Before I call on Senator Norris I would like to draw the attention of the House to a correction in the text of the amendment to the motion circulated on the supplementary Order Paper today. The words "in this regard" should be deleted and I have arranged for this corrected version to be circulated in the House. I call on Senator Norris. As the proposer of the motion, he has 30 minutes and each Senator speaking after that has 15 minutes. Senator Norris has 15 minutes to reply.
Family Planning Services: Motion.
I am glad you have removed three words from the amendment and I wish that the Government party would find it in their heart to remove the entire amendment because I do not think it is necessary.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann urges the Government immediately to set in train a review of the criminal law governing the sale of contraceptives in the light of—
(a) the judgment of 26 February 1991, and
(b) the implications of the judgment for the spread of HIV infection among young people.
This motion is quite deliberately general and I do not think it should cause any problem on the Government side. Indeed, it is interesting that the Government have moved quite rapidly. I placed this motion on the Order Paper the day after the judgment was made clear and before the Government had taken any steps to indicate, through a series of leaks, that they at last intended, as a reactive measure, to go some way to meet the concerns of the Irish public in this regard.
I say again that this is a reactive measure and it is a great pity that no Government have ever grasped the nettle of the law governing contraception in a positive and realistic manner. The indications I have are that the Government may still intend to tinker with the existing law and not engage in the radical change which is necessary in the light of human rights and of the necessity to remove any possible indication of sectarianism in our law. I will return to that because it is quite plain that family planning legislation is grossly sectarian in its framing and in its application because it applies the ethical standards of one denomination exclusively. It is also necessary to protect the citizens of this country against a very dangerous, and so far incurable, disease. I am not sure that through these inspired leaks I have detected any significant change in the Government's attitude other than that of being reactive to the circumstances. I hope I am wrong.
I refer the House to the previous debate in 1985 when the Minister, then an Opposition Deputy, said:
I welcome the fact that the Minister has not changed the provision in the 1979 Act for support for natural methods of family planning. Many people use these methods and find them very satisfactory. It is only right that we should continue to support the promotion of natural methods of family planning.
The question of natural methods of family planning implies the word "natural" in a way which clearly indicates it has derived from Roman Catholic theology. The Bill institutes and requires the Government to support in various ways, including financial, what is called natural family planning.
I do not wish to be contentious but the view outside that of orthodox Roman Catholic theologians would be that there is nothing natural about taking the temperature of the female generative organs and then plotting a mathematical graph to discover when the infertile section of the woman's ovulation cycle occurs. Many people consider this as unnatural as the use of a rubber barrier shield by the male. The quotation continues:
The Bill provides for the sale of non-medical contraceptives to those over 18 years of age. This is a major departure from the principles of the 1979 Act which was, as I said earlier, to make contraceptives available only for bona fide purposes of family planning.
Again, this is a phrase which recurs in thinking on this area and causes me some considerable concern. What is "bona fides" purposes of family planning? It would seem to exclude the use of a contraceptive as a prophylactic.
The Minister is well aware of the fact that the condom has an honourable history of being used as a prophylactic that goes back at least to the time of comparable infection in Europe when the first adventurers to the American continent brought back, among other things, the dubious gift of syphilis. Condoms were developed as a protection against infection. I put it to the House that this is a very important value for the use of contraception. He continued:
This has not very much to do with health. This decision of the Government is causing concern throughout the country. As we, the Minister and the Government know, and the people certainly know, it means that contraceptives will be freely available to any teenager. It is not possible to enforce this age limit. There is nothing to stop a young girl of 15 or 16 years of age from going into a chemist shop wearing high heel shoes and asking for contraceptives. How is the chemist to know her age? Equally, there is nothing to stop a group from going off for a weekend on holiday and someone over 18 years of age buying contraceptives.
When Deputy O'Hanlon, as he was then, said: "it means that contraceptives will be freely available to any teenager", I would have to say, would that it were so. That is precisely what the case should be and I would like to tackle head on the argument that it is dangerous to make contraceptives available to young people. It is dangerous not to make them available to young people. Does anybody actually suggest that young people become sexually excited at the sight of a condom? I do not believe this is the case. Children are not sexually excited by exposure to the sight of a condom. However, sexually active young people need and are entitled to this kind of protection, both from unscheduled and unwanted pregnancies and from the risk of infection. I would like to state what the actual state of play is with regard to unwanted, unscheduled pregnancies and infection, because it is quite clear that a considerable number of young people, according to the Government's own fact sheets, become pregnant because of a lack of information about contraception. I refer to the fact sheet issued by the health education section of the Department of Health under the heading, "Births To Single Mothers" which states:
The number of births to single mothers in Ireland is heavily concentrated in the younger age range of the fertility span. In 1986, 31 per cent of births registered as outside marriage were to women aged between 15 and 18 years and 41 per cent were to women in the 20 to 24 age group. In relation to the youngest women there is concern about both the physical aspects of childbearing at that age and the social circumstances of young mothers. A greater than average number of physical complications is associated with adolescent pregnancies. One recent study found that Irish adolescents who become pregnant are more likely to keep their children than to give them up for adoption. However, the desire to keep their child often places young mothers under severe economic stress and many live close to the poverty line. This is in spite of the allowance for single mothers which was introduced in 1973. Although the adolescent mothers in this study had usually been involved in a steady relationship for a period of time, 85 per cent of the pregnancies were unplanned and 58 per cent of the mothers had not even considered using contraception.
Those are figures that would give any reasonable, decent person, certainly any caring family doctor or parent, grave cause for concern. Thirty-one per cent of births registered outside marriage occurred to women between 15 and 18 years of age and these are precisely the people whom the prevailing ethos of Government has suggested should if possible be frustrated in their attempts to acquire access to contraception. This is an absurdity and more than an absurdity, it is a moral outrage.
