Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1985

Vol. 107 No. 6

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

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

Minister for Health (Mr. B. Desmond)

The Bill before the Seanad makes two specific amendments to the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979. The amendments are significant and arise from the need to provide an appropriate legal framework for the provision of a comprehensive family planning service for all those who require such service.

The Bill arises directly from the Programme for Government which included "a review of the operation of the present family planning legislation with a view to providing full family planning advice and facilities in all cases, where needed". A detailed review of the operation of the 1979 Act which had been brought into operation on 1 November 1980 was initiated by me more than two years ago. The 1979 Act provided that contraceptives might be sold only in accordance with ministerial regulations, by chemists selling them in their shops to persons who had obtained a prescription or authorisation from a doctor. That prescription or authorisation was to be issued where the doctor considered that the contraceptives were sought bona fide, for family planning purposes or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances.

The review of the operation of the Act conducted by my Department showed that under licences issued by successive Fianna Fáil and Coalition Ministers for Health, including myself, approximately 30 million condoms have in fact been imported into this country in the period since November 1980. Many more have been imported on a personal basis. The review also indicated that they are being sold in just over one quarter of chemist shops and in family planning clinics of which there are few. Of great significance in the course of the review was the finding that there are large areas of the country where there were no outlets selling contraceptives. This means that the ability of couples to plan their families in the way they choose, as is their right, was severely curtailed in many instances through the absence of appropriate sources of supply.

While information and advice on family planning matters are integral elements of general practice, not all doctors are willing or able to provide a comprehensive family planning service to their patients. This extends in some cases to a refusal to provide authorisation for non-medical contraceptives under the Act. The net effect of the present situation is that every year a large number of patients travel long distances to attend the family planning clinics which have received consents to operate under the Act. I might add that information would indicate that anything from 14 per cent to 40 per cent of patients attending family planning clinics come from other counties outside the county where the clinic is situated.

The unsatisfactory nature of the present position is even greater when regard is had to the extent to which the present law is openly flouted. Sales of contraceptives at outlets other than those provided for in the 1979 Act are commonplace, while the provision in relation to bona fide family planning, if it ever had a meaning, has been ignored by the general public in their use of family planning services.

Arising from this review, the Government were convinced that certain changes in the legislation would be necessary to provide a responsible degree of access to family planning services and contraceptives in particular, while confining the rigours of the criminal law to areas where enforcement would be practicable in keeping with normal patterns of social behaviour.

I was also aware of widespread dissatisfaction within the medical profession at the provisions of the existing legislation requiring doctors to issue prescriptions for non-medical contraceptives. This requirement is an abuse of the doctor's professional role by dragging him into the field of moral monitor of his patient's personal life. The requirement for medical prescriptions was introduced in order to avoid a direct and honest approach to family planning in 1979. In July 1983 I received representations from the Irish Medical Association that the present Act be amended as a matter of urgency.

At their annual general meeting on 9 November 1983 the Medical Union passed two motions demanding that the Government revise the Family Planning Act and make family planning available to those who need it through their general practitioners and that the Government introduce a comprehensive Family Planning Bill without delay.

In considering the question of amendments to this Act, the Government have had regard to a number of general issues which have a bearing on the availability of contraceptives:

there has been a significant increase in extra-marital sexual activity to the point where illegitimate births, so-called in that statutory context, account for 6.8 per cent of all births in 1983;

studies show that young adults enter into sexual relations generally without using contraception and there is a particularly irresponsible attitude among young males in this regard;

abortion has become the chosen solution for a growing number of single women becoming pregnant, with 3,700 women having abortions in England giving Irish addresses. The majority of these are between 20 and 30 years of age and did not use any form of contraception prior to becoming pregnant.

I might add that the figure available for the first two quarters of 1984 indicates that the out-turn final figure for 1984 would probably be in the region of 4,000, 300 in addition to the 3,700. I would also point out that it is evident that many hundreds of women — how many we do not know — would not give an address in Ireland, in terms of the statutory return from the UK, and therefore the figure is probably nearer to 5,000.

Sexual activity outside marriage is not illegal and clearly has become more common for a variety of complex reasons. The reasonable availability of contraceptives on a legal basis should be part of the response of a caring society which wishes to avoid the horrors of abortion and the tragedy which can accompany unwanted pregnancies among the most vulnerable groups in society. I believe that education to assist young people to form mature relationships is of great importance and at any request the Health Education Bureau are co-operating fully with the Minister for Education in devising a programme of this kind for use in our schools. For 1985 I have increased the budget of the Health Education Bureau by 40 per cent, from £1.2 million to £1.75 million.

Following long and careful consideration of all of the relevant factors the Government decided to bring forward the Bill which is now before the House. The substantive amendments are contained in section 2. In order to increase the availability of contraceptives, especially in areas where chemists choose not to stock them, I am adding a strictly limited number of other groups who will also be entitled to sell contraceptives:

(1) Doctors will in future be entitled, if they so desire, to sell contraceptives at the place where they ordinarily carry out their professional duties.

(2) Employees of health boards acting as such will be enabled to sell contraceptives at a health institution which would include such places as hospitals and health centres.

(3) Persons who have received my consent to provide a family planning service under subsection (3) of section 3 of the present legislation will in future be entitled to sell contraceptives at the place at which they are providing the service.

These are the current family planning clinics.

(4) I have made provision for designated employees of certain hospitals to sell contraceptives at these hospitals. It is obviously desirable that maternity hospitals, where advice on family planning is given on a routine basis to those who seek it, should be in a position to make available at the hospital contraceptives which may be required by patients. Similar arguments apply to permitting the sale of non-medical contraceptives in hospitals treating patients with sexually transmitted diseases.

I believe that the extended list of permitted sales outlets will go as far as is reasonably necessary to remedy the obvious inadequacies in present availability while maintaining a firm degree of statutory control on the possible outlets which most people would wish to see.

Clearly these provisions do not lend credence to the wild accusations that this Bill will lead to the widespread indiscriminate sale or distribution of non-medical contraceptives. The limited number of types of outlets for the sale of contraceptives will in fact restrict their provision to highly responsible individuals and institutions.

The second major change contained in section 2 is that any of the designated persons may sell contraceptive sheaths or spermicides to a person over 18 years without their having to produce a doctor's prescription for them. This is eminently reasonable since it has never been practicable or desirable to require medical practitioners to prescribe the use of devices of this nature to adults and I see no good reason for retaining such a requirement. It is an insult to the maturity and privacy of the ordinary citizen and it is offensive to patients and to doctors.

The Seanad will be aware of the statement by the chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Irish Medical Organisation, Dr. Meade, on 11 February that he believed that doctors generally would welcome this Bill. Similar sentiments have been expressed by the Irish College of General Practitioners. It is not unreasonable that we should adopt in this Bill 18 years as the legal minimum age to permit persons to buy these items in their own right. Eighteen has been accepted as the age at which it is appropriate for them for example, among other roles, to elect Members of Dáil Éireann. The Seanad recently passed the Age of Majority Bill and therefore it would be quite inconsistent to retain the prescription requirement for non-medical contraceptives for adults of 18 years and over.

Prescriptions will, of course, continue to be required for the supply of all other forms of contraceptives, because medical advice, assistance and monitoring is required in their use. The question of an age limit does not come in there at all because, as we know, persons under the age of 18, for example, in terms of cycle regulation, are prescribed medical contraceptives as such and the age limit does not apply in that context.

Section 3 provides for the short title, citation and its being construed as one with the other health Acts. This section also provides that the Act shall come into force on such day as the Minister may by order appoint. It would be my intention to make such an order within a reasonable period of the Bill becoming law. That would be during the course of this year. There will not be any undue delay in that regard.

It has been said that there is no demand for the measures contained in this Bill. In one sense this is true — there has not been a strong public campaign. The reason for this, of course, is that the law has been so widely ignored that the very large number of adults who have access to the family planning services they require have been prepared to flout the law. This must be a matter of concern to us as legislators as it gives rise to contempt for the law generally when inoperable provisions are adopted and maintained. It is time to remove the rather hypocritical sleights-of-hand from our legislative process in this area and this Bill is a response to a most glaring example of hypocritical legislation.

I would, however, reject the assertion that there is no demand for the Bill. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that in passing this Bill we will in fact be acting in accordance with the wishes of a sizeable majority of Irish adults.

I would draw the Seanad's attention to the results of a wide-ranging, scientific research project commissioned by the Health Education Bureau last year as part of their ongoing monitoring of public knowledge and attitudes on health matters. As part of the project, views on family planning were sought from a fully representative random sample of almost 700 adults aged 18 to 50 years.

The results of the survey, which have yet to be published, form a very useful basis for development of family planning services but in particular they show that:

50 per cent were dissatisfied with existing legislation due to restrictions on the availability of contraceptives.

64 per cent felt that condoms should be available without a doctor's prescription while doctors, health board clinics and family planning clinics were seen as acceptable outlets for contraceptives, in addition to chemists' shops.

89 per cent supported the establishment of family planning clinics by health boards.

While 20 per cent felt that contraceptives should be available without any minimum age limit, only 14 per cent suggested that an age limit of more than 18 years should be set.

Fully 68 per cent considered that contraceptives should be available to single people.

This is clear evidence of a demand for the measures contained in this Bill.

I must emphasise that this survey was commissioned quite independently by the HEB from Irish Marketing Surveys as part of their own programme of activity. The results have become available to my Department very recently but they demonstrate that the measures contained in this Bill are in harmony with a significant public demand. These findings are in line with the results of the MRB public opinion survey published in The Irish Times on Tuesday, 12 February — which showed that among the 18-24 age group, 66 per cent were in favour of contraceptives being available to all.

I have already referred to the views of the medical profession which also constitute an authoritative demand for a change in the law on the lines proposed in this Bill.

Despite the evidence of a demand for change I would argue strongly that demand is in principle, a lesser consideration than need when considering changes in the law. There are, after all, many pieces of legislation adopted in this country year after year for which the level of public demand is at best limited.

It is a duty of legislators to provide a framework of legislation which corresponds to their assessment of the needs of the community in the interests of the common good. In the category of necessity I would place the difficulties experienced by couples in many parts of the country in obtaining contraceptives; the contrast between normal behaviour on the part of adults and the odious legal requirement to seek permission from doctors before buying a packet of condoms, and the changed sexual mores among young people.

With regard to the consequences of the passing of this Bill it is my firm belief that the apocalyptic predictions of the consequences of adopting this Bill are quite frankly incredible. The mere availability of contraceptives on a legal basis will not necessarily result in their more widespread use. In most instances it will be the legal position and not actual behaviour which will change as a result of this Bill.

