part of the individual's personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State I should like to know what the situation is in relation to the importation by post. Senator Robinson held that it would be illegal but I am not clear on that point. The Bill appears to be attempting to circumscribe the activities of the family planning clinics which have provided so much assistance to those in need in recent years. I know of many doctors of enormous repute and eminence who have played a leading part as citizens of this State and whose sensitivity to the whole problem of family planning has been exemplary and I would regret if they would be precluded in any way from continuing to function as they have done up to now with such compassion, understanding and concern for the numerous sexual problems of their patients.

I realise that the Bill reflects an official attitude throughout the country of the majority and we all recognise the difficulty of the Minister to find a compromise. I do not like the Bill as it stands because it does not go far enough. At the same time I have been shocked by the backlash which even this modest piece of legislation has induced. This has left me in a very difficult position because if the Bill was to fail or be withdrawn, it seems quite apparent that something even worse might be introduced in its place. I realise that I represent a minority group, although I consider that I have had an equally strict upbringing. I find, therefore, that, as an Irishman, I have to take the broadest possible view because I realise we must have some form of family planning Bill and find a compromise in the short-term. In the mental dilemma in which I find myself, therefore, I am compelled to apply the doctrine of the lesser evil. Therefore, I will support this measure, having expressed my reservations because I realise that, like every phase of life in Ireland, we have to go step by step and pass through the adolescent stage to ultimate maturity in private conviction and selfcontrol.

Mr. Harte

On this issue the Minister had very wide-ranging consultations and I accept that he went to a great deal of trouble to arrange those consultations. I have no doubt that he encountered very serious differing opinions during those consultations and I fully appreciate that he was in a difficult position. As a realist, in such circumstances I can understand the need to strive for a consensus. I know that a consensus can be a very good thing but when one is dealing with difficult legislation of this nature and when that consensus ignores the rights of substantial minorities one is presented with a dangerous situation. One is in danger of reaching conclusions on beliefs rather than on facts. It worries me that this may have happened in this case. There is the fact that the cumulative number of patients attending the family planning clinics from 1969 to 1977 was 39,617 and the cumulative number of patient visits was 119,202. Those people went of their own initiative to those clinics although in an odd case they were referred by various health boards. They went to those clinics because they did not want to go to a doctor to get the services offered by those clinics on prescription. They went for advice, information and to hear people tell them what type of contraception was most beneficial to them, whether natural or artificial. They also went for tests.

The Bill may not remove all those services totally, but it will remove a substantial number. That is discrimination. It will remove them if such people cannot persuade their GP that their circumstances warrant the issue of a prescription. I have no doubt that quite a number of them will qualify, after consultation with the GP, for prescriptions. That still leaves us with a very substantial number, having regard to the figures I quoted, who want to use the family planning clinic where one does not have to be referred to or does not have to have a doctor's prescription to get the necessary services from it as is indicated in the Bill. For example, any person can go into a GP and he may have a substantial reason, on the question of need, to plan his family. He might find it very difficult, because we have legislated in this way, to get by the GP.

I am dwelling on one aspect of it strictly, that of dealing with the GP. She may be a person who would get advice on the natural methods and the natural methods may not work for her. The only reason that she or the family may have is an economic one. What GP would have the right to issue a prescription if the reasons for planning a family were merely economic and nothing else? What right would he have to write out a prescription to say that the person is bona fide? To me that means the GP is going to be in the awkward situation of having to determine whether the person is bona fide or not. Does he determine on economic grounds where there is no medical requirement, for people who merely want to meet their everyday commitment and have a better life for their children? They tell the GP this in honesty. The alternative is to come and draw a good line and persuade the GP in this direction and do a con trick on him. This is where I see great difficulties in this area. Are we going to place the GP in a position where he may have to start falsifying prescriptions to satisfy the terms of the Bill? Is that a risk worth running? I have never said this before but in circumstances like this, the position as it is might be better than if we allowed the doctors to get into a position where they are conned or where they become frustrated and, out of frustration, actually accept lines of argument that are really not bona fide and start prescribing accordingly. What does a doctor say to a patient who goes in with only an economic argument? Does he say “you are not medical”?

Mr. Haughey

I do not visualise any general practitioner refusing a married person who seeks it under any circumstances.