The question of access to condoms is also important. They should be freely available in dispensing machines, public houses, public lavatories and so on. It is a particularly mean attitude of mind that would seek to embarrass and shame young people when purchasing these items. That is what is intended by removing them from places like the Virgin Megastore. It is much better to have them in an atmosphere where young people will feel comfortable having access to them rather than, for example, going into a middle aged chemist of prim moral views where they may not feel abashed but be abashed. I do not think anybody is in danger from a condom. People are in danger from unprotected sexual activity.
I turn in this regard to what the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Cahal Daly, said in his radio interview on Sunday. I found it very interesting. It is obvious that the Roman Catholic hierarchy have begun to move. The Archbishop acknowledged that condoms, properly used, could constitute an effective barrier against infection. This is a considerable advance from some years ago when they claimed that the only protection against HIV infection was monogamy, faithfulness within marriage and chastity outside marriage, which seemed to me to be ridiculous because I do not believe that a virus is capable of distinguishing between the married and unmarried. At least there is an acknowledgment of the realities but I am afraid it is too late.
I take up another point with which I agree. The Archbishop said that anyone who cares for another person will not wish to expose them to even the slightest risk of infection. I agree. There is no question that this is the case. Is one not exposing people to the risk of infection in what seems almost a deliberate, calculated and punitive way if one does not make contraceptives available freely to young people? It is young people who are the most at risk. The evidence seems quite clear that parents agree with this. I have a report from the Evening Press of 8 December, 1986 in which a survey made it quite clear that a majority of parents believe there should be sex education which would include dealing with the subject of condoms.
I would like to address another issue that was raised by Archbishop Daly. It is frequently said by those who oppose advances in this area that the spread of AIDS through non-drug related sexual contact was not as rampant as it was in countries where condoms were available in almost every public place. I am afraid the Archbishop has been grossly misled in this. The figures are against him. It is not true. One could instance the Republic of China but one does not have to go as far away as China.
I would like to place on the record of the House some facts which the Minister may find interesting. I refer to statistics concerning the number of cases per 100,000 reported in 1988 as being full blown AIDS. Ireland has one case per 100,000; Sweden, which might well be the kind of country which the Archbishop was thinking about, has also one per 100,000; Finland, another Nordic country, has 0.3 and Norway has 0.7. It just simply is not true to say that societies in which condoms are freely available are societies in which the rate of transmission through non-drug related methods is higher. In fact, the evidence seems quite clear that condoms are an effective method — 92 per cent effective — in inhibiting the spread of infection. Those countries which make condoms available have a lower rate of infection than those which inhibit the sale of condoms. For these reasons the current state of the law is quite unacceptable.
I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. I will be able to return for the second part of the debate next Wednesday to comment on what the Minister says. I would like to ask something about the background of this case. I am a little worried about it. I am worried about the way in which the prosecution was brought. There is more than a possibility that certain groups who have appointed themselves the moral guardians of this State have been involved in this. I do not believe that policemen walk into shops off their own bat and simply try to break the law by acquiring contraceptives. A complaint must have been made. I would like the Minister to come clean with the House and indicate, if he is aware of the information, from what source did this complaint come. I am aware of this kind of activity in numerous areas, by small, unrepresentative groups who wish to frustrate the development of the law in this area. I recognise there may be some difficulties for the Minister in dealing with his own backwoodsmen, as they would be described. I would like to place on the record of the House that in my presence during the week a member of the Government party, who on one occasion represented——
I regret to interrupt the Senator but I have been advised that the fire alarm has gone off and the military authorities wish to investigate the matter. That includes an investigation of this House. We will have to suspend our business for half an hour until this has concluded.
Sitting suspended at 6.50 p.m. and resumed at 6.55 p.m.
The House intended to suspend the sitting for half an hour. We thought that length of time would be necessary. However, a much shorter period sufficed and it was felt that in the interests of the House we should resume business sooner rather than later. Is that agreed?
May I suggest that you give me a couple of minutes to gather my papers?
I will assist the Senator to gather his papers and thoughts.
Some of the material may have been removed. There was one set of statistics I was looking for about AIDS infection. May I be afforded a few minutes to find them?
That is no problem, Senator. May I explain to the House that Senator Norris is involved in the collection of his papers and he has asked for a couple of minutes to do so before he resumes.
I have the possibility of coming back next Wednesday so I will just simply place an extrapolation from the facts on the record and then return to the remark at the point where I was interrupted by this fire scare. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that the latest available figures would suggest that there is a rate of infection in this country of one per 100,000 — I cannot remember the exact figure but I did some work on it.
The latest available figures, which I will place on the record of the House next week, indicate quite clearly that one person in every 1,000 is HIV positive. The figures available suggest that it is one in every 4,000 but it becomes much lower because the internationally accepted multiplier is three or four. The rate of infection actually in the population is three to four times that which registers in statistics. That is a fact that ought to be placed on the record of the House. In the flurry of the fire alarm the paper with these detailed figures got mislaid so I will place the figures on the record the next day.
I was starting to talk about the attitudes of what I decribe as backwoods men with whom the Minister may very well have to deal in his own party. I have indicated already that I felt his attitude in 1985 left a good deal to be desired. I can sympathise with him now having to deal with people. I started to indicate that a remark was addressed to me during the week by somebody, a member of his party and for some time, represented this country in Europe, — made, perhaps, in a slightly jocular fashion — that having sexual intercourse when wearing a condom was like washing your feet with your socks on. This kind of attitude is juvenile and unhelpful and it suggests a kind of masculine bravado and insensitivity that is conducive to the spread of the disease.