The experience of the availability of contraceptives on a much more widespread basis than is envisaged in this legislation in other European countries shows the great variation which exists between them. This variation reflects the differing cultural values, social norms and religious characteristics of the various countries involved.

There is, therefore, no reason to believe the behaviour of the Irish population will even approximate to the levels of extra marital sexual activity and the social consequences thereof which have been recorded in some countries. Indeed, by contrast, the experience in Northern Ireland, which is much nearer to us in culture and outlook, is instructive. There, the availability on a legal basis of contraceptives in the way proposed through this Bill, has not resulted in any dramatic decline in moral standards. Indeed, and ironically, the abortion rate is now somewhat higher here in the Republic than in the North. Therefore, I believe that the House can proceed to pass this measure in confidence that the measure will not produce any significant change in social standards.

I would draw once again to the attention of the House the fact that there has been a significant change in sexual behaviour already in Irish society. There has also been an increase in the practice of contraception among married couples. This change in social reality has not been reflected in our legislative framework.

There is the widespread purchase of contraceptives by single people and their sale in ways other than that envisaged in the 1979 Act. I do not believe that it is possible to turn back the clock and to drive this form of behaviour underground. I believe that Senators realise that their neighbours and fellow-countrymen and women who in large numbers avail themselves of family planning services, sometimes in a way which is outside the law, would not wish to see the consequences of a strict enforcement of existing provisions.

They know as well as I do that the impracticable provisions of the 1979 Act were adopted in the full knowledge that they were unenforceable and would not, in fact, be enforced. I would argue that by providing, as this Bill does, a more realistic legal framework it now becomes possible to contemplate enforcement of the law. It will put an end to the farcical contrast between what we affirm in our statutes and what we accept as the norm in society.

In this regard, I have already stated in the other House that I propose to authorise appropriate medical officers to monitor the operation of this legislation, using the powers conferred by section 91 of the Health Act, 1947. I have no doubt that those who will be authorised to sell contraceptives will do so responsibly. Some have expressed fears that abortion referral activities may be increased by this measure. While the law in relation to abortion is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice, I wish to assure the Seanad that I will not be prepared to give my consent to any family planning clinic which is known to be providing an abortion referral service. In that regard I have not issued any consent since I became Minister when any such information was available to me.

As I mentioned in passing there has clearly been, in recent years, a change in sexual practices in this country and, in particular, a change in the relationships entered into by many people. This Bill has regard to these changes and I shudder at the implications of some of the points which have been made against this Bill in the Dáil and elsewhere. I am precluded from commenting here about the Official Report of the other House in view of our appropriate separation, but it would appear that some would argue that we should outlaw virtually all sexual activity outside of marriage. We should perhaps go further, some may even argue, and cut off Irish society from the rest of the world. We have virtually reached the stage when we should restrict the right to travel abroad to those who are judged to be "sound"——

Mrs. Bulbulia

Becoming.

Mr. B. Desmond

Well, becoming is an exclusive prerogative of politicians. We should censor our books, periodicals and television programmes to remove any hint of activity other than what is approved by those who hold themselves out to be the guardians of our morality. I would not wish to live in such a society and I am sure that the vast majority of our people would not tolerate it either.

There may be some who find it more acceptable and more moral that people should engage in sexual relationships outside marriage irresponsibly and without regard to the welfare of any children who may be born from the union than to take the care and trouble to avoid unwanted pregnancies. I cannot accept such a judgment, indeed quite the reverse. If we are to tolerate a situation where sexual activity outside marriage between adults is legal but the purchase of contraceptives which do not require medical intervention is not, that is precisely the moral evaluation which we are implicitly making. I urge the Seanad to reject that approach.

The final major argument which has been voiced against this Bill is that it comes at a time when other matters of a more fundamental kind should be engaging the attention of the House. I fully accept that we have many urgent political, social and economic difficulties in this community. I believe that this Government have addressed themselves responsibly to these issues, for example, in the general approach of the national plan which provides a framework for the development of economic and social policy over the next few years. I could not accept, however that only those issues which are of the utmost priority can be considered by the House. The responsibility of Government extends into many aspects of individual and social life. In the discharge of our responsibility as a Government we must give due attention to these and this Government are committed to a programme of social and legislative reform which deserves the attention of this House just as much as the pressing economic and social difficulties to which we are also responding.

The Bill forms an important element of that programme and it is in that sense that it has been brought forward by the Government. We can make little progress in any of our difficulties without integrity and honesty and a sincere commitment to the provision of a legislative environment which corresponds to the needs of the people. It may be a national characteristic to avoid reality, to seek neat solutions, to pull strokes, to court popularity rather than to face up to hard decisions and difficult choices. Far from contributing to the solution of our basic problems, the defeat of this Bill or the failure to bring it forward would be to weaken further our capacity to provide the leadership which the country needs. It would perpetuate the cynicism with which our political institutions are viewed by all too many of our people, especially our young people, and the irrelevance which many associate with their proceedings. That cannot be an appropriate basis for any form of political leadership.

The measures contained in this Bill are limited in nature but significant in scope. They provide that the sale of contraceptives can be made, legally, at a more realistic range of outlets all of which will be staffed by responsible individuals and institutions and not indiscriminately distributed without any sense of social responsibility. The Bill also provides that adults who so decide may purchase non-medical contraceptives on their own initiative and without seeking the permission of a third party. Given all that we say about the potential of our young people and their sense of responsibility and our decision in recent months to recognise the age of 18 as the point at which people enter into adulthood, it would be outrageous not to confer the right to purchase contraceptives on adults of that age. Any objective analysis of what is proposed must conclude that the measures are reasonable and moderate in intent. The passage of the Bill will be more than anything else a victory for commonsense and reality over the forces of obscurantism and self-delusion. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Fallon

What has baffled most people including myself regarding this legislation is why it is being introduced at this point in time. We all know that it did form part of the Joint Programme for Government of November 1982. In that programme a review of the family planning laws was mentioned. What I and many other people cannot understand is why, after almost two-and-a-half years, it is suddenly introduced during the middle of the most important function of any Parliament namely the budget debate. Why is it being introduced without consultation with so many interested groups who might be for the measure or who might be against it? Why, for example, were the Fine Gael TDs, the Labour TDs, just to mention two groups that I know would be interested in having a full input into the Bill, excluded from full discussion?

The 1979 Bill, whatever one may think of it, did follow lengthy discussions with all interested parties, including medical and political representatives and religious groups of every denomination. I have no doubt, and indeed there are very many people who share my view, that it is being introduced now simply to distract the minds, the attention of the people from the real problems that exist today. Indeed, if we examine the papers over the past few weeks we will see that they dealt with nothing else but this particular Bill. Yet unemployment remains at the huge figure of 250,000. We have problems of taxation, personal taxation, of crime, of vandalism, of businesses going to the wall every day in the week. We have a budget and a debate that is not going at all as well as the Government planned. I have to suggest that these are the reasons why this Bill is being introduced — to distract the people's minds away from the real problems.

We have had many discussions in this House and in the other House on the total or almost total breakdown of the health services, not to mention broken promises left, right and centre. I do not have to remind the Minister of his famous broken promise in regard to the orthopaedic unit for Athlone which was promised twice or three times. Hopefully, it will come, but last Monday week we got bad news.

An Cathaoirleach

It might be better if the Senator would keep to the Bill.

Mr. Fallon

I would love to, but I cannot help throwing in that comment and I hope the Minister will act in some way to help. This is still relevant to health. However, when the 1979 Bill was being prepared, as we know, it was discussed at length by most interested groups. This legislation of 1985 has been rushed through the Dáil and now the Seanad to my mind with indecent haste. It was published on a Thursday and rushed through the Dáil in two days with all other business suspended. I believe that many people who would have made an input to the Bill were debarred from making any contribution.

The Minister referred to the fact that employees of health boards, acting as such, will be enabled to sell contraceptives at health institutions, which would include such places as hospitals and health centres. I do not know how many health boards have discussed this Bill but I do know that the Midland Health Board, which is in my own health board area, discussed it at a special meeting and almost all to a man or woman, medical, political and all of the members excluding perhaps one slightly doubtful voice, said that the Bill was unwanted; there was no demand for it and in fact it was suggested that they may not implement the Bill, if passed — which I know it will be.

Are we serious when we suggest that we have a system of democracy? There are very many people who still feel that in some way a referendum is going to be held on this matter and that they may have an input into it. They see no immediate urgency to get involved. That is not the case. I cannot help feeling that this particular form of confusion was deliberately contrived. If a referendum were held there is no doubt in my mind that the matter would be defeated and decisively defeated.

The Minister has been consistent in saying that this Bill represents a minimal change in the 1979 Act. But I honestly do not think that the Minister is fooling anybody; he is certainly not fooling the majority of the people as to what they think this statement is — a dishonest statement and it is a dishonest attitude. If it is a minimal change why all the emotion? Why all the statements we have seen over the past two weeks? Why such a State-Church confrontation? Why should five Deputies vote knowing that they would lose the party Whip? People who have given their lives to their party and to the nation lose the Whip overnight — a very serious situation for any Deputy, Senator, or any politician.

In the Joint Programme I referred to I understand it was stated that there would be a review of the operation of the present family planning legislation with a view to providing full family planning, advice and facilities in all cases where needed. It seems to me that the Minister and very few of his colleagues had any idea of what the real changes would be. I am convinced that the vast majority of Fine Gael Deputies, in particular, while they certainly anticipated some change in what might be described as bona fide or genuine health and family situations did not, I stress, expect contraceptives for 18-year olds. I believe that never in their wildest guesses did they foresee that this was what was intended, except in the case of the Minister and a small group of liberally-minded people around him.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Thank God for them.

Mr. Fallon

I certainly feel it was unfair to introduce this legislation in this way, to cause so much agony to people who have given their lives to the nation. If this agony and this emotion is what the Minister calls a minimal amendment to the 1979 Act I shudder to think what would happen if we attempted to introduce divorce, which seems to me to be the next piece of liberal legislation which might be foisted on the Irish people by this liberal Government.

To go back to the review, by far the majority of the Deputies and Senators in the Government parties were not aware of what was taking place. They certainly were not prepared for legislation which would allow for the sale of non-medical contraceptives to those over 18 years. This is a major departure from the 1979 Act. I suggest that the Bill has been totally mis-named because it is not a family Bill. It is more a Teenage Contraception Bill. You could suggest that it was the Irish Government's response to International Youth Year and call it a Youth Contraceptive Bill or a Youth Contraceptive Free-for-All Bill; call it what you like. But certainly it is mis-named. In dealing with the reference to the naming of the Bill I must ask the Minister how can young unmarried people plan families? I repeat this is a major departure and has caused much concern for many people indeed. I know that contraceptives are being used fairly freely and that the law is being broken. I cannot deny that. But that is not in my opinion a legitimate argument for changing the law. The law is being broken in many areas. For example, in the area of drug taking. But should we legalise the sale of drugs? Our youth in particular are taking a very bad battering at present, apart from the fact that they cannot find jobs. In many areas we know that half the population are under the age of 25 years.