Mr. Harte

They may have qualms of conscience as well. We will see how it works. The Bill suggests that in every marriage there are two balanced personalities. It is the decision of the GP and we have made it so. He has to decide bona fide. If bona fide is not the term, what is it? If the Bill means that one can go in and say to a doctor: “I want a prescription because I am married”, why do we not say that? We do not say that. I know that these possibly are explanations that would be accepted by the GPs. What I am afraid of is where we are going to run into problems over the question of the GP having qualms of conscience. He may not go as far as we think he will. This will discriminate against people who would otherwise be able to use the normal family planning clinic and who now have to revert to a situation where they will be caught in this.

There are all kinds of cases that can be brought to the GP. The Minister said that he cannot envisage any GP saying "no" to anybody that is married. I cannot understand that at all.

Professor Murphy

The Bill permits him to say "no".

Mr. Harte

I cannot understand that, because he is permitted to say "no". He has to make a decision if they are bona fide. He is not obliged to legislate——

Mr. Haughey

Bona fide could be for any reason; a decision to have no children, or a decision to space children. It is entirely a matter for the married couple. It is not at the discretion of the doctor at all.

Mr. Harte

He has the power to say "no".

Mr. Haughey

We must assume that the doctor will act reasonably. We trust him in every other area.

Mr. Harte

I have been speaking to one or two doctors who said that in no way will they prescribe. I will give the Minister the names in confidence if he wants them afterwards. One of them said to me that he was not going to row in with it and was not going to make a decision. These are the problems. We could have a case where doctors will not get into a situation where they can say "no" because of qualms of conscience and so on. They are only human. They might find it rather difficult to say "Go ahead. It does not matter whether your reasons are economic or otherwise, that makes you bona fide”. The situation is that the doctor has the right to say “no”, and this is rather a pity.

The question of discrimination is an interesting one. People like to go and do their own business and not to be obliged to get a prescription from a doctor. They have been doing that very successfully in a lot of cases. I am speaking about married people who go to family planning services. There is an imposition on them now to deal in this way with a problem they think is private to them and a matter for their own conscience. They do not want to discuss the question of their conscience with anyone else. They merely want to be able to go, in an open way, to a family planning clinic and say, "Look, I want the contraceptive; all I want is your advice on which type suits me, whether the natural method would be better or whether the other method would be better". It is an imposition that directs them and says, "This is the way you must do it, you cannot do it in accordance with the normal functions of society and go where these are available, you must adopt a different procedure".

We are a little ambivalent about this. Frankly, I would like to go on record as saying that if someone said to me: "Would you be in favour of using contraceptives in your own married life?" the answer I would give would be "no". It is a matter for individual conscience and, therefore, I support the principle. I am not satisfied that the Bill is adequate in all its terms. Many of the points made by other people have been very substantially dealt with from the legal and retrospective sides.

The ambivalence that we have to face up to in Irish society is a little puzzling at times. On the one hand we have exported millions of our people abroad through our economic behaviour. They are subjected to the laws and provisions that obtain. There are one million Irish born people in England. They function under the laws that obtain in England regarding family planning and the use of contraceptives. When they come home things are not the way they want them to be. It is there in the family planning clinics. It is an improvement to have the Bill but not a sufficient one. They will be able to secure them before they come. They will not have any problem in that respect.

If the family planning clinics were not in operation people would have the problem of going in to see if the doctor approves of Irish citizens, resident in England, coming back to know if they could have the use of the family planning services while they are here on holidays. I do not see that these people are adequately protected. Maybe the Minister will explain that to me later.

This is difficult legislation. It is not easy to cope with. I have some sympathy with Senator Yeats and his approach to it because he is a sincere man and was making a sincere effort to come to terms with it. He was serious when he asked people to support this. It is unrealistic to ask other parties to support it. An effort was made by Deputy Corish to have an all-party solution to it. That was the right way to go about it. We did not have an all-party solution so, consequently, we were back to taking up attitudes. When attitudes are take up, it is very hard to get rid of them. A great opportunity was missed when Deputy Corish made that offer. If it had been taken up, we would not be debating this Bill in such a way.