I would like the Minister also to turn his mind back, if he can, to some of the remarks I was making before the fire alarm went off. I had indicated that I felt the application of the law tended towards the sectarian. I would like to ask the Minister if he has funded family planning using contraceptives outside what was described as the natural family planning method? If the Minister has not funded or grant-aided the schemes why has he not done so? It is important that we know the attitude of the Government in this matter.
The situation is that our Government health authorities refuse to inform married couples about the use of contraceptives for family planning purposes, although the use of contraceptives is a right established as such under Irish law. It is appropriate that the Seanad should once again discuss these matters because, as the Minister knows, the President of Ireland, Mrs. Robinson, in 1971 attempted to introduce a measure enabling the use of contraceptives and was denied even a First Reading.
The situation was opened up in December 1973 as a result of the decision in the Magee case and a limited form of availability was introduced at that time. Again, it was a reactive situation. I do not think there was any great generosity by the Government in that. There is no law requiring a refusal on the part of the Government. Nevertheless, the health authorities, especially the eight regional health boards, are not permitted to distribute any information relating to the use of contraceptives for family planning purposes, nor do the Government assist any of the private voluntary family planning associations to distribute such information.
Instead, the Government allow only family planning information which corresponds to that regarded as natural by the Roman Catholic Church to be distributed despite the fact that freedom of conscience and of religion is permitted under the Constitution. Similarly, the Government will only provide financial support for the distribution of family planning information, which corresponds to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, to private voluntary associations. These decisions have been taken despite the fact that no law exists on the Statute Book prohibiting the distribution of information on the use of contraceptives.
The decision not to do so is entirely the decision of the Government and especially of the Minister for Health. In effect, the decision to prohibit the distribution of information on the use of contraceptives by married couples for family planning purposes is the result of an arbitrary decision which clearly imposes on citizens, a specific code of religious morality, that of the Roman Catholic Church. Such a decision is contrary both to the provisions of the Constitution in relation to freedom of conscience, Article 44, and the citizens' rights, Article 40.
I would like once more to refer to what Archbishop Daly said because it seems that the Government are too heavily influenced by what ecclesiastical authorities have to say in these matters. The Archbishop, Dr. Daly, said:
Legislation enabling the wider availability of contraceptives will have profound implications for the moral quality of life. This must be kept in mind in the enactment of such legislation. It was a question of the legislators respecting the moral convictions to which people adhere which are influenced by the membership of their Church.
It is a great pity that the Archbishop did not restate what was said in the earlier debate by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, that was that despite the position that might be taken up by that group with regard to the morality of contraceptives it was the responsibility of legislators to legislate.
That is a very important principle. It is a principle, the Chair will recall from the debate on the Adelaide Hospital, that where there is a situation in which the State institutes a particular ethos, in this case the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not possible to do so without violating the consciences of all those who do not subscribe to the tenets of that Church. However, the converse is not the case. If you allow a pluralist ethos to be instituted through the law governing sexual matters, you respect the Roman Catholic ethos in as far as the institution of the Roman Catholic Church is capable of persuading its members that they ought to follow what is the moral orthodoxy of that Church.
I believe it is important to recognise the question of choice, I have to say that it would not be satisfactory to me, or to many people from my background, to be placed in a situation where we were told that the rest of the community had to pay the penalty for the inadequacy of the Roman Catholic authorities in convincing their flock of the justice of their position with regard to the question of contraceptives.
It is perfectly clear, it is observable, that there is now a divergence between the practice of the vast majority of Roman Catholic people on this island and the teachings of their Church in the matter of contraception. I believe it is this window of opportunity that the Government have detected and that it is this opportunity which they are now following by indicating that at last they intend to alter the laws regarding contraception.
I believe this question of choice is extremely important. I would like to quote in support of this from the debate in February 1985 when this point was addressed by Deputy Desmond O'Malley now a Minister in the Coalition Government. Deputy O'Malley quoted the speech of a New York Governor, Mario U. Cuomo. In a speech in the University of Notre Dame, which he describes as an American Catholic classic in terms of its wide-ranging dealing with issues he says:
That speech dealt in depth with these issues and made it very clear where the duty of a Catholic legislator lies.
I should like to quote the entire speech but it is 7,000 words long. I will give two brief quotations.
Will the Senator give us the source of the quotation?
It is the Dáil Official Report of 20 February 1985, columns 279 to 280, and it states:
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which for us would be sinful. The preservation of this freedom, the Governor argues, must be "a pervasive and dominant concern" in the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies.
He then went on to quote the end of the Governor's speech where, the Deputy said, Governor Cuomo expresses an element of Catholicism which we do not often hear in this country:
Catholics must practice the teaching of Christ...not just by trying to make laws for others to live by, but by living the laws already written for us by God. We can be fully Catholic; clearly, proudly, totally at ease with ourselves, a people in the world transforming it, a light to this nation. Appealing to the best in our people, not the worst. Persuading not coercing. Leading people to truth by love and still, all the while, respecting and enjoying our unique pluralistic democracy. And we can do it even as politicians.
That is the core of what I have tried to argue. We need a genuine move towards pluralism in this country. The Minister has an opportunity that he can be niggardly, he can merely cobble another couple of amendments to the existing legislation and increase the number of outlets and so on, perhaps even reduce the age. I do not want to be cynical but with an Ard-Fheis coming up at the weekend it would not be at all surprising if some announcement of this kind were to be made. There have been rumours of it already.