It was interesting to read what we all regard as being an excellent report, the final report of the National Youth Policy Committee which was chaired by Mr. Justice Declan Costello. On page 47 of that report, paragraph 6 (2) it says:

Generally speaking, Irish youth see themselves as being happy and proud to be Irish...fairly independent, confident and in control of their lives, and more conscious of an Irish than a European identity.

It makes the point of being proud of an Irish way of life. I do not think anyone can say that this Bill conforms in any way to what we have known for years as an Irish way of life.

If we go a stage further, in this section of the report the priorities of our youth are discussed. On page 50, one of the 14 concepts that were investigated was that of being friendly with the opposite sex. "Friendly with the opposite sex" is a totally different matter from contraceptives in that particular area of sex. But it makes the point of where sex is in their lives. It is very far down the list. In fact, the report clearly shows that we have a very responsible, intelligent and educated youth who have come up with the conclusion that their number one priority is to have good health: their number two point is to have jobs; the third one is peace in the world. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever to suggest that contraceptives are important in their lives.

Why then should this Government set out to deliberately insult the youth of this country? I think the Minister is underestimating the youth. He is indeed underestimating the generosity of our youth and their capabilities of rising to great heights of self-discipline and great heights of spirituality and so on. He is indeed underestimating the youth of Ireland in presuming that there is any demand for the free contraceptives among the vast majority of our youth.

I suppose one of the most important visits made to this country — and I do not want to dwell on it too long for obvious reasons — was that of the Pope in 1979. He attended, as we all know, a youth convention in Galway. I do not think we will ever forget the way that the youth of Ireland responded to the Pope in 1979, when he put before them the challenge of not allowing their consciences to be warped by drugs, sex, alcohol, vandalism or material possessions. As we know, they responded with great enthusiasm. They responded with absolute, wholehearted acclaim. A society in which legalised contraception is freely available to teenagers could not but give youth the impression that promiscuous sexual indulgence for them was socially acceptable. Indeed, who would be so naive as to think that such a law would be enforceable any more than the present laws, for example, on admission to cinemas and the present law about the serving of drink in public houses?

I have more faith in the youth of Ireland. I do not anticipate a rush to the nearest chemist's shop or whatever. I repeat, why insult them as if this was what they wanted most from life when we know very well that there is no such demand whatsoever? What they want, as the Minister knows and as we all know, are jobs and not condoms or other forms of contraceptives. The Minister referred to that in his speech where he said that the Government have addressed themselves responsibly to those issues. The figures are not there to support that suggestion. That would not be the thinking in the mind of the Irish people who know the scene as we all do.

Many people felt that in some way they would have a second bite at the cherry, that there might be a referendum. This has been suggested to me by parents. Parents today are living in a society which makes the rearing of children an extremely difficult task, with problems of drugs and alcohol. There seems to be danger everywhere of one kind or another. Now we have the added worry for parents of having contraceptives freely available. The majority of these parents are responsible, caring and knowledgeable. They know very well that in every country in the world where contraceptives have been made freely available the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions have risen. They know well that one out of three teenage girls who use contraceptives become pregnant. Parents know very well that it is not easy for young people to grow up living what I would call the Christian faith. Everywhere they turn outside of the home, the voice of the permissive society is loud in their ears. Yet, in the middle of growing up in this permissive society, our youth respond magnificently in areas of charity and Third World situations. They show outstanding generosity and responsibility.

Northern Ireland has been touched on as being important in the context of this Bill and that it would have some relevance there. It was suggested that in some way failure to pass the Bill would add to the permanency of Partition. Perhaps I am wrong but I honestly do not see, and I find it extremely hard to understand this point of view. If changing the contraceptive laws is going to help to unite our country, then the majority of the Irish people, North and South, have been wrongly reading the scene. Why have all these Anglo-Irish meetings? Why have cross-Border meetings of one kind or another? Why have millions of pounds been spent on security and so on if this Bill can help in any way?

We had a referendum some years ago on the special position of the Catholic Church and I do not think that it made one bit of difference to the very hardened Unionist people in the North. This is not going to change their minds or their attitudes one way or the other. We should not try to confuse the issue with suggestions of that kind. Many people are worried about the whole attitude to the family in this Bill. We know the Constitution recognises the family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit of society. This unit of society has a constitutional right to support from the State. The State must give positive support to parents in the responsibility of rearing their children. The State should not undermine parents' responsibilities, particularly on matters of extremely deep concern.

There has been much criticism of the Church. The Church-State conflict has raised its head on this issue. No matter what has been said in regard to that matter, what can still be said is this: the passing of this Bill does not alter the morality or otherwise of contraceptives. No State legislation can alter a moral fact. The Bishops were correct in speaking out as they did. They saw this as an important moral issue. They would be failing in their duty if they did not respond. That is not to say that I would support the hassle that it was suggested was imposed on some TDs in rural Ireland. I would disagree with that totally. The suggestion that those people who are strongly opposed to this Bill are extreme right wing Catholics would have to be refuted by me. The vast majority described in that way — people like myself — are simply Catholics who abide by the teaching of their Church. I just say that as a factual statement; I do not mean it in any derogatory sense. The Protestant community have the right to come along and suggest their way of life; that is their right in the State we live in.

The Government, as we all know, have a heavy responsibility to legislate for the common good of the whole community or society. This legislation is quite definitely not for the common good of the whole of society. I oppose this proposed legislation. I would express my dissatisfaction with the Government who, within the last year and a half, have made two efforts to introduce social legislation which was damaging to humanity and offensive to the majority of our people.

Mr. Ferris

I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the abuse being poured on the Minister in his personal capacity and also as a Minister. This abuse has come from all sides and from within all parties and from various sections of the community. When the community gets on these moral bandwagons they tend to forget that there is joint Cabinet responsibility for all Bills introduced. For some reason this Bill has become widely known as the "Desmond Bill." The Minister has tried to redress that situation. It should be known that it is a joint Cabinet responsibility.

As the Minister with responsibility in this area, the Minister is very welcome to this House. I commend him on behalf of the vast majority of people to whom I have spoken for the humane manner in which he has handled what is difficult legislation involving the private lives of people. No one would envy him his job in this area. I am sure he will find this legislation debated in a full, fair and democratic way by all sides in this House.

My constituency of south Tipperary attracted some media attention last week. I am reflecting the views communicated to me, as a legislator, by my constituents. Like other Senators I have had letters from parents expressing concern about the Bill, some of them used the term, also used by Senator Fallon, "free availability" to which I will return later on. I have had letters also from groups of nuns who felt that the items contained in this measure were contrary to anything that they had been teaching in their schools. I have no doubt that is the case. I would like them to continue to give proper teaching in their schools. This legislation has nothing to do with moral teaching. I have had letters from the Catholic Guild of Nurses expressing their legitimate views. I respect them and I have responded to them. I have had letters from the Children's Protection Society. Some of my very good friends telephoned me expressing their reservations. At no time were any of these communications anything but courteous. They were supportive of the problems we have. Those communications gave me the opportunity to discuss the implications of this Bill and the necessity for a Bill of this nature.

It would have been very easy in 1978-79, when the previous Bill was introduced, as a result of a court decision, to bring in a measure to abolish the 1935 Act completely. An order before this House could have done that, and the need for this legislation would not have arisen because it would have abolished that Act which had written into it several sections which precluded many rights and freedoms of individuals which were found in the courts afterwards to be interfering with people's private lives and their morals and so on. That might have been an easy way out of it. However, another road was taken in 1979. Because of that it meant that the legislation had to be reviewed and this is where we are at present. I had discussions with these people in a way that would not have been possible if they had not communicated with me at all. I am glad they did because I can benefit from their views and I hope that they benefited from some of the views I expressed to them.

At our parliamentary party meetings we had an opportunity of discussing with the Minister what was likely to emerge by way of legislation. I availed of that opportunity to have a widespread exchange of views with many clergy, with many of whom I am associated in other areas of society and to whom I felt I could turn to talk about these areas, as a Catholic and a legislator. Every one of them was very careful and emphatic in pointing out the immorality of the use of these devices but they were also satisfied that, as this Bill does not advocate the use of these or ask anyone to use them, I had the right as a legislator to legislate for people who did not hold the same moral views as I do. That is the role of a legislator, not necessarily to uphold the moral values of any particular Church. If that is what we are doing then we could be accused by any society of being sectarian in our outlook. The people in the Twenty-six Counties would like to consider that they are not sectarian in any way. The majority Church in Ireland will always condemn the use of contraceptives, either inside or outside of marriage. I am not in conflict with that teaching. I have tried to inform my conscience.

In the last few moments I have expressed the views that were put to me against the measure. I had many other views expressed to me as well accepting that this legislation is necessary but that it was not of any particular concern to them. It is on public record that one priest in my area said that this Bill is a non-event. I listened with interest to Dr. Daly. I also listened to Bishop Laurence Ryan. They take the same view as I have taken. If the legislation made it obligatory on people to do something that was immoral then naturally the legislation would be immoral. There would be no support on any side of the House for that type of legislation. Many people in this House expressed faith in and regard for our young people, from 18 upwards. I have the utmost confidence in them. I have no reason to doubt them whatsoever.

Recently, we legislated to give them the age of majority at 18. We commended them from all sides of this House as being old enough to have our confidence, old enough to be trusted to vote, to serve on juries, to enter into transactions like taking out mortgages, to join the Army and fight for us if necessary and to lose their lives in doing so. They are old enough to marry, but somehow, by innuendo, they are not to have the freedom, as individuals, in matters of moral conduct in this area. It is a very personal, private area regarding personal relationships.

Senator Fallon referred to statistics from the report on young people. That report refers to people in the age group 14 and upwards. This legislation refers to adults. In fairness, I must say that no constituent came to me to complain about the non-availability of these devices in my area. Why should they? Why should anybody have to come to me, as a legislator, and say that they were unable to avail of these devices in my area? I know there are limited outlets down there. There is possibly one chemist in Tipperary, one in Clonmel, none in Cashel and none in Cahir. I cannot say how many doctors are prescribing them. Nobody came to me and complained about their non-availability but then they should not because it is a very private matter. Because of the 1979 legislation they would have to go to the doctor for a prescription or an authorisation, as they tend to call it in the 1979 Act.