There might be something to be learned from the American style of politics. This has been going on for over ten years. It is not unusual for something to go to Committee in America and stay there for about five years. It might have been right, some years ago, for an all-party committee to go into it and if that had happened we would not be faced with the problems we now have.

Dr. Whitaker

I should like to indicate my attitude to the Bill which as the Minister has freely admitted, is an imperfect and compromise "middle of the road" measure.

The background to it is that the attempt in section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, to make contraceptives unavailable has been undermined by the Supreme Court decision in the McGee case, even though that decision applied only to access to contraceptives for married couples for their own use.

The choice now appears to lie between two alternatives. The first is to let the actual situation continue—that is, in effect, have no control. In all honesty, this would mean wiping section 17 of the 1935 Act off the Statute Book altogether.

The second alternative is to introduce some new and more reasonable system of statutory control over the import, sale and distribution of contraceptives.

I believe that, as in the case of alcoholic drink and drugs generally, some control is necessary for the good of society. I would not like to contemplate contraceptives being readily available to children nor should contraceptive pills and drugs be freely available to adults without medical approval so long as their effects on health are not fully understood and may be harmful.

The good of society also requires that abortifacients should not be available, whether in the guise of contraceptives or otherwise. I hope that the definition of contraceptive in this Bill, which hinges on the prevention of pregnancy, does not cover devices intended to prevent the fertilised ovum from being implanted in the womb. Such devices would seem to be abortifacient in character. I presume they are covered by section 10 of the Bill.

I see a need in the common good for controls, as the short title of the Bill says, over the sale, importation manufacture, advertisement and display of contraceptives. I recognise, however, that we live in a pluralist society in which there are Christian parents as well as parents of other denominations or of none, who not only do not consider it wrong, in the exercise of their parental responsibility, to try to keep the number of children they conceive within manageable limits or space them out over time, but who also, in conscience, see no fundamental distinction between the methods that might be employed to this end, no clear division, that is, of these methods into natural and unnatural. I have considerable sympathy with this viewpoint. I recognise, too, that the State is concerned with public rather than private morality. My hope would be that, whatever the method of family planning employed, parental responsibility in this sphere would be exercised with the utmost generosity towards new life and not with a self-centred or materialist bias. It is my belief that any life-transmitting power we have is held on trust from the Author of life and that, therefore, our bodies are not our own to do what we like with.

I realise that, apart from family planning purposes, certain contraceptives have other legitimate medical uses and for this as well as for other reasons it would be impossible to confine contraceptives to married couples. The Minister has done what he could to shore up the position by requiring a doctor's prescription or authorisation. While I support his general intention, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate that doctors should be invoked to prescribe the use of non-medical contraceptives or to guarantee, in effect, that married people require contraceptives for bona fide family planning purposes or “in appropriate circumstances”. It would be preferable that doctors should be concerned only with the health aspects of the use of contraceptives. However, in the absence of a more appropriate formulisation, I will not be opposing the Bill merely because of these imperfections. Senator Robinson's Bill, which is the only other legislation within our cognisance, goes too far for me to accept it without serious qualifications. If the provisions of the present Bill were relaxed, it would still be necessary, at the minimum, to prevent non-medical contraceptives being available to children and to guard against indiscriminate use by adults of medical contraceptives. Sexual intercourse between consenting unmarried persons in private is a matter of private morality with which legislation should not be concerned. As a matter of private morality, I continue to regard it as immoral whether with or without the use of contraceptives.

The term hypocrisy has been used or implied in relation to this Bill or parts of it but it struck me as a criticism that would come ill from anyone who, hypocritically or at any rate euphemistically, describes as "family planning clinics" places where, as we were told, half of the women clients are unmarried and a quarter have no intention of getting married in the foreseeable future. In principle, I will be supporting this Bill as admittedly imperfect but as the only immediate and reasonable method to hand for regulating an undesirably loose situation.

Mr. Molony

I speak more or less to indicate my own views on the subject rather than to recite much of the complaints that have been made about the contents of the Bill or the history of the debate that has preceded its coming into this House.