I put it to the Minister that this again is niggardly and parsimonious. I have indicated that condoms are effective, not only in preventing unwanted conception, they are effective as a prophylactic against disease. They are known to be so; they are demonstrated to be so. The argument that the contraceptive mentality assists in the spread of disease has been shown by the statistics I read into the record earlier not to be the case. Therefore, it is essential that condoms should be made available as widely as possible.
There should be no age barrier. I repeat what I said to the Minister earlier. People are always raising this spectre of children, that we must protect children. What child will be sexually excited by the prospect of a condom? On the other hand, young people are at risk. The figures I have read into the record make this quite plain. A considerable number of the unwanted pregnancies occur between the ages of 15 and 18. These are the people we ought to protect. These are the people it is our responsibility to protect.
I sincerely hope that the legislation proposed by the Government will do this. I will suspend judgment until I hear what the Minister has to say, but I would remind him that I have an opportunity, in circumstances, perhaps, that will be less fraught by fire, to return and comment on what he has to say this evening.
I wish formally to second the motion and to reserve my right to speak at a later stage.
Mr. Farrell
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute:
"endorses the commitment of the Government as set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to review the operation of family planning services and their intention to amend the law as necessary to make non-medical contraceptives more readily available.”
I want to put the matter straight. One would think it was Fianna Fáil who introduced the last Bill into this House. I would like to remind speakers that it was the last Coalition Government of Fine Gael and Labour who introduced the Bill. The way in which many people, through the media, and speaking politically, are either deploring this Government and Fianna Fáil, one would think that it was they who brought it in. First of all, I want to correct that.
Changes in laws are nothing new. Certainly Fianna Fáil and the Government had decided in the Programme for National Recovery to take this issue on board and bring it up-to-date. Those things must be done according to a broad consensus of people, not just the whims or fancies of a few. That is what democracy is all about.
It is good to remind people that we have changed laws on drink and drinking hours. We have changed laws regarding drugs and where they could be sold. We changed all laws in regard to where animal drugs could be sold. We have changed laws and regulations in regard to certain medicines. We have changed the laws in regard to where poison can be sold. We have changed the laws as far as tobacco and cigarettes are concerned, where they can be smoked and not smoked. We have been updating various laws. That is natural progression. This did not come about because of the Megastore issue, because the Programme for National Recovery was well and truly sealed and signed before this case.
I am disappointed to hear Senators condoning those who deliberately violate the laws of the land. It is our duty to change them and update them but it is not our duty to praise those who violate them. That is a sad reflection on people in high authority. I am very disappointed at that attitude. Whatever the laws may be, this is the place to change them. We do not encourage people to break the law. If that is what we are teaching our young people in our universities it is sad and it does not represent the views of the majority of teachers. It would be a very small minority who would adopt that attitude. The previous speaker consistently implied that young people——
Since he has made charges against my professional behaviour, can the Senator point to the specific reference in my speech where I advocated breaking the law. I ask that he withdraw that remark.
Acting Chairman
As far as I am aware no Senator was referred to by name.
Considering the fact that I was the only speaker I do not think the logical inference should place too great a strain on——
Mr. Farrell
It is typical of the Senator to interrupt people. He is consistently interrupting even on the Order of Business. People engaged in professional teaching do not talk down to people all the time; they respect the people they are talking to. Unfortunately, it is not a characteristic of the Senator.
The implication is that young people today are promiscuous and implies they go on holidays to buy condoms in another country. That is not far from the truth. The majority of young people are very good, decent and respectable people and they do not live a promiscuous life as seems to be implied here. They are more conservative now than they were in the thirties. We can see that from the attitude of most students and young people today. They go about their business and they go on holidays because they like to and not because there is something for sale. They go for value for money, sun and various other things but not specifically for condoms as was implied. I have reared a family, I never pass a young hitch-hiker without offering that person a lift and from talking to them I find them very decent, very conservative and wise. They are not looking for condoms around every corner. They are more interested in business and jobs.
Bishop Daly is entitled to use the media to speak to the large number of people he represents. If the Senator had his way nobody with different views would be allowed to speak. It is the right of the Bishop to say what he likes and I make no apology for anything he says. It is up to legislators to legislate. It must be based on a broad consensus of what the majority of people want and not just what one or two people, with access to the media, want. The media highlight everything that makes a good headline to sell a paper, and good luck to them. It is their business to sell papers and if they do not do that they are not in business. It is hard to write an article praising something all the time but it is easy to write an article condemning something.
I know the Government will study the situation and when they bring in a law it will be a good one. We know there is need to liberalise the sale of condoms but I do not think the majority of people want condoms for sale in every corner shop. I do not think they would like to see boxes of condoms beside childrens' comics in a paper shop, or in slot machines in every toilet.
I must issue a word of warning. The people who are talking now and interested in promoting condoms are the same type of people who not very long ago were criticising multinationals. Now they are trying to make money for multinationals because that is what this is all about. There were millions of condoms sold in this country last year and they intend to increase those sales. It is making money for Virgin records. It is making money for the agent for Mates. That is what it is all about, money.
If condoms were the answer to this problem there would not be AIDS in Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, England or America. They have all had condoms for a long time but it has not stopped the spread of AIDS. We have fewer people with AIDS. There could be a false security among people who might be innocent enough to think that condoms were the answer. It was not a man who said that sex with a condom is like washing your feet with socks on. I listened to that programme. It was a lady who said that on one of the morning chat shows.
In 1989 there were 59 million condoms sold in this country. It is not solving any problem. Nobody can say that if condoms were freely available in every corner shop like lollipops there would be no sexually transmitted diseases in any country. We are trying to encourage young people who may not be interested. Soon we will have elaborate advertising telling us how good those things are. I never had any reason to use them or my father or grandfather or generations before me. I am delighted about that because they are completely unnecessary. I do not think we need to have them everywhere. There is a consensus that there is a need to liberalise the sale of contraceptives but not to the extent that they will be made available at every sweet shop. If we are to increase the outlets this should be studied carefully and we should bring in a law that is satisfactory to the majority of people. There is no consensus for the unfettered availability of condoms.