We know, from the Minister's speech and from what we have read, of many of the problems the profession have had in this area. They were faced with many problems. If the Bill does anything it removes from one professional group in this country, in an area which is non-medical, the problem of making up the minds of people on a moral question. Last night I tried to put myself in a doctor's position and tried to interpret the 1979 Act for myself. It was pretty difficult. The 1979 Act, which is supposed to be an Irish solution to an Irish problem is:

An Act to make provision for family planning services and, with a view to ensuring that contraceptives are available only for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning...

Nobody as yet has interpreted what "bona fide" means—

or for adequate medical reasons,

I do not know what that would be either——

to regulate and control the sale, importation, manufacture, advertisement and display of contraceptives and to provide for certain other matters.

I went through one section in the Act and it read:

A registered medical practitioner may, for the purposes of this Act, give a prescription or authorisation—

That, I understand, lasts for life — 20 or 25 years. One can imagine people going around with these prescriptions or authorisations in their pockets for the rest of their lives. The section continued:

— for a contraceptive to a person if he is satisfied that the person is seeking the contraceptive, bona fide, for family planning purposes or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances and, where a prescription or authorisation of a registered medical practitioner in relation to a contraceptive bears an indication that it is given for the purposes of this Act, and it shall be conclusively presumed, for the purposes of this section, that the person named in it is a person who, in the opinion of the practitioner formed at the time of the giving of the prescription or authorisation, sought the contraceptive for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropriate circumstances.

How could any member of a profession — for which we have the greatest regard — interpret what that section meant? He could spend all day perusing it and in the meantime he has a patient or a client sitting in his surgery waiting for him to decide whether the circumstances were right and what, in fact, is family planning. Are we not all aware that unfortunately there are arrangements between people who are not legally married? There are common law marriages, there are people separated, there are people with relationships, bringing up children, recognised by the Department of Social Welfare, recognised by local authorities for housing purposes though still not married. In other words, not alone did the 1979 Act not restrict availability to married people but it certainly did not restrict it to any age group, which is one advantage at least of this legislation. It does, for the first time, put the age of majority into legislation in this area.

I am quite sure that it was this lack of interpretation that led to the massive importation of some 30 million condoms and, indeed, as the Minister said, others that were privately brought in. The 1979 Act allowed people of any age to bring contraceptives in without control. I have read through it, it is most extraordinary legislation. At that particular time I suppose it was the best that could be got. There was a commitment given by everybody that it would have to be looked at. Perhaps it was because of the problems there that we had this widespread importation. I am trying to determine whether one can say that there was or was not a demand. I am quite sure I know the reason for the change. I was trying to put on record the people who were for and against the measure in my area. I must say, in all honesty, that the majority of people who communicated with me — sometimes I had to broach the subject with them because they were talking about something else, and of course we avail of every opportunity to get the views of people in our area — felt that it was all right, that they saw nothing wrong with it, that it was happening anyway, that the present law was being flouted and they could not see any problem with it. The vast majority of them were in favour rather than against. Indeed, in a local issue of my provincial newspaper, The Nationalist, the Clonmel Women's Group carried out a survey of 1,336 people in Clonmel. They asked them to support a petition which stated:

We, the undersigned, support the campaign of Clonmel Women's Group for the establishment of a fully comprehensive family planning service for the area, by that we mean a service professionally run by the Health Board, through the Health Centres, which would provide under medical supervision the full range of contraception, including the natural family planning methods.

Out of 1,336, 1,182 people signed the petition in favour of that, 154 did not sign it and less than 2 per cent stated that the service should be available to married couples only. Of a sample of 250 people further to that, 80 per cent were in favour of non-medical contraception being made available without a prescription. That survey was carried out in my own constituency. It was publicised and printed and has the names of the people involved in it. I have no reason to doubt its validity. They have the names of the people who took part. They are from your own native town, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I suppose it shocks you but that is the reality of life as it is today. That is how times have changed and that is how people see life as it is.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are getting only one side of the story, Senator Ferris.

Mr. Ferris

I am giving you the exact side of the story that was printed and published. I knew you would be interested particularly because it comes from your own town.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That does not make it right.

Mr. Ferris

"Free availability" is another term to which I object strongly. Unfortunately Senator Fallon fell into the trap of either saying "free availability" or "free contraceptives". Neither of the two is true of this Bill. I think it is a scare word that is being used deliberately in this way. Certainly as I have read this Bill — I have read it in detail, it is a very short Bill — it is intended that non-medical contraceptives would be available at a doctor's surgery, at a chemist's shop, at a health board clinic, at a hospital dealing with obstetrics or indeed a hospital dealing with sexually transmitted diseases, or at registered family planning clinics. That is a fairly comprehensive list. It widens it away from just the doctor and gives a further four or five distribution outlets. I still feel — the Minister has confirmed this in his speech — that it is still extremely well controlled and rightly so because it is important that things like this are not freely available in slot machines, at railway stations, grocer's shops and elsewhere, because that possibly would lead to widespread abuse by people who might not have concern for their moral lives. The centres are controlled so there is no question of free availability.

In dealing with two of these areas of availability, may I ask the Minister some questions that he might respond to in his reply? I take it that the Bill does not contain any exclusion of the section that allows a person to have a conscientious objection to the distribution of these and that nobody would be penalised in their workplace because they might have a conscientious objection. In the 1979 Act there was such a provision and I presume it is contained in this legislation as well. I am a member of a health board where we have some financial problems. I know the Minister and his officials throughout the country have discovered that some of the financial problems in health boards are not what they appear to be and I think over the next couple of days when all the figures are in from the various areas it will be quite interesting to see how health boards have been performing. I am fairly proud of my own health board but I would like to think that we are spending our money wisely. May I get an assurance from the Minister that, as these devices, as they are called, are non-medical, they will not be freely available or available on medical cards? If they are not medical they are not medical. If they are not prescribed by a doctor, they cannot be provided for on the medical card.

Any other form of contraception that is required, for any reason, under the 1979 Act and under this Bill still requires a doctor's prescription. Of course if somebody like that is on the medical card list then naturally it is a prescription for a medical purpose and as they are now available under the 1979 Act that would continue but certainly there is no way that I, as a health board member, could advocate that these devices would be freely available, because they are non-medical. I hope the section about conscientious objectors will be allowed to remain. I think it is the right of people at the distributive end if they have a conscientious objection to be accommodated in that situation. I am quite sure also that there are people who have no conscientious problems in this area.

The other area of outlet is the family planning clinic. I understand that such clinics must be licensed and the Minister said that there are very few of them in the country at the moment. Could I ask the Minister to spell out for the House and for the public what standards the family planning clinics have to comply with? Are they to have professional advice available at all times? How do they become legal at the moment? Some of them have been accused of being referral clinics for abortion, which all of us would abhor, and indeed the Minister has power under this Bill to take action against any family planning clinic that might be doing that or indeed any clinic that might be advising people that they should go for abortions. Abortion, as we know, under the 1979 Act and this Bill is illegal. Whereas some of us may have had reservations about the wording of the amendment to the Constitution, the fact that the Constitution also upholds the unborn life is important too. I am asking the Minister to confirm for us what standards are necessary for registration and approval of family planning clinics because if people generally know what they are, under this new Bill perhaps the service could be extended to people who genuinely need it. I know the Minister has been accused of opening illegal ones and I know he has rightly refuted that because it is untrue to say the Minister opened an illegal family planning clinic.

I suppose it might be said that if you throw muck often enough some of it is likely to stick. I think that some of it has stuck. Perhaps the Minister is too easy going and does not really care what people say because in an area of legislation like this if he were to respond to everybody's comments perhaps he might never get the legislation through. I know he has refuted that. I object to people making statements like that which they know to be untrue but for political reasons they keep saying them. To clarify the matter, it might be appropriate to put on the record the type of requirement that family planning clinics need because they are outside of the normal registered areas that we have dealings with, the doctors, the chemists, the health boards and so on.

Senator Fallon referred to an urban council, or a county council, or some other such local body, who have no bearing whatsoever in this area of legislation, passing some sort of motion against this Bill, with one person dissenting. My colleague, Senator Bulbulia, is with me. At my own health board the kind of things that were put on the record were amazing. I would not dare offend this House by putting them on the record of this House. My local newspaper contained an editorial which referred to the various Oireachtas dilemmas and said that at least I was honest, that I had come out and said what I was going to do. In doing so the paper also raised some other points and I take this opportunity of putting the letter which I wrote to the editor on the record of the House because it is appropriate that the House should know what my views are in case I have not made myself clear up to now. I was replying to the editor of The Tipperary Star, which is an excellent provincial newspaper. I am sorry Senator Smith has left the House because he reads it regularly. I said:

Dear Editor, In reply to your Editorial Comment in last week's issue headed, "Deputies Dilemma" you asked for clarification of views expressed by Tipperary Oireachtas members on the Family Planning Bill (1979) presently under review by the Department of Health.

My statement at the meeting that there is widespread abuse of the existing law is supported in the comments of Mr. Macauley who is a practicing pharmacist in County Wexford.

Indeed, he was since elected to the Chair of the board. The editor was purporting that my view was that if the law was being flouted the solution was to get rid of the law. That is what he was insinuating. I can tell him that it was not, but I said:

It is my duty, as a Member of the Senate, to participate to the best of my ability in the formulation of good laws, which are enforceable, so you can take it as my view that if a law is unenforceable that it is a bad law and needs to be reviewed. This commitment has not alone been given by the Government but also by the Opposition in regard to the 1979 Act.

Laws which do not have regard for basic human rights can and have been found to be unconstitutional, it is therefore vital that one's own moral and religious beliefs should not be influenced by the laws of the State.

I have categorically stated my own moral objections to contraceptives, based on my religious beliefs... these objections apply to the existing legislation in this area...so I hope you have no reason to doubt my sincerity on this subject.

I referred the resolution from the health board to the Seanad because I felt that the matter was not being dealt with in a correct way by either the proposer of the motion or the people who spoke to it. I have given my view. I have given the moral view. I have given the people who were for and against it and may I just for the record give the Labour Party view which is very important too? Our party believe in the basic human rights of individuals, the freedom of individuals. That is our policy and I am quite proud of it.

In the joint programme we set down for everybody to see that a comprehensive national family planning service would be available and that contraceptives would also be available for sale. In their joint programme the Government said there would be a review of the operation of the present family planning legislation with a view to providing full family planning advice and facilities in all cases where needed.

In the party policy document, it is stated that family planning clinics would be established nationwide as part of the free health services that were to be available to all. That is, family planning services in the medical area. The programme goes on to detail the use of contraceptives. As a subscriber to the majority Church, as a legislator, as a Member of the Oireachtas and a member of my own parliamentary party I have informed my conscience on this legislation and I am satisfied that is is necessary.