It is notable that it was a decision of the Supreme Court that necessitated this legislation. It is a pity that it was the Supreme Court decision in the McGee case that necessitated the Bill. Before Mrs. McGee went to court at all the law was being widely flouted and ignored and, no matter what one's personal views on the use of contraceptives may be, it is clear that there was a considerable and significant demand amongst people for a change in our law or for reform of the 1935 Act. It is a pity that it had to come about that way because, in matters of this nature, it is important that we, as legislators, should lead in the field rather than be forced into taking action and, having been forced, taking action reluctantly. Unless we are prepared to be more courageous and more responsive to the feelings in the community we are not fulfilling our responsibilities as legislators. We are, in one sense, playing the coward, afraid to deal with what is a difficult problem and we are not discharging the responsibilities that are given to us.

If one is an Independent one can perhaps take any view one likes depending on one's constituents. As a member of a political party I freely acknowledge that there are differences within our party as I know there are differences in the Fianna Fáil Party, and I know there are some differences in the Labour Party. It is inevitable that if one comes from a party that purports to represent a cross-section of our community, in an area such as this there must be division and disagreement. In such circumstances it is difficult to design and produce legislation. It is particularly difficult for the person whose job it is within the party, be it a Minister or private individual, who wishes to propose a change.

In circumstances like this, there are options open to the Minister or whoever is charged with the responsibility for that area within a party. One could have, as we have had within this party on two occasions, a free vote. The question of a free vote is a vexed one in the Government party. Perhaps there are now changes for the first time in the history of that party. I do not propose to go into a discussion about this because it would affect our entire democratic system and party political system to do so. I believe that where we are faced with situations like this one in which, because of our rigid party political system we are all, coming from the bigger political parties, in difficulties in reaching a consensus, perhaps we should, in the nation's interest, consider the wisdom of such a rigid party system. A free vote on one side of the House is not of great assistance in bringing about a solution to a problem like this. I believe, in the circumstances of this measure, it would be better for everybody and for our community if we had a free vote on all sides of the House. I do not believe it is a matter on which a Government would collapse. It is not as live a political issue now as many people, and particularly the newspapers, would have us believe. It is an issue that affects people individually. It is an issue in respect of which some people would choose to be expedient and ignore their own conscience if they felt it was going to affect their electoral prospects. One way or the other, it was an ideal issue in respect of which we could have had a free vote in the Dáil and in this Chamber.

I very much regret that when Senator Cooney, the then Minister for Justice, introduced his Bill in the Dáil there was a free vote amongst the Coalition parties and a party vote by Fianna Fáil. I am aware that members of Fianna Fáil expressed the view at that time that contraceptives were dirty things and should not be allowed. I am also aware that there were those in that party who put forward another view, that the health boards should deal with this matter. Behind it all and taking their speeches together one readily understood that there was no consensus and apparently there was no attempt to reach consensus. Had there been a free vote at that time we would now have on our Statute Book a better legislative position than we have at present. Senator Cooney's Bill was not, perhaps a perfect one, either. I submit that it was a better Bill than the present one, but that would be disagreed with particularly by the Minister for Health who presents this Bill to us today.

The Fianna Fáil Party did a disservice to the institutions of the Dáil and the Legislature when they said, as they did so loudly when that Bill was before the last Dáil, that it was the Government's job to govern their Legislature, not theirs. What they were doing at that time, regretfully, was not opposing, but exploiting. Given there is not to be a free vote, the Minister has one other option, and that is to try. The Minister for Health on this occasion has tried; he says that he has had consultations with all interested parties and that he has chosen the middle ground. He has not said that he is entirely happy with the ground that he has chosen, but he has chosen the middle ground in order to tidy up the situation which he says—and in this respect I agree with him—needs to be tidied up.

Finding middle ground and compromising is fine where you produce realistic legislation and realistic results but this legislation is neither realistic nor enforceable. I shall not go through all the matters that would ground my case for saying that. Senator FitzGerald, in an excellent speech, if I may say so, earlier today touched on those. I am satisfied that the right of privacy, which the Supreme Court sought to respect, is being offended by this Bill and it will, I believe, be found to be unconstitutional if the Bill is enforced and goes before the Supreme Court on that point. It is clear to anybody who has read the Bill that it is vague, ambiguous and, I believe, deliberately so. Senator FitzGerald and other Senators have made the point that the Bill purports to provide a family planning service for married couples but it does not. It is clear that they are hoping that, rather than have the Government's feathers ruffled any more, unmarried individuals will be able to avail of contraception should they choose, without necessarily leading to prostitution and further difficulties for the Government.

