Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jul 1992

Vol. 133 No. 18

Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1992: Second Stage.

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

I am very pleased, a Chathaoirligh, to bring the 1992 Bill to this House. I have to doubt that we will have an enlightened and constructive debate and I look forward to sharing my thoughts with Senators on this important health issue.

The Senators are, of course, aware that the Bill passed all Stages in the Dáil last week. I listened to some incisive and interesting contributions from a range of speakers. Senators will also be aware that in the Dáil I accepted amendments on Committee Stage which, I was happy to acknowledge, were of added value. I also introduced my own amendments in the light of the contributions and comments from Deputies from all parties.

I am pleased, therefore, to commend this Bill to the Seanad. I regret that the debate will, of necessity, be briefer than some Senators may wish. I feel, however, that a number of the issues which Senators may have wished to address will already have been covered during consideration of the Bill in the Dáil and for this reason we have an opportunity today to consider wider issues of a public health nature.

I hardly need to remind the House of the reasons the Bill is before it today. As I outlined in the Dáil last week, it is necessary for public health reasons, as a means of tackling the problem of sexually transmissible diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS which was recognised as a specific entity within the last ten years and it was only in 1985 that laboratory testing for the HIV virus became possible. There are a number of well recognised risk factors associated with the spread of the disease of which the two most common in Ireland are intravenous drug abuse and unprotected sexual intercourse with an infected partner.

Over the past number of years almost 1,250 people have tested positive for the HIV virus in this country; 276 people have developed full blown AIDS according to the internationally accepted definition and 114 people have died. It is very probable, indeed almost certain, that the pool of infection in this country is larger than that reflected in those official statistics. For a variety of reasons, a number of people who have engaged in high risk behaviour do not come forward for testing. In addition, because of the international mobility of people, particularly between here and the UK, people who will have had positive tests in other countries and are now resident in this country may not feature in the official statistics.

It is of paramount importance that the spread of the HIV infection is curtailed. Practical measures need to be taken to prevent the spread of the disease. It is universally recognised that a good quality condom, properly used, provides significant protection against the transmission of the virus. The wider availability of this protective measure must be seen, therefore, as a practical and sensible contribution to the prevention of its spread.

Other sexually transmitted diseases are on the increase too. The network of sexually transmitted disease clinics set up over the past few years in areas such as Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick report an increasing number, particularly of young people, using their services for advice, counselling, diagnosis and treatment. Between 1986 and 1990, notification to the Department of Health of STDs has shown a 45 per cent increase. While many STD infections, unlike HIV/AIDS, are amenable to treatment and cure, diseases such as gonorrhoea can have devastating long term effects such as sterility and infertility and are, therefore, not only a cause for public health concern but a source of tragedy and despair for many individuals and couples.

From a purely medical and public health point of view, therefore, the prevention of transmission of these diseases