The Minister has confidence in how the public will respond to it, particularly the young people, the 18 year olds and upwards. They will prove by their actions that they are deserving of the faith and the trust we have put in them. They are the people who will legislate in the future. This country will be in their hands in the future. It is appropriate that we should show them that respect and conscientious approval for their behaviour in life. This legislation can be enacted without creating any problems of promiscuity which have been mentioned by some people for the most extraordinary reasons. We are making a minimal change and still retaining control over the actual outlets.

I commend the Minister on his courage and on the amount of time he has given to the Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure that this legislation is properly debated in a calm and mature way. The public will appreciate the work he has done in this area. It is not a victory for anybody. We have a sovereign Government. This needs to be done. It is being done and the Minister will be respected for having done it.

Mr. Ross

Some of us have been urging legislation of this sort for a very long time — nearly two and a half years — and, although we have been impatient for it to come before the Seanad, and other legislation which is socially progressive, that does not mean that when it arrives it is any the less welcome. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly.

Having said that, and having made such a fuss about it, and having heard such a fuss made about it internally and externally among political parties, I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about. As has been said by the Government so often, the Bill is only a minor amendment to the 1979 Health (Family Planning) Act. Despite that, it is a very important Bill. The details of the Bill have become totally and utterly irrelevant to the great debate which is going on about it. I do not think it matters any longer. I do not want to hear very much more about the pill, or condoms, or spermacides, or anything like that. It does not matter very much whether the non-medical contraceptives are available to those of 16, 18 or 21 years or to married couples. Events have surpassed these details of the Bill at this stage. It is well known that the 1979 law was being openly flouted. As the Minister said, the 1979 law was totally unenforceable and, although it is not a good reason for making a law that the present law is not enforceable, this is merely updating the situation which already exists.

I do not think it recognises the full reality of the situation but it is a step forward. When a law of this sort is being flouted it is absurd for the Opposition, or for anybody else, to pretend it is enforceable, or that it is relevant. It is typical of many politicians that they would prefer to pretend that something exists on the Statute Book and leave it like that, than to face the reality that it needs reform. When Senator Fallon says there is no great public demand for this, he is right. The reason the Fianna Fáil Party take this attitude is that they do not feel any desire to face this reality themselves.

I should like to ask the Fianna Fáil spokesman if this Bill is so wrong have they any intention of repealing it if they ever get back into power? It is my guess that they have no intention of touching a matter of this sort and that their policy will be, as it has tended to be in the past, to avoid it at all costs. Once they have kicked up their rather major rumpus and acquired their self-inflicted wounds on this subject, they will, as they always do, hope that the topic will go away. I should like to hear them say they will either repeal it, or amend it, or revert to their absurd 1979 Act. They will probably say nothing about it and they will make no pledges or no future commitments about movements in this direction.

This Bill is not in detail but in fact part of the history of this country and of certain measures which have been taken since the foundation of the State. It is part of a trend. It is significant because it is a turning point in the relationships between Church and State. I will start by dating it back to the 1937 Constitution which was, without doubt, influenced, to put it mildly, by the Roman Catholic Church to a very major degree. This was followed by several incidents in our history, including the mother and child scheme, where the Church again had a major influence. In 1973 we had what some would regard as a major step in the other direction with the removal from the Constitution of the special position of the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike the mother and child scheme and unlike the 1937 Constitution, that clause, as Senator Fallon has already said was a pure piece of window-dressing. Removing window-dressing makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The year before last we had the amendment which was again a major victory for the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in their control of the mechanisms and the laws of this State.

The 1979 Health (Family Planning) Act was undoubtedly influenced by the Hierarchy. In 1985 we have an amendment to the Health (Family Planning) Act on which I believe the Hierarchy were not consulted for the first time. I welcome the decision of the Government to ignore the Hierarchy in deciding on measures of this sort. It was a courageous position. It would have been much easier to go cap in hand to the Hierarchy as others have done before, and seek guidance. It is much easier to get a Bill through when you have the blessing of the Hierarchy. This Government did not do that. They took their courage in their hands and took on the Hierarchy. Not only did they take on the Hierarchy, but they won.

The Bill is important because it is about a fundamental factor in our society. It is about who actually rules this country. It may be unpalatable to many in this House, but the influence of the Church, unfortunately, has been proved time and time again to be dominant, and to dominate Governments rather than Governments dominating the Church. While this is a very trivial measure in its actual application, the fact that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy decided to pick this as ground on which to take on the Government is a major step forward. Rather buoyed by the amendment two years ago, the Church decided to overplay their hand. They felt that if they put enough presure on Deputies and Senators they could defeat the measure. The Church fortunately were wrong.

The 1979 Act was to a large degree the Act of the Church. It was acceptable to the Hierarchy and that was why it was introduced. Two years ago again the Hierarchy got their way. One of the principal reasons I believe the Government should be congratulated is that at long last they have taken the bit between their teeth and decided that this Government who were chosen to govern will govern. I hope the Government will take courage from their decision and their success in bringing this Bill through the Dáil to introduce more measures of this sort on related matters. I refer to matters such as illegitimacy, the Children's Bill, adoption and divorce.

Having seen that they are capable of getting this type of legislation through the Dáil — and I have little doubt through the Seanad — and having called the bluff of those who said they would oppose it or threaten to oppose it, I hope the Government will take the bit between their teeth and take the measures which are necessary on those other extremely thorny problems in the political sense.

It would be wrong and unfair to say that those of us who have been pushing for these types of measures do not understand the difficulties under which they work. We do indeed. But we also believe they have a duty to keep those promises which they made to the electorate on these measures. It would be wrong if they are thinking of introducing measures of this sort which touch on Church-State relations, to underestimate the power of the Hierarchy in the future. The Hierarchy have had their nose rubbed in it on this one, there is no doubt. They have been defeated.

Mr. Fitzsimons

That is not true.

Mr. Ross

Their power and their ability to re-group must not be underestimated. Their ability to interfere once again in the running of the State should not be underestimated especially with the new appointment we have had in Dublin. There is no doubt that pronouncements of a highly political sort will be made on political issues by the Hierarchy in the future.

The Government's role in this whole affair and this Bill ought to be contrasted with the performance of the Opposition. We have waited a long time and the so-called virility test of the Taoiseach has been passed. The constitutional crusade has not been revived but this probably proves that the ideals on which the Government stood are still there, even if their failure to implement them is apparent, or their failure to implement them fully is apparent. I congratulate the Government on their realism. The performance of the Opposition on this issue — and this should come from an Independent — has been cynical, disgraceful and hypocritical.

The Opposition were responsible for introducing an unenforceable Act in 1979 because it was politically convenient. They well knew it was impractical. They have taken an attitude on this Bill which lacks one ounce of conviction and stinks of nothing but political opportunism. I have more admiration for the performances of people like Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Glenn in the Dáil because their attitudes, though misguided, were genuine, than I have for the absurd so-called unanimous position of the Fianna Fáil Party on this.

I find it a little nauseating to see Fianna Fáil thumping the moral drum on this issue. They have taken the easy option. They have taken the option to kowtow to the beliefs of the Hierarchy. Fianna Fáil quite patently do not believe the position they are taking on the contraception issue but find it politically convenient. If, as Senator Fallon said, this is such a minimal change, why is there such a commotion about it? I find the very old ploy of the Opposition fairly distressing. They find very little fault with the Bill but it is politically inopportune to allow the Government to get it through. Then they say it is being provided as a distraction from the real problems which are affecting the country. This is absolute humbug. The sight of the Opposition scurrying around looking for excuses to oppose this Bill because they felt they could embarrass the Government, was disgusting and absurd. It was blatantly obvious that they found it difficult to find reasons to oppose the Bill. Eventually they found the reason that it was untimely and a distraction when they did not disagree with the details of the Bill. They were prepared to play politics with something which was much too serious for playing politics. I am very glad they lost, and they lost badly.

Mr. Fitzsimons

Not badly.

Mr. Ross

Badly. Their miscalculation was that the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip was continually on the radio saying they would defeat the Bill. That was a bad loss, in my view. The Fianna Fáil position on the Forum looks a bit sick now. It looks a little disjointed. The Forum was supported by the Fianna Fáil Party and by the other parties, but the calls for and the agreement that new measures would have to be taken in the new Ireland sound very hollow now. I did not believe at any stage that the Forum was a starter but, with my own eyes, I see that the political parties have decided that it is.

It is absurd, whether you like it or not, to say: "Yes, we want a united Ireland but we do not understand the position of those whose consciences disagree with our own". If there was ever proof that the Fianna Fáil Party have no interest in a united Ireland this is it. They are not prepared to make any concessions whatsoever to those who disagree with them. The Fianna Fáil Party want the territory of a united Ireland without having anything to do with the people up there.

I brought somebody from Northern Ireland into the Gallery to listen to the debate. He is in the middle of the spectrum in Northern Ireland. He heard a member of the Fianna Fáil Party making a rather extreme speech. He said to me: "That man would fit very well into the DUP because he does not want the Bill to pass and they do not want it to pass. They have got the same interests at heart. They are feeding on each other with their attitudes". The Fianna Fáil Party have put back — if it can be put back any further — the concept and the idea of a united Ireland by many years.

There is no way that those in Northern Ireland who see their posturing will have anything to do with them at all. They can forget about it. If they play politics with things as serious as this, they can forget about it. Now, it may suit them very well not to have a united Ireland. It may well be that politically it is more beneficial for a party to be able to bellyache about something which they cannot achieve than to try to achieve it. Certainly, in that sense they have promoted their own ends during the past week.

There is no recognition of the rights of the individual in the Fianna Fáil position. There is no recognition of the rights of the Unionists to whom they paid lip service in the Forum Report. There is no recognition of any possibility of a new Constitution. The only people who would have been delighted had this measure failed would have been the extreme Unionists, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and the Fianna Fáil Party for their own political ends.

I do not understand why on both sides there was not a free vote. I can understand why the Fianna Fáil Party would not have a free vote. It is not in the tradition of that party to have a free vote on anything.

This measure is a great step forward. I hope the Government take encouragement from it. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on getting it through the Dáil.

Mrs. Bulbulia

It is true to say that the past week or so has not done a great deal of good for what we like to call the fabric of society. Now that the dust has settled, it is good that we in this House can have a calm, reasoned, rational debate on the Bill and, indeed, more importantly, on the issues which surround the Bill. These surrounding issues are more fundamental than the Bill itself which is a very minimal proposal to amend certain aspects of the 1979 Health (Family Planning) Act. I hope you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, will make a contribution because I could not but notice that the elected womenfolk of the Opposition Party were silent in the other House. I hope that with your unique style and in your own indomitable fashion we will have on the record of the House the view of an elected woman member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

This Bill in a particular way concerns women. It is right and fitting and appropriate that the voices of women, especially elected women, should be heard firmly, clearly and with conviction on this matter.