This Bill is largely expedient in its nature and is not a genuine attempt at reform. Though I sympathise strongly with the Minister's position and sympathise strongly with the arguments put forward by Senators, including Senator Whitaker who has just made his contribution, even with sympathy for those arguments I cannot and would not ever approve of or endorse sham legislation; I do not like saying this, but this is what this Bill is. I do not believe the Bill is enforceable. I do not believe that we should create offences the prosecution of which would be almost impossible, offences that are unenforceable and which I suspect it is not proposed to enforce.

I am aware, as is everybody else who watches the media, that the family planning clinics propose to ignore this legislation. The Bill now contains the amendment to enable them to continue to exist, if they have a pharmacist. They do not propose to employ pharmacists; they propose to ignore this law and they have said so. I would ask the Minister just one question. Does he propose to enforce that provision, so far as the family planning clinics are concerned? Will they be prosecuted? How soon will this happen? They have clearly indicated that they propose to ignore this law because they disagree with its provisions. A great deal of the discussion and the public debate about this Bill has made more an issue out of it than it otherwise would have been. I believe that the family planning clinics would operate in a most unobtrusive fashion were it not for this debate, which has now been raging for years.

Senators are rightly concerned that the present situation is unsatisfactory, but I must ask them what evidence exists that the present situation is being exploited? Senator Martin made the point that the present situation enables 13-year-olds to import contraceptives. I would ask the question, have 13-year-olds been importing contraceptives? What evidence exists to substantiate this view? There are many things 13-year-olds could import, which they do not. I will not accept that it is the situation at present. I believe it is unsatisfactory, but for a different reason, I might say. I do not accept that it has been widely, or in any way significantly, abused since the Supreme Court made ineffective the provisions of the 1935 Act. I think that the use of contraceptives is a matter of private morality; one, or a couple, must determine for himself or for themselves whether to avail of the facility or not.

If evidence existed that the availability of contraceptives would damage the moral fibre of our society then I would be prepared to consider the necessity for legislation restricting the use or the availability of contraceptives. Despite all the talk I cannot accept—and I have given a great deal of thought to this—that there is a case being properly argued and well grounded on that point. It is very difficult to know what to do; I had views on it at one time which I have changed.

I believe that this problem exists because, when the 1935 Act was going before the Dáil for the first time, the view was that it was dangerous that contraceptives should be available. When we legislated that day on a matter of private morality we created our present problem. It would be better simply to remove section 17 from the 1935 Act and wait to see what happens. I can think of only two abuses, both of which have been mentioned by Senator Whitaker. One is the abuse by young people of contraceptives and the other is the use of medical contraceptives by adults. If there was a likelihood of an abuse, or if it occurred, that there were abuses in those areas there would be some need for control. This could probably best be done, at this stage, by removing the offending section of the 1935 Act and by allowing the Minister to make regulations, which should be laid before the Houses if necessary, or allow that this matter be reviewed.

I agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Boland in the Lower House that an all-party committee be established and be there as a consultative committee for the Minister in this respect. If we did that, we could stop talking about what is or is not likely to happen, but wait to see what would happen. Then we would know what the abuses were. We have had, for the past few years now, the availability of contraceptives if a 13-year-old wanted to import them. I do not believe that anything serious has happened as a result of that. If we decriminalise the issue now, by removing the offending section, and simply let the matter lie and assess the position as it goes on, we shall be doing the best day's work we could in this difficult area. Instead, we are putting on to our Statute Book legislation which is inadequate and which will certainly, if enforced, come before the Supreme Court again and will come once again before us. At some stage in the future we will undoubtedly decriminalise in this area; it is a pity that we do not grasp the nettle and do it now.

Mr. Connaughton

I shall not take up too much time, but there has been a lot of talk over the years, and particularly in the last year or two, on the question of family planning. I believe the Minister had a very difficult job to do. I have severe reservations about the Bill, as to whether it can be implemented. A reasonable effort has been made in certain areas, but I have severe reservations in other areas.