I would like to set clear parameters for this debate and to set a clear position as a background to the debate. The day has arrived when what goes on in private between consenting adults is no longer a matter for the State. That is the basic background position that we have to adopt in this debate.
It is clear from the recent judgment and from subsequent discussion that the law is defective. What is necessary is to amend this defective law. I am very disappointed that the Government have not yet spelt out exactly how they propose to amend the law. The Government have not yet told us what their exact position on the legislation is, what changes to the existing law are implicit in the Fianna Fáil amendment? What will the differences be as a result of the Fianna Fáil changes? Where will condoms be available? To whom will they be available? In what circumstances will they be available? That is what makes this debate something of a misnomer. That is what makes this debate almost a sad irrelevance because we are debating from a position of ignorance in that we do not have the Government's proposals on the table. I would appeal to the Government to state their proposals immediately so that we can debate them. Then this will have some relevance for all of us.
Much of the debate on condoms in this country is very much a hang-over from the sixties and the early seventies. It is as if there is a lack of maturity within people who still go on debating yesterday's news and yesterday's realities. The condoms debate is a non-reality now and at this stage it should be a non-debate. I appeal to the Minister to put in place legislation that will wipe this debate off the agenda because it is by no means the most important matter in the eyes of people at the moment. It is by no means the thing that occupies the concern of the people at the moment. What does concern the people is the real health issues, the real social issues, the real economic issues behind the condom debate.
In that context, I believe that there is justifiable concern in this country about the AIDS issue. I am concerned at the number of health care workers who are involved in the AIDS area. I am concerned about the facilities for dealing with the AIDS epidemic. I want to know that people with AIDS are being looked after properly. That is what concerns the people and that is why I want the condom debate off the agenda because it is a misnomer, it is yesterday's news, it is a sixties and an early seventies issue. I want it off the agenda but I want the treatment of AIDS on the agenda. I want hospital care on the agenda. I want the number of workers involved in the AIDS areas on the agenda. If I want AIDs on the agenda, I, as Fine Gael spokesperson, want sex education on the agenda. I believe that we must introduce in our schools, in our youth clubs throughout this State a comprehensive programme of sex education. That has to be a realistic part of our policy. That must be what we are about rather than mucking around with irrelevancies. Let us do the job in a businesslike fashion and let us get on to real issues like sex education. If we have a good programme of sex education, it would be my contention that such a programme must improve the quality of life in the country, that such a programme must militate against a contraceptive mentality that could permeate this State.
We in Fine Gael do not support a contraceptive mentality. What we support is adequate sex education, adequate standards, adequate quality of educational and social experiences for young people that will militate against promiscuity. If we need education facilities and if we need a consistent attack on the AIDS problem and a complete holistic programme for dealing with AIDS, we must also address in a very compassionate, supportive and very realistic way the question of unmarried mothers. If we had a proper sex education programme in place and if we make the necessary amendments to the law, which I want clearly spelled out, then we might be able to limit the number of unmarried mothers, particularly among teenagers. But for those who are to be unmarried mothers, let us discuss as a matter of urgency how we can cope with these mothers, what we can do for these unmarried mothers, what kinds of facilities we have, what kind of support systems we have for their family units, what sort of educational and social back-up we have for those family units. Do we condemn such a girl if she takes any unacceptable steps to deal with her pregnancy? These are the issues we must address. When we look at the issue of the unmarried mother — and there is a hidden agenda here — we must look at the question of unemployment and social deprivation in inner cities, in urban areas and throughout the country. We must give hope to the hopeless, we must give a sense of hope to people in black spots of unemployment. We must correct our taxation system and our employment generating methodology so that there will be employment and so that there will be hope for people who are in a negative culture and who have a nihilistic feeling about life. That is the kind of response to the condom debate that we need.
At this stage, I would say let us obliterate the sixties and seventies news. It was relevant then but now let the Minister tackle the issue and tell the House in very specific terms what he proposes. When the Minister gives the House this information, my party will be very cooperative with him. We will act constructively in the national interest. In other words, if the suggestion put forward by the Minister has a workable viability, is based on reality and has the potential to deal with the issue, it will receive the positive backing of the Fine Gael Party. We will respond when we know exactly what the Minister proposes because the onus is now on the Government to address this issue and to amend the legislation. Let us do that immediately and let us then address the real agenda which is how we treat our AIDS victims, how we provide a comprehensive sex education, how we provide support systems of a realistic type for unmarried mothers and how we can cope with the horrible spectre of unemployment which creates the kind of culture, the kind of hopelessness and nihilism that gives rise to rampant promiscuity and excessive numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
On that basis I rest my case, and I do so in anticipation of a speedy, businesslike and intelligent response by the Government to this issue which will get the thing off the agenda because it is an irrelevance.
Acting Chairman
Could I call on the Leader of the House? We had a slight interruption in time.
If the House agrees, I suggest that we stay on this motion until 8.15 p.m. In view of the loss of time. Is that agreed?
Only if I can be assured that my Finance spokesperson has adequate time on the Appropriation Act.
Your spokesperson still has only 15 minutes.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support the amendment put down by my party member and Leader of the Seanad, Senator Sean Fallon, that Seanad Éirann endorses the commitment of the Government as set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to review the operation of family planning services and their intention to amend the laws necessary to make non-medical contraceptives more readily available. The Government and the Minister here present are to be commended for this decision.