I have spoken about two very limited amendments to the 1979 Health (Family Planning) Act. I have no hesitation in stating that I welcome these amendments wholeheartedly. They ensure that we will have in this State a comprehensive family planning service for all who require it. This is the citizen's basic right, it is a human right and it should be respected and should be legislated for in a thinking democracy.

It is true to say that the creation and the distribution of effective contraceptives have altered the sexual practices of the present generation more than any other factor. The ability of both partners in a sexual relationship to enjoy coitus without fear of pregnancy has created an entirely new attitude towards sexuality both within and without marriage. The eventual outcome of what has come to be known as the sexual revolution is difficult to determine but we cannot deny its existence. Even the most naive among us will admit that mores and habits and customs have changed and that the revolution has occurred. This being so, it must be reflected in our legislation. That, I contend, is what the Minister is doing in bringing this legislation before the House.

It is very important that all adults should be well informed about current methods of contraception. They should know about their effectiveness. They should know about their potential drawbacks. Access to advice and instruction and the provision of the chosen method of contraception should be professional and, above all, it should be unimpeded access so long as it is co-terminus with public morality and public order. The provisions in the Bill meet those requirements. This Bill gives a bit of legislative honesty to the situation on the ground. The Opposition appear to be baffled by this type of legislative honesty. Indeed, that is a word Senator Fallen used in his opening remarks. The Bill had him baffled. I hope that we will see more and more legislative honesty from this Government and that, at the end of the day, in 1987, legislative honesty, courage and tenacity will be seen to be the hallmark of this Administration.

At present everybody knows there is widespread abuse of the law. That cannot be allowed to continue. Law-abiding citizens of this State have been put in a most invidious position. In order to obtain what is a basic human right, they must perforce act as criminals to ensure that they have for themselves a supply of non-medical contraceptives.

Reform in the area of access was an urgent necessity. I am pleased that it has been so confidently and, indeed, so sensitively dealt with in this Bill. It is true to say that the people who were most disadvantaged under the 1979 Health (Family Planning) Act were the people living in rural areas and small towns. They often had to travel at great personal inconvenience, considerable distances in order to equip themselves with their desired method of family planning. That was not good enough. I am pleased that all that sort of awkwardness and doublethink is to be done away with by the passing of this Bill.

The access points are enumerated in the Bill. They are registered medical practitioners at the place of practice; employees of health boards; family planning clinics which have ministerial approval to exist; maternity hospitals, which I feel is a particularly good point of access because it is there that women, having delivered themselves of a baby, will turn their minds to the spacing of their family and are in a particularly receptive mood to explore the available methods and devices which come under the heading of contraception.

Non-medical contraceptives will also be available in sexually transmitted disease clinics. It is only right and fitting that this would be so. I would like to see repeal of the Censorship of Publications Act so as to allow advertisements to be placed which would indicate where these sexually transmitted disease clinics are because I understand that there is provision in the Censorship of Publication Act which prohibits the placing of notices which would direct the public to these clinics. Certainly, with the incidence of AIDS, a sexually transmitted disease, it is increasingly important that there would be greater public education and awareness of access to treatment and help.

I would express a personal preference for the GP as the person who would provide family planning training, assistance, instruction and guidance in the decisions which couples will make as to a suitable method for them. It is very important to treat people in a holistic sense. I am unhappy about the opening up of various clinics because they erode the function of the GP and because they lead to a sort of spare parts attitude towards medicine where you go into one and you get your orifices attended to and you go into another and you get your blood pressure attended to. People should be treated ideally in their social and family context and in a holistic sense.

I would like to refer to maternity hospitals as an access point. It has been brought to my attention as a member of the South Eastern Health Board that the health education publication, The Book of the Child, which included amongst general information advice and instruction on family planning, was not being made available in maternity hospitals in the South Eastern Health Board area because all methods of family planning were named in this booklet. There was a certain hesitation and reluctance on the part of those who run certain maternity hospitals to provide this booklet because they had a particular preference for the natural methods of family planning. I would not like to see that kind of prejudice — while I understand it, I do not share it — being a barrier across which women could not get in maternity hospitals in order to receive the information they need.

Other speakers have mentioned the conscience clause. I hope a sufficient number of people will come forward in these institutions who will be prepared to put up with an initial difficulty in order to see that women have access to all information and all instruction, so that an informed choice will be made at the end of the day.

This Bill makes the purchase of non-medical contraceptives possible for persons who are 18 years of age and over. Indeed, there has been much hysterical reference to children in the debate on this Bill. People of 18 are young adults. Statutorily, we made them so in this House not so long ago so it is misleading, mischievous and downright wrong to suggest that this Bill will make contraceptives available to children. With some inevitable exceptions young adults make their contribution to society in a valuable and responsible manner. It is my very firm conviction, that with the help they will get from us, the older and more experienced people in society, they will be able to make informed, prepared and responsible choices in relation to their sexual behaviour when this Bill has become law.

I use the word "choices" advisedly because I know that young people are mature enough to realise that they can choose not only to say "Yes" but also to say "No". That is a point that is conveniently omitted by people who oppose the Bill. There is an impression created that the young people will turn into nymph's and satyrs overnight and that there will be a lemming-like rush to chemist shops in order to fill their pockets with supplies and that this country will turn into some sort of orgiastic haven. That is total nonsense, which does a disservice to our young people. I resent that kind of argumentation on their behalf. I deplore it.

It is interesting to quote from the laiety commission on young people and responsibilities. This was a British Commission. It states:

To keep responsibility from those who are ready and able to take it on is much more likely to make them irresponsible than to help them.

That is something the Minister has obviously thought about when drafting the Bill.

I would like to speak very briefly about the social reality which is all around us today and which the Opposition choose not to notice. It is a disturbing social reality. This Bill has as its backdrop the Kerry Tribunal, the tragic case in Granard, the Eileen Flynn case and, latterly, the discovery of the body of a tiny new born baby girl in a plastic bag in Galway. Births outside wedlock have risen from 2.7 per cent of all births in 1971 to 6.8 per cent in 1983. Furthermore, according to the Minister, the figures suggest an increasing number of pre-marital conceptions.

Those of us who move among the public at large are in no doubt as to the increase in the number of babies being born to young women outside marriage. There has been a most remarkable change in sexual morals within the last generation. A study of 200 unmarried mothers found that while 64 per cent were having sexual intercourse on a regular basis only 18 per cent regularly used any form of contraception. I am interested in seeing that these people have instruction and practical help.

I give full credit to the Minister and to his Cabinet colleagues for resolutely facing up to a most disturbing social reality. They have been the victims, particularly the Minister for Health, of a most unpleasant campaign of smear, innuendo and untruths. I was very unhappy to see a photograph of the Minister on the front page of a recent edition of The Irish Times receiving holy communion. That is distasteful and intrusive in what is a private and personal matter. I will leave to others to consider what it was trying to infer. It was distasteful and unwelcome in the context of the Bill currently going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I deplore the standard of journalism that would allow that sort of picture to grace its front page.

One of the more distasteful items of propaganda that came my way in the course of the preparation of this Bill is from the Childrens Protection Society. It is quite hysterical and distasteful and sums up the misinformation and the disinformation that has been the stock in trade of groups like this and other groups as well. It says in its banner at the top that the Minister for Health favours no age limit and that he is a member of the Irish section of the world's largest child contraception organisation. This is outrageous and untrue. It is important to place on the record of this House that people find this kind of publication distasteful and they see it for the untruthful document that it is.

Another element in the Bill is the removal of the necessity to have a prescription or authorisation, which was a feature of the 1979 Act. I welcome this because it was seen as farcical and as something of a joke by most people. It resulted in our GPs finding their surgeries filled with healthy young women, most of them with mortgages and washing machines, coming in for authorisations and prescriptions for non-medical contraceptives. Irish men in the main prefer to leave this aspect of things to their womenfolk. From a survey I undertook it appears that women are the people in the main who look after that aspect.

The authorisation which Senator Ferris mentioned was an unending permission or document and you had to keep it with you. It was something like a pass which one might have in South Africa. If you were rather careless and did not choose to retain it you would lodge it with your chemist and always go to the chemist where you were on file as being a user of condoms. That is a most extraordinary and undignified situation in which to find adults. It also led to practical problems. I know, being in some way connected with medical practice, that people went on holidays very often without the magic authorisation, pass, card or prescription with them and they had, at unsocial hours, to find a GP who would attend to their needs. It was a total absurdity. I am delighted that a nonsense like that has passed out of our legislation.

I am not surprised to see that family doctors in the main welcome this legislation and that the chairman of the Ethics Committee of The Irish Medical Organisation, Dr. Meade, went on record as publicly welcoming the changes which this Bill brings about. It is important that family doctors should be actively encouraged to keep up with developments in all methods of family planning. It is ironic that most of them who did go on courses did so at the family planning clinics or under the aegis of The Irish Family Planning Association and, by attending courses at the clinics in some way associated themselves with what were illegal places of distribution of non-medical contraceptives.

The natural methods will be kept in their place. They will not be altered by the amendments introduced in this Bill. Their provision can safely be left to groups now operating throughout the country. I praise these groups for the valuable work they have done in this area. It is a pity that divisions have developed between those who provide so-called natural methods and those who provide artificial methods. The two methods of family planning have in some ways become identified with two different cultural or religious groupings within our society. There is little doubt that each agency takes pride in promoting its own particular method and in discouraging or decrying the methods of the other. This is a nonsense and it should be seen for what it is. There should be no place for such notions of superiority, either moral or medical, in this area of family planning. The deciding factor should always be what is best for each individual couple medically, aesthetically and practically.

Another area which is contiguous to the debate but has, perhaps, become the biggest element for discussion outside the House, where people are not limited to the confines of the Bill, is the whole area of pluralism and the relations between Church and State. It was inevitable that this Bill would provoke clerical comments. It is important that Church leaders of all denominations should, like any other grouping or individual in society, feel free to make their points and make their concerns known. They have a duty to preach and teach to their respective flocks in relation to sexual morality as indeed in relation to every other area of morality.

It is important to put on the record a summary at least of what the Church of Ireland stated in relation to this Bill. They repeated the Anglican teaching in favour of responsible family planning. The bishops also said that the Church of Ireland is "sensitive to the express anxiety of some people that the proposed legislation reduces the age of those covered by the Bill to 18 years of age". The bishops said that, as young people can vote at 18 and qualify for participation in Church activities at 18 they "trust young people to show in their personal behaviour and sexual morality the same degree of responsibility". That is a view I can subscribe to without any difficulty.