There are a number of important factors relating, not to the Bill, but to family life, generally—family planning and the allied problems are part of it. When sexual relationships are isolated and magnified a thousand times, there is no doubt that happy, solid Christian marriages are certainly not built on that type of debate. Sexual relationships are a vitally important part of married life but there are several other factors that do not get the same prominence in any debate. Everybody automatically seems to think of sexual relationships, but they alone are not the be-all and end-all of marriages. This problem raises its head more in certain areas of the country, particularly in the cities and in areas where there is a young generation growing up in building estates and so on. In a more balanced community, where there is a certain number of old, middle-aged, and young people and young married couples, the same problem does not seem to arise as where all the couples are four years married and have the same number of children of the same age.

From a rural point of view, there is not really as much euphoria about this Bill as the press would lead us to believe. I do not mean that we should not discuss it but there are other important factors relating to family life that would help to create better and happier marriages, and would not have anything to do with family planning as such.

The Bill places a great onus on the family doctor. From a medical point of view, he is the eyes and ears of that particular area, but now he will also have the role of a moral adviser; I do not think that all doctors would like that. From private discussions I have had with a number of doctors, they would be loath to take that cloak on themselves, and I can see the reason. In fairness, from the point of view of the medical aspect of contraception, one would assume, purely from a layman's point of view, that they would be in the best position to do that. I am told on good authority the GPs are so busy that they would not have much time for advising on this subject. Doctors with a lot of patients find it very difficult to have enough time to sit down and talk about the problem in its entirety.

On the other hand, I should like to ask the Minister what is likely to happen the family planning clinics. I understand that if they employ a chemist they will be allowed to continue. Senator Molony said that they have expressed the intention that they will do no such thing. Will they be allowed to continue? Is this a wall-papering exercise? When the pressure will come on the Minister, will he readily agree to allow them to operate as they are? If that happens to be the case—and the next year or two will tell the tale—this Bill is a bigger sham than I think it is. Obviously, if the pressure they are able to apply means that they can operate as they have been doing, the Bill will not have any credibility in the circumstances. I should like to hear the Minister's reply to that, because there will be severe pressure on him to change the law in relation to family planning clinics.

Just for the record, I welcome the decision in the Bill not to allow contraceptives to single persons, or to persons outside of marriage.

Professor Murphy

It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Connaughton

Some people think it is in the Bill. Whether it is in the Bill or not, I hope it will be the law that they will not be available. I do not believe, for one moment, that happy marriages are based on whether or not contraceptives are available.

What amount of money is the Minister referring to when he talks about the availability of funds for research into natural family planning methods? The Bill does not specify it—it may not be possible to specify it at this stage. I have not heard any figure that would suggest to me that there will be a serious attempt made at this research. It is very important that research be done in Ireland by our own people, as distinct from research in any other country. I am not one for believing that, because a certain trend is set in Europe or America, we should of necessity copy it. There are certain factors in Irish society that are worth fighting for. Proper and well-founded research into natural family planning methods would pay rich dividends, but it would be a very costly exercise. I am not sure that the Minister, or his Department, are prepared to pay the piper as far as that cost is concerned. The next few years will tell whether it was intended to do it or not. I have not heard any public utterances from the Minister to indicate that a fairly massive amount of money will be pumped into that research.

Along with this research, it would be only right and proper for the Minister, in conjunction with the Department of Health, to ensure that very wide-ranging and very in-depth adult education courses be organised, first of all, for the schools. I am talking about a very mature type of educational classes. It could be stated that we are having classes of a type, but certainly some of the people giving those lectures might well be doubtful, in so far as the doctrine that they propagate might not be in the best interests of the moral fibre of our society. It will be vitally important that in the next year or two, if there is any credibility at all in this Bill, that a reasonable amount of money be made available for this research. I shall believe it when I see it, but I have not heard talk about the type of research or the amount of money that will be allocated to it.

People get very upset about this subject—you are either for contraception or you are not. Certainly, from a married couple's point of view, they are entitled to their private views on the matter. At the same time, I believe that, as Senator Whitaker said, it is important to have certain controls. If the proposed controls can be implemented well and good, but I am afraid that it will be very difficult to implement them. We have problems from some doctors; we certainly have problems from some of the people involved in the family planning clinics. They have been putting very great pressure on the Minister. There are the people who promote the permissive society, who hold that people should be allowed to do what they like, when they like. The point I would raise on an issue like this is that we have had a fairly permissive society for a number of years and are our standards of married life better or worse because of that? My belief is that, unfortunately for a great number of married couples, the picture is not that rosy. They have many problems and many of them are not able to cope. They do not become public, but within the four walls of many a house in this island there are lots of problems which couples do not seem to be able to overcome. A very well thought out educational programme starting with the right age groups and interested parties, and pre-marriage and post-marriage courses, would do a great deal to overcome the problems of sexual relationships, inside and outside of marriage.