Modern times dictate modern practices and what was applicable in the seventies is no longer applicable today. I am glad to see that our Government accept this and are taking steps to rectify and improve the situation. AIDS, as we all know, is a major scourge worldwide today and it did not exist as far as we were concerned as a disease in the seventies. Accordingly, the same urgency which applies now was not relative then. Our Government — the Minister will refer to this later — have undertaken a major campaign in relation to the AIDS crisis and anything that will help to alleviate and improve this problem must be commended. Any efforts we can make towards preventing the spread of AIDS or towards alleviating the situation is to be commended.
As a doctor, I would have to refer to condoms as a factor in helping to limit the spread of other venereal diseases as well. As was said earlier, we are now probably living in a more open and permissive society and we will obviously suffer the consequences of this if we do not take the appropriate action to protect our young people. I would agree with Senator Willie Farrell — and I am not in any way critical or speaking in any way against our young people — that we must make every effort to protect them as much as we can. It is also a medically proven fact that condoms reduce the incidence of cervical carcinoma, a disease that is probably a major killer in our female population. It is one of the legacies the male conveys to his female counterpart. That is another indication of why we should be, moving along these lines. There is obviously no need for me or anybody in this House to talk about the problem of unwanted pregnancies and unmarried mothers. They are a major burden on the State. We shall do all we can to help, as we have done in our amendment to the motion.
I do not believe, as some do, that because condoms are freely available it will lead to a more promiscuous society. I have more faith in our younger generation that that. If the facility is available they will avail of it but I do not accept that because the facility is available our young people will become more promiscuous as a result.
While I agree that condoms should be more readily available I have a problem with distribution, access and age. I am not happy about what should be the ideal age limit or how we can control it and I await the Minister's response in relation to that. My initial reaction when I saw this motion was that we should talk about the age of majority, 18. That might be an appropriate age but then, young girls get married at 16, so perhaps 18 is too old. I honestly do not know.
I must say in my own hospital experience I have seen young girls at Inter Cert level becoming pregnant. I can think of one occasion quite recently when the Department of Education had to make facilities available where a young girl of 15 was allowed sit her Inter Cert in private because she was about seven months pregnant at the time. When I see situations like that I wonder if we should reduce the age limit. I do not know. Whether we like it or not, young people of that age are experimenting with sex but I think that because they are so immature and have no idea of the consequences we should take a specific interest in this matter. We should set a limit that would be a realistic one, perhaps 16.
I am sure the Minister has a lot more to say on this issue tonight. I do not feel I need say any more save to say that as the amendment we put down endorses the commitment of the Government set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and as that amendment is very similar to the motion, I hope all sides of the House will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it has been put down and I hope the House will not divide on this issue.
I have listened to Senator Norris and Senator O'Reilly and to my collegues Senator Fallon and Senator Ormonde and I think there is an opportunity in the Seanad for a worthwhile debate on family planning in this country.
Senator O'Reilly is disappointed that the Government have not already announced the details of the legislation. I will not go into any detail tonight on what is in the Bill because, in accordance with protocol, that will appear in the Bill when it is circulated. It is hardly necessary to tell the Members of the House that the area that has to be looked at is the availability through the various outlets and also the question of age. These are issues that have to be addressed and this is what the Government will be doing.
Senator Norris referred to a recent court case and suggested I should come clean here and say who was responsible for that case. I want to assure Senator Norris that the case did not originate in my Department. I do not know who was responsible for it. I know, as I am sure Senator Norris knows and did not admit it here, that the case was taken by the Chief State Solicitor's Office. He also laid stress on the fact that our family planning law is sectarian. I could not agree with him on that. After all non-medical contraceptives are available. My colleague, Senator Farrell, has already referred to the fact that 51 licences for 51 million condoms were issued in 1989 and licences for another 40 million in 1990. I do not think it is true to say that people are being denied them. There is no sectarian basis in the legislation which, as the Senator knows, was introduced in 1979 and amended by the Fine Gael-Labour Government in 1985.
I respect Senator Norris' right to hold an opinion and I do not mind what the opinion is. I respect his right, as I respect the right of every other citizen in this State to hold their opinion. I am disappointed when I hear any Senator or any Member of any House of the Oireachtas, come in and address Members who hold an alternate opinion, an opinion shared by many people in the land. There is a wide volume of opinion on both sides in this debate. I am disappointed to hear Senator Norris come in here and refer to people who hold an alternate opinion to his own as backwoodsmen. That is not the sort of language by which we should address each other.
I would like to inform the Minister that I did make it quite clear what I was referring to.
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruption, please.
I want to put on the record the present position in relation to the sale and availability of non-medical contraceptives. The sale of contraceptives, including condoms, is governed by the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 as amended by the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985. Section 4 provides for the control of outlets permitted to sell contraceptives. These outlets are aimed at ensuring that contraceptives are available to those people who require them for family planning purposes.
Condoms may be sold without a prescription to persons over 18 years by any of the following: certain pharmaceutical chemists or chemists and druggists, chemist shops, registered medical practitioners at the place where they ordinarily carry out their professional duties, employees of health boards acting as such and where the sale is made at a health institution, the service or agents of family planning services licensed by the Minister where the sale is made at the place where the family planning service is being made available and employees of maternity hospitals or hospitals providing services for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and the sale is made at that hospital. It is necessary to obtain a prescription or authorisation to obtain all other forms of contraceptives except spermicides, regardless of age. Persons under 18 years of age require a medical prescription for all contraceptives including condoms and spermicides.