A smaller Protestant grouping, the Methodist Church, also supported the Bill. They made two main points in their press release in relation to it. They supported the right of individuals to make decisions for themselves in such personal aspects of life. Secondly, they stated it is not for the Church to tell the legislators how to legislate. I find no difficulty in agreeing with that point of view.

The Roman Catholic Church, the major Church in the country, issued a number of individual statements. The majority of these statements voiced the anxieties which I understand but I do not happen to share. It is true to say that a moderate approach was adopted by Cardinal Ó Fiaich, the Bishop of Ferns, Dr. Cummisky, the Bishop of Galway, Dr. Casey and Dr. Cassidy, Bishop of Clonfert. However, two of the bishops chose to over-react. Their interventions were less than helpful. I believe historians will judge them to have been mistimed and out of step with those of their fellow bishops and with the climate of public opinion. I speak of the views of Archbishop Kevin McNamara of Dublin and the views of Bishop Newman of Limerick.

The views of these two reverend gentlemen could be summarised as follows: that Catholic legislators should act in a Catholic manner; that the only Catholic manner of acting in the matter of the Family Planning Bill, which would allow the sale of non-medical contraceptives to unmarried persons above the age of 18 without prescription, is to vote against it. Therefore, Catholic legislators should vote against it — a sort of neat piece of logic, as they saw it. Using highly charged and what has been referred to as apocalyptic language they threw to one side their Forum position, which had pleased, surprised and delighted me when it was enunciated, and they exposed it as a piece of well-intentioned fantasy. I found this extremely disturbing. It appears that when it comes to the crunch some elements within the Roman Catholic Church, as represented at least by Archbishop McNamara and Bishop Newman, have demonstrated that there is no intention of any appeasement or rapprochment with beliefs and traditions which are contrary to its own.

I do not doubt the sincerity of these bishops, but their judgment and their whole approach is faulty and counterproductive. I would like to comment on a Sunday review programme of RTE, in which Bishop Jeremiah Newman of Limerick was interviewed by the very able presenter, John O'Donoghue. It was rather like an academic exercise and extremely interesting for that. During the course of this interview Bishop Newman said two very disturbing things. He was talking about the declining population in Europe, indicating that if we went down that slippery slope we too would experience a declining population. He then went on to say that in Frankfurt, Munich and Paris the only population which was rising was that of the Turks. He did not comment any further. He did not need to. The inference to those who were listening intently, as I was, was very clear. He went on to speak about the rights of majorities and minorities saying, "If we have a few Hottentots in our society are we to legislate for them too?" Again, he did not choose to comment but the inference was very clear. I interpret those comments as being, perhaps unintentionally, certainly racist in tone and completely unacceptable.

The passage of this Bill is a watershed in Irish political history. I never felt more happy about anything than I did on the evening after the Dáil vote. It affirms the principles of a secular pluralist democracy and it underwrites the sentiments of the Forum Report, which is the consensus view of all Nationalists and indeed of most thinking people on this island who want to see a way out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

I cannot conclude without commenting on the role of the Opposition, the 32 county republican party, which disgraced themselves in this debate yet again. They have adopted a pose of opposing for the sake of opposing and of securing a perceived party political advantage. They fell flat on their faces in relation to this. Their judgment was seen to be faulty and appeared to be bankrupt of ideas. In a cynical manoeuvre they suborned a former member of the Labour Party, hoping to pull off a stroke which they had employed before in Dublin West constituency. That fell flat on its face. Many people were pleased to see that happen and saw it for the expedient and grim little stroke it was. They have compromised not only the republican status of their party, which they are so proud to speak about, but they attempted to compromise the republican status of this very State. They did not get away with it. History will judge them very harsly for their attempts.

I am pleased to see that the Minister spoke to us today about his desire to cooperate with the Minister for Education in an extensive programme of education in matters of human sexuality and relationships and that he has already initiated moves in this direction with the Health Education Bureau I am particularly pleased about this. It is vital that such a programme be embarked upon speedily and that there should not be a time lag between the passage of the Bill and the introduction of appropriate instruction, information and education for young people.

I look forward to Committee Stage when we can question the Minister and tease out, section by section, the provisions of the Bill. Once again I salute the Minister for his courage and his grace under pressure in bringing forward the Bill. Together with him I salute his Cabinet colleagues who judged it timely, appropriate and necessary to bring this Bill before us.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am opposed to this Bill. I want to make a few general observations with regard to the Bill. The Minister, and those who share his point of view, have stated that this is a minor reform. Like Senator Fallen, I ask how could this be so when it has caused such dissension within the political parties, and such polarisation within the community? Like Senator Fallon, I repeat, if it is a minor Bill I hate to ponder on what the result of a major reform might be.

The reality is that whether one is for or against it this Bill represents a radical departure in the attitude towards the accepted standard of sexual behaviour in this country. It is a breaking of the line. It is a yielding of idealistic standards to practical social pressures as analysed by a minority but powerful lobby. It is misguided. I do not question their motive. I do not question the Minister's motive.

Senator Ferris referred to the abuse to which the Minister was subjected. I would like to say that I have not and will not be abusive. It is not in my nature to be abusive. He stated that he finds it particularly disturbing that there is a visible unawareness of the plight of women in those who oppose this Bill.

The Minister was apparently derisive in the other House that the views expounded by the Opposition were mainly from middle aged men. He belongs to that category himself and I do not question his motive. I believe it is wrong. I ask him to remember that where compassion for the very difficult role of women is concerned he does not have a monopoly. I believe there is not an unawareness and unconcern among the Members on this side of the House. The corollary, however, is not support for the Bill before us.

In its social implications the Bill symbolises a jump such as, possibly, has never before been made in the history of the State. To use a sporting metaphor, I would compare the situation to the conclusion of a tug of war contest. The mark on the rope may be pulled to and fro within the conventional extremes but once it is drawn across the line there is a total collapse of the opposing side. If this Bill becomes law the principles of sexual morality will vanish. Like a cancer, the trend will be irreversible. Whatever views one may hold, it must be conceded that we will have passed a very significant landmark. That is not to say that society will collapse or to talk in terms of perdition. I do not see the passing of this Bill as defeat for the Catholic Church. I do not agree that there was a head-on confrontation and, from the point of view of religion, I believe that those who are thus motivated will be incited to meet the challenge and bear greater witness. In that way, it may even improve the quality of religion.

However, religion has it hangers-on, those like myself who are unable to rise to its lofty ideals, to subscribe to its demanding tenets or to renounce the base instincts of human nature. This section encompasses the greatest number and it is here that the effect of this legislation can only be detrimental. I want to make it quite clear that I am not an apologist for any religion. I am a nominal Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism does not have a prescriptive right to virtue or goodness or perfection or whatever we like to call it. It never claimed that. In other words, because someone is a Roman Catholic, it does not mean that he or she is innocent of the many indiscretions that flesh is heir to. The problems we have are, by and large, no different from the human problems in other countries. The way we respond to them is not much different. We all move with dexterity to accommodate ways which may be alien to our beliefs, dressed up in the guise of progress and fulfilment. I would like to make one point for organised religion however, and it is this: if religious morals are abandoned and human beings are regarded as simply a higher type of animal I could understand the promulgation of contraceptive practices. I could even see in that situation that it would be patriotic to have, say, the organisers of a disco hand out condoms to the youngsters on their way out. But, clearly, we cannot exclude the inhibition or brake of religious sexual morality. It seems to me then to be wrong that we may look at religion to assist society in this area as a deterrent while at the same time preventing the same religion to have an input into the making of our laws. I am aware that morality is not necessarily merely an adjunct of any religion. Also in this country we are fortunate to have many religious who have dedicated their lives to the service of the community, for example, in education, in health and other social areas. I was brought up in extreme poverty and could never have gone to secondary school were it not for the generosity of the Irish Christian Brothers. Again, is it right that we should accept their commitment and at the same time deny them some say or the right even to make suggestions in the framing of our laws?

The point has been made that this Bill mostly concerns women. Of course it does, but I believe a clear majority of women are opposed to this legislation; a clear majority of the electorate are opposed to it. For a proposal which incorporates a radical departure from the accepted ethical norm, surely the proper procedure would be to put the matter to the people by way of referendum? I have no doubt that it would be rejected. However, instead of conforming to the wishes of the majority, this Bill has been rushed through with what borders on indecent haste.

With regard to women's rights, as far as I am concerned, they are pushing an open door. I am fully in agreement with the concept of complete equality between the sexes. I believe both parents should do their share of the homework, housework, looking after the children. There must be very few people who are not convinced that in comparable occupations men and women are of equal use. There is no reason why married women should not work outside the home; if they have qualifications or skills opportunities should not be denied to them. I have made my views known in this regard in this Chamber on a number of occasions particularly when discussing the First Report by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights which dealt with education. As far as I am concerned, there is no question of ambiguity or condescension. I must honestly say in regard to this Bill I do not see the easy availability of contraceptives as a liberation for women; rather do I see it as I see procured abortions, as further evidence of male domination. I see it as the acquiescence by women to the slave mentality that men can use female bodies for sensual gratification without any semblance of commitment or responsibility. I see the Bill as a retrograde step, a method of convenience more for men than for women.

There are many concerned and responsible people in the Roman Catholic Church who are critical of the Church's stance regarding sex. They feel that the Victorian, severe attitude has caused countless neuroses and mental problems. The tendency was to encourage people to adopt what might be called a neuter gender whereas it seems normal and healthy for youngsters to experience sexual desires and it would surely be abnormal and unhealthy if they did not. This total subjugation of sexuality and sexual expression, this austere orientation, has been condemned. I share this concern for the effects and scale of the problem. I admire and encourage all those dedicated to improvement in this difficult area. I accept the sincerity of the Minister's motivation but he is wrong.

Indiscriminate provision of contraceptives is not the answer any more than euthanasia would solve the problem of terminal diseases. The end does not justify the means and in any event assuming the availability of contraceptives there is no guarantee that the end aimed at would be achieved. Statistical and empirical evidence suggests otherwise. I do not accept the contention that the fact that contraceptives are already widely available and used is justification of this legislation. Joyriding is also a serious problem — I believe 20,000 vehicles were stolen in the last 12 months — but nobody would suggest that car theft should be legalised. The use of hard drugs is a problem but free sale would only exacerbate the situation. Poteen has always been in demand. At the present time, with the high price of whiskey and other spirits, it would be interesting to know the annual output and consumption of this illicit distillation. I imagine it would be quite sizeable. The poteen still in a mountain bog would be an enormous tourist attraction. Yet, who would suggest that the prohibition should be removed?