The pill is a contraceptive device. It is well known that a category of persons who least use the pill are doctors' wives and chemists' wives. There are certain research results that would bear me out on that. If that is true, is it that they possibly know too much about the side effects? I hope that we will arrive at the situation where every woman in Ireland contemplating using the pill will know exactly what the results are likely to be and what she is letting herself in for. I have no doubt but that there are certain homes that would be in shambles were it not for contraceptive devices of one type or another.

I believe, also, that if we were to build a society where couples treated each other with sympathy and understanding and knew what they were about all the time, it would be better than trying to legislate for contraceptives. That is a long way away but it has taken us a long time to come around to a situation where we believe that there is a huge educational job to be done. Happy marriages are not built around the availability or otherwise of contraceptives. They can be used within marriage. I have my own private view on that, but I believe that the use of contraceptives by single persons, outside of the marriage bond, will not lead to the society that I would like. I am prepared to go on record as saying that in any other country where contraceptives are available nobody has proved to me that this has led to happier marriages.

If the Bill goes as far as I would hope it would, in order that the necessary curbs can be brought into legislation and enforced, we would have done a reasonably good day's work. I will not go so far as to say that when the Minister drew up this legislation he believed that it would not work; I could not say that. He put a lot of effort into it, met a lot of people and it will not be his fault if it does not get through. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls in it that the Minister will not be able to overcome. Much as I agree with some things in the Bill I will have to vote against it. I hope, for the benefit of the country, that the parts of the Bill that I like can be worked and are workable.

Mr. Haughey

There is hope for those parts.

Mr. Connaughton

I hope that the net result will be that we will have happier and better educated families in this country.

Professor Murphy

We have had a most interesting range of discussions so far. I have my own substantive contribution to make to the Bill. I have been so stimulated by the debate at this stage that I would like to make some comments on what has been said to date. I note that some Members on the other side have, in effect, spoken against the Bill, but propose to vote for it, and at least one Member on this side has spoken quite warmly for the Bill, but proposes to vote against it. That may be a new definition of a free vote.

I will not, in any way I hope, in the course of my contribution to this very serious subject say the snide thing, or the smart thing. I have genuine respect for this House and its Members and for their opinions, which, so far, have been honestly put forward. I must at the same time express my trenchant disagreement with some of what has been said. For example, I regard Senator Connaughton's suggestion that these sexual matters are not discussed as much among rural people as they are among city folk, or that they do not interest the people of rural Ireland as much as they do city folk, as somewhat ingenuous. After all, one recalls the Elizabethan use of the term "country matters" and my own experience, coming from a rural background, is that these matters did preoccupy us to a considerable extent. I would regard that as quite natural. What Paddy Kavanagh has to say in Tarry Flynn would contradict Senator Connaughton's impression. More seriously, I intervened—and I hope Senator Connaughton will forgive me—at one stage in his contribution when he said he was glad this Bill restricts contraceptives to married couples. I would point out that there is not a mention——

Mr. Connaughton

To single couples—to single people.

Professor Murphy

Did the Senator not give the impression that the Minister intends that the use of contraceptives shall be limited to married couples?

Mr. Connaughton

No. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Professor Murphy

I would point out, at any rate, that there is no ostensible ambiguity about this matter. The Bill never mentions married couples; it does not even mention single couples, if I might coin a phrase. It simply talks of "a person" so that the Bill makes no distinction between married couples and single people, or the kind of stable relationships which were referred to by speakers on the other side. This is simply our own interpretation of the Bill. Of course, I join with other Senators in congratulating Senator FitzGerald on his usual meticulous, and always original, analysis. He pointed out what I am going to discuss at some length myself—that the Bill discriminates in favour of a particular ethos. That, in my view, is the central objection to this Bill.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 July 1979.