The Government, following consultation with the social partners, has indicated in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that the operation of family planning services will be kept under review. This review is ongoing and encompasses all areas of family planning including the extent, the adequacy and the delivery of natural family planning programmes which Senator Norris seems to object to. For reasons of public health protection it is also necessary to have adequate mechanisms in place to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
I will now deal with the issue of the Government's programme to prevent the spread of HIV infection amongst young people and the responses that the Government have initiated and propose to take to combat the spread of HIV AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Indeed, as Senator Ormonde has already stated, when the first Family Planning Act was introduced in this country in 1979 nobody knew anything about AIDS. Indeed, it was not identified until three or four years later. I would also agree with Senator O'Reilly that when speaking about AIDS we want a much broader debate that just discussing condoms and AIDS because obviously we must be concerned about AIDS as a public health issue and we must be concerned to combat AIDS and to prevent AIDS. The answer does not lie in just the use of condoms. There may be one element that has a role to play in the prevention of AIDS but it is a much wider area than that.
We have in this country a very comprehensive programme for the prevention, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment and management of AIDS and HIV in line with what is available in other countries, particularly European countries. This strategy consists of: the monitoring of AIDS and the trend in HIV infection; prevention through health education strategies aimed specifically at the young and at at-risk groups; the protection of the blood supply; the provision of services to reduce risk such as outreach and methodone maintenance; research into aspects of the disease; the care and management of people suffering from AIDS and HIV within an integrated framework of services including community services, primary care services, respite services, hospice services and acute hospital services and, finally, the co-ordination of policy and its implementation at national and local levels.
Our strategy, as I have said, is in line with the strategies adopted in all advanced countries. It takes account of and comprehends the recommendations of the major international bodies; and those which relate to improved surveillance of the disease and early intervention which I myself brought to the forefront in Europe during my Presidency of the EC Health Council.
Prevention of the disease in uninfected people and secondary measures to prevent the infection from spreading from infected people are critical in the Government's strategy. As a major part of its strategy, they have introduced a series of measures aimed at informing the general public and in particular young people and people in at-risk groups, about AIDS. A priority of our prevention strategy is to educate young people about the disease and to ensure that no person would leave school without being informed of AIDS and the HIV virus and how it is transmitted. Senator Norris does not seem to be aware that we have such a programme. Our school programme is recognised as being one of the most progressive in Europe.
It is also part of our strategy to inform health professionals to protect the blood supply and to inform people travelling abroad. Again, as my colleague, Senator Farrell has already referred to, Ireland after Greece has the second lowest rate per million of AIDS cases in the European Community. However, we are not complacent. From 1981 to 1985 all HIV cases reported were people who were homosexual or who had haemophilia and the condition was considered to be a largely imported disease to this country. When sero-prevalence monitoring became possible in 1985 it became apparent however that the HIV virus was indigenous in the country and that a particular problem existed in relation to the spread of HIV infection in IV drug abusers.
Since the disease was first identified we have had 190 cases of AIDS reported and 79 people have died. In addition, over 1,000 people have been established as being HIV positive.
The percentage of IV drug related cases is now increasing. In Ireland almost half of the people at present infected with AIDS are drug related. Almost 60 per cent of the people known to be infected with HIV virus are drug abusers. This movement of the epidemic towards the drug abuser has led to an increase in the number of heterosexual cases. In 1987 we had no heterosexual cases in Ireland. At the moment just under 5 per cent of Irish cases are heterosexual. While condoms do not eliminate the risk, it is recognised that they do provide a degree of protection. The progression of the disease from high risk groups to the community at large must be a factor in any consideration of the adequacy of the current legislaton which governs their availability.
The Department of Health monitor the prevalence and incidence of sexually transmissible diseases, in conjunction with the health boards, under the Infectious Diseases Regulations 1987. This monitoring shows that in recent years there has been an increase in the overall prevalence of STDs and in the incidence of new cases.
In recent years the Department of Health have been developing a framework for the prevention, treatment and control of STD. New STD clinics have been opened in Sligo, Limerick and Waterford. These clinics, in conjunction with those already provided in Dublin, Cork and Galway are an important element in the control and monitoring of STDs and/or AIDS.
An important recent development in this strategy is the creation of a second consultant post in genito-urinary medicine for the Dublin area, which will be based at the Mater Hospital and which will provide sessions in other locations on the northside of the city. The second GUM consultant post will therefore rationalise the consultant GUM services in Dublin and in the process will provide a more even distribution of STD services for the area. Consistent with the development of the services for the prevention, treatment and control of STDs, which I have mentioned, the role of condoms or prophylactics is obviously an issue which has to be addressed towards protecting the health of the public from diseases and conditions which are spread sexually.
Condoms have a role to play in strategies to prevent the spread of AIDS and STD. They do not fully eliminate the risk of infection of the HIV virus or other sexually transmitted diseases. The most effective way of avoiding transmission of these viruses is to stay with one faithful partner and remain faithful to that partner.
It is accepted, however, that for sexually active people who are not in a "one partner" relationship a good quality new condom, correctly used is a defence against infection. Under our present legislation, the sale of condoms is governed by the Health (Family Planning) Acts and the range of outlets through which these may be sold are specified therein. I have referred to that earlier. The Government have examined the situation and have decided to amend the law to make non-medical contraceptives more readily available. As I said earlier, a Bill will be provided with such amendments. It will be printed and circulated in due course.
I was not sure when Senator Farrell was speaking whether he was in favour of the amendment, which speaks about making non-medical contraceptives more readily available. The thrust of his contribution would indicate otherwise.
I agree with Senator O'Reilly. This should be a non-debate. In fact, if we observe the standards prevailing in the countries of our European Community partners on these matters we should forget about it and move on, as Senator O'Reilly has said, to more serious things. It is impossible, listening to some of the contributions in this debate, not to indulge in moments of levity. Perhaps I might be pardoned one or two of these before moving on to more serious reflections.
It occurred to me that maybe one way out of the solution is to have Roman Catholic condoms in one machine and State condoms in another, so that you would have a choice, rather like you would have a choice of education. The State condoms would, of course, be standard issue; the Roman Catholic ones would be, let us say, somewhat pierced and would bear the ancient Latin legend nihil obstat. I think that would satisfy the requirements of theologians.
The mind boggles at the number of condoms imported over the last several years. If you divide 50 million in 1989 and 41 million in 1990 over the numbers of sexually active people and, allowing for the fact that lots of people do not need to use condoms at all having made very precise calculations in what is called a natural way, you are left with an astonishing level of sexual activity involving the use of condoms. The mind boggles at that. How does that square with Senator Farrell's view that people are not really interested in that at all?
It is true that people make money out of the sale of condoms, there is no doubt about that, but that is not the only reason they exist. If people make money out of making condoms and if this has employment potential, why do we not avail of it? Why do we have to import 50 million condoms? Why can we not make condoms at home? They must — I am quite serious — surely afford considerable employment. We could make condoms with an Irish difference. We could have quality condoms bearing the "Q" mark, if they qualify, of course, and we could have a thriving quality export to our European Community partners. We could have condoms tastefully embossed with shamrocks and so on. The possibilities are endless for the imaginative.
(Interruptions.)
Already my poor words have struck a show of fire from Senator O'Keeffe. The possibilities are indeed endless. Maybe that is the way we should approach this subject. It is difficult to remain serious and solemn about it.
I had not time today to look up the long debate in 1979 when the present Taoiseach sat in the Chair which the Minister is now occupying, the year of the famous Irish solution to an Irish problem. We discussed all of this matter at length. There is a strong sense of déja vu about all this. I am not going to go into details at this time. I remember in the 1979 legislation there was a clear — to borrow Senator Norris's word — sectarian difference struck in the approach in the legislation to natural family planning on the one hand and artificial contraception on the other. That legislation certainly reflected the denominational differences. There is no doubt about that. I would maintain, of course, that all contraception, all attempts to avoid conception, are artificial. They are either all artificial or none of them is. Mankind has always shown considerable ingenuity in seeking various devices in these matters. I will not go into all of that again.
I notice that the Church spokesmen, including Archbishop Daly and Fr. Fall on "Questions and Answers" the other night, are giving an interesting new twist to the old approach. The old approach was, as Bishop Newman of Limerick quite bluntly said, that Catholics require a supportive State framework for their lives and for their moral standards, that Catholics are entitled to this. The Catholic Church is no longer saying that. They are saying the same thing in a more sophisticated way. What they, are saying is that legislators must respect the moral quality of life, the moral convictions of the electorate, which is influenced by their religious beliefs. It seems to me that this is simply a euphemistic way of saying the old thing, that they want their views reflected in legislation.
Like other Senators, I doubt very much whether availability is equivalent to promiscuity. Fr. Fall spoke of this the other night, that the more contraceptives are available the more young people will be tempted to be promiscuous, the more they will find temptation iresistable. Is this really so? Is this not to confuse mechanisms with moral attitudes? It certainly reflects the very poor view of young people that these clerics take if they imagine they are going to be subverted by more contraceptives or by vending machines and so on. Senator Farrell has already told us of his high view of these young people, which I share indeed as someone who has had over three decades of contact with university students. I have a very high regard for their morals. I do not believe that young men and women are going to freely rush in a Gadarene swine situation to the vending machines. It just is not true.
If that is so, what are we afraid of? Young people will take these things in their stride, rather like the Gay and Lesbian Society being recognised in UCC despite many misgivings on the part of some of the governors. I predicted quite accurately — with due respect to my colleague here — that heterosexuality is of such perennial attractiveness that no one was going to be seduced into the Gay and Lesbian Society who would not belong there anyway, by sexual orientation. It is the same thing with the availability of contraceptives. They are making very heavy weather of all this.
It is naive to assume that there was a former golden age of chastity, 30 or 40 or 50 years ago, when people did not do these things. They might not have had the same access which is now being contemplated by Government legislation; but they were not, as Gladstone once said about British Government policy on Ireland, "without recourse to the resources of civilisation" and there was much ingenuity displayed in avoiding consequences of courting at that time. Only a celibate, I feel, would go on with this kind of naive nonsense.
As I said, I do not believe that there is really a distinction between natural contraception and artificial contraception. Is it not very probable in the years to come that biological research will whittle down the unsafe period to a very carefully calculable number of days and that outside of that there will be no danger of conception? If that is so, are people who take advantage of that biological knowledge doing something natural or unnatural?
In today's Irish Times a cleric expressed his anguish about the imminent floodgates being opened and he referred to condoms as “these things”— a giveaway phrase. The distaste inherent in that is very eloquent, the idea that these things should not be, as St. Paul said, “so much mentioned among you.” They are disgusting and distasteful and I suspect the real reason the clerics find these disgusting and distasteful is that they connote sex without responsibility, pleasure without burden, and that is some of the fundamental objection to these developments.
Be that as it may, what is ultimately at issue here in the Government's decision in the forthcoming days is whether they are finally going to grow up and say it is their business to legislate, that the Church told them that years ago, the legislators must legislate, and now they are taking the Church at their word. Are the Government going to say that while it is the business of the Church to tell their flock how to behave according to Catholic moral principles, it is the Government's business to introduce liberal and progressive legislation and moreover, legislation that will in the long run indicate whether we are serious about building pluralism in Ireland?
Debate adjourned.