With regard to pressures and their place in shaping important policies I would refer to the position of the Catholic Church in the 'sixties. There was a strong demand to allow married couples to use contraception for family planning. This had the support of many eminent and learned ecclesiastics as well as lay people. It seems there was a consensus in favour of this change. If it had been granted it would have solved the problems of many conscientious and good people. It would have made the work of the Church easier, particularly in the area of pastoral care. It would have seemed to indicate progress and consideration as well as an appeal to potential converts as against the situation which was driving people from the Church. But, having taken everything into consideration, His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, decided otherwise in his encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae" which dealt with the right ordering of the procreation of children, written in 1968. I would like to quote four very short extracts from that document. The first is from section 2 which deals with the "New formation of the problem." It reads:

The changes that have taken place are in fact of considerable importance and concern different problems. In the first place there is the question of the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries are being faced with greater hardships. This fact can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take radical measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field require that kind of life in which it is frequently extremely difficult these days to provide for a large family.

It is also apparent that, with the new understanding of the dignity of woman, and her place in society, there has been an appreciation of the value of love in marriage and of the meaning of intimate married life in the light of that love

The next brief extract is from section 3 under the heading "New Questions":

This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral law norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so-called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might not transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? It is being asked whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

My third quotation is a sentence from section 14 dealing with the unlawful ways of regulating births.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before or at the moment of or after sexual intercourse is specifically intended to prevent procreation whether as an end or as a means.

Finally, I should like to quote a paragraph from section 17 which deals with grave consequences of artificial birth control:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for the artificial restriction of increases in the birth rate. Let them first consider how easily this course of action can lead to the way being wide open to marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that men — and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation — need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

With regard to "Humanae Vitae" my point is that for Catholics the Church law is very clear in dealing with sexual relations between married couples. There was no yielding to the pressures that concerned members felt were necessary and would be for the good of the Church. That many good and loving people decide in conscience that they are not bound by these restrictions I do not deny. That is their prerogative and nobody else's business.

I should like to emphasise a consideration which I have previously mentioned and which runs through the extracts I have quoted; that is, the respect for woman in her own personal right and not as the playtoy of male convenience and domination, not the means to an end which may be solely irresponsible sensual gratification. This leads me on to the place of religion as an influence in the formulation of State laws. Specifically in this State with around 95 per cent of its population at least nominal Catholics, what influence should the Church have and, as a corollary, should the Stage legislate for morality?

I agree with the concept of pluralism. This subject was dealt with in the debates on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill in 1983. This matter is considered very comprehensively by Desmond M. Clarke in his book Church and State, Essays in Political Philosophy published by Cork University Press in 1984. I quote from the introduction on page 17:

The fundamental inspiration of pluralistic legal systems is that the rights of minorities are valued just as highly as the rights of majorities, and that the legal system should refrain, as much as possible, from enforcing values which are patently religious.

This quotation serves my purpose but in fairness, since I quoted from the book, I should also like to quote all of the paragraph:

Apparently, the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland does not believe that most of the values they support are purely religious; they think that these values are supported by "reason". But this is usually the case with any religious group. Religious believers often assume that "reason" supports their beliefs, even in the face of obvious dissent from rational people who share different religious views. The test of whether a belief is religious or not, is not what its supporters say about it. Rather, if accepting some belief systematically coincides with being a member of a church, then such a belief ultimately rests on religious faith. The Catholic Church's teaching about the morality of contraception is a clear example of this.

Since I have quoted from the book, I should, in fairness, include two small paragraphs on page 89 dealing with tolerance:

A second major assumption in any philosophy of tolerance is the practicability of a distinction between "private" and "public" actions. At the individual level this implies minding one's own business about those beliefs and actions of others which minimally, if at all, impinge on my interests or the interests of others who may require my principled support. At the social level, it means a distinction between church or State and society. The basic law of the State should explicitly recognise pluralism in deference to a wide range of "private" actions over which the State has no authority; and the various churches should cease to exploit the power or influence of the State in pursuit of their own religious objectives. Religious pluralism and, more generally, ideological pluralism follows from the political philosophy which recognises the "private" range of freedoms which are at least theoretically guaranteed by most western democracies: freedom of thought, freedom of speech and religious freedom.

By contrast, intolerance is a characteristic part of the ideological framework of the majority church in Ireland. It is consistent with its beliefs about infallibility and it feeds on its fears of moral contamination if adult citizens are exposed to alternative belief systems which might challenge the hold of the churches on the minds of the citizens. An insular people, taught by a majority "infallible" church, and cultivated for many decades by an explicit government policy of fostering a nationalist ideal of religious and cultural homogenety, is hardly likely to provide a paradigm of political and religious tolerance. We inherit the fruits of an earlier corrupting philosophy in contemporary Irish society's attitude towards tolerance. We can only overcome the more obvious effects of such a philosophy by substituting an alternative concept of man and society in which the autonomy of the individual citizen rather than the truth of his religious beliefs is recognised as basic.

It was only fair that I should quote those two paragraphs on tolerance and pluralism and I shall refer to them later. I had not time to read, let alone study, this scholarly work so I will not comment on it except to recommend it.

With regard to the datum line for a socially acceptable standard of behaviour I do not feel it should be the lowest common factor or that a rational norm should be disregarded solely because it evolved through a particular religious ethos.

In the debate on this Bill in the other House references were made to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and such places. In those countries the state enforces the moral teaching of the majority religious community, sometimes by legalised murder or maiming. It is entirely wrong to compare these extreme cases with the situation here where I believe tolerance exists. I accept that not everybody would agree.

With regard to the book mentioned above, in the introduction on page 17 the author quotes two sentences from the submission to the New Ireland Forum from the Irish Episcopal Conference, January 1984. These are:

A Catholic country or its government where there is a very substantial Catholic ethos and consensus should not feel it necessary to apologise that its legal system, Constitutional or Statute, reflects Catholic values. Such a legal system may sometimes be represented as offensive to minorities. But the rights of a minority are not more sacred than the rights of the majority.

That is a perfectly legitimate view but the author states it is a classic example of confusing facts with values and he goes on to elaborate. I should like to put across another point of view. Suppose there are people who feel that prostitution should be legalised. If we ignore the dignity of woman and basic Christian morality it is possible to make a case for it. We are told it takes place in certain areas to some considerable extent so a small minority might well ask, why not bring some dignity to those who are prepared to sell their bodies for sensual pleasure by legalising prostitution? If that was done and say such a business opened in O'Connell Street in this city, is there anyone who would seriously say it would not have an injurious social effect? Is there anyone who would say that the situation should be engineered simply to show that the State is not enforcing Catholic moral teaching? Is there anyone who would seriously say that if this Bill is passed the environment which it will engender will not have an injurious social effect? To say that this aspect should not be considered because it coincides with Catholic sexual morality is illogical. I agree it is not easy in some cases to strike a proper balance. In a book called The Moral Life written by Nano Brennan, Desmond Forester, John Heneghan and Donal Murray, published by Veritas Publications and used as a textbook for the post-primary schools in Kells, the following statement appears on page 21:

Many philosophers have tried to describe the balance that must be struck between the good of the different people and to put into words the moral principle that should be applied to such cases. One of the most famous attempts to state this principle was made by the English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 who wrote: "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation". In other words, an action is good when it makes people happy, and the more people it makes happy the better it is.

The German thinker, Immanuel Kant 1724-1804, put it in a different way, "Act only according to the maxim which you can at the same time will to be a Universal Law". Like most of the things that Kant says this is hard to understand but it is well worth the effort of trying. He means that the rule or maxim of my action must apply to everyone else's action as well.

Regarding legislation for morality, I am not an advocate of such. I believe this well may have been a contemplation in the early years of the State, for example, when in 1935 the age of consent was raised from 16 years to 17 years, which was a carry-over from English law. Anyone perusing local papers for research in the years immediately following could not but notice the reports of the high number of State prosecutions under this heading. I would be sceptical about the positive effect of these efforts.

I should like to refer briefly to the legislation before us in the context of Northern Ireland. I think it would be generally accepted that if we did not have Partition from the start of this State our Constitution would have been different and would have taken into account the views of the people in the six north-eastern counties. When this country is reunited a new Constitution will have to be drawn up taking those views into account to the mutual satisfaction of the people in both areas. At present there is no question that unity is on the line if we do not pass such a Bill.

It has been argued elsewhere that in the Six Counties where contraceptives are legalised there have been no social or moral negative consequences. Not everyone shares that view. For one, Father Denis Faul, St. Patrick's Academy, Dungannon, County Tyrone, believes otherwise. I should like to quote from a letter by him published in The Irish Times on Friday, 15 February this year.

Mr. B. Ryan

Quote the last paragraph.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I will include all the letter, if you like.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Fitzsimons to continue.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The letter reads:

But all can recognise a steady decline in sexual morals expressed in corruption of the young and the breakdown of marriage. The graph of decline grows steeper over the decades until the hollow globe of a society without values cracks and breaks into chaos and barbarism.

Many factors contribute to this; violence and discrimination in society may be powerful forces in wrecking normal decent life. So too can divorce and abortion in lessening respect for sacred and irreplaceable values. Contraception is one such force. Prescinding from the fact that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church forbids it, one can study its social effects, and the people of the Republic must ask: do they want these items with their corrupting effect and the enormous expense of dealing with the consequences of disease and mental breakdown and the care of parentless children?

In the North there are children of 12 and 13 years of age using contraceptives because they are available; the truth of the extent of the corruption is buried in the records of hospitals, doctors' surgeries, priests' and ministers' ears and lawyers' offices. One notes a rapidly increasing decline since 1979-1980, not only in practice but in the lack of respect for areas of life and conduct formerly held sacred. The media, especially TV and videos, have played a part in this.

Things may well be as bad in the South, but, remember, the situation never reaches rock bottom while we do not think wrong. We may do wrong because we are all weak creatures of passion. But when the wrongdoing becomes right doing because it is sanctified into State legislation at the taxpayers' expense, that is the penultimate corruption (the ultimate is when churchmen approve of contraception, abortion, divorce etc.)

That was all I intended to read.

These strong words must surely temper the enthusiasm of people who support this legislation. We are told to beware of alienation of our young people. This does less than justice to the calibre of our youth, even though they are subjected to pressures we did not experience as regards printed matter, television, films and a less restrictive environment. I believe their shoulders are broad enough to carry their responsibilities.

There are those adults who have a genuine concern for their children and say that they would prefer contraceptives to pregnancies. If that is to be the sole criterion it would be easy to gear sex education in our schools to that end. I have not heard even one person state that such an approach would be acceptable. I have heard many people state categorically that it would not be. Sex education must be provided in co-operation with the parents. It must be part of an overall programme to prepare young people for life and it must focus on the essential prerequisite of responsibility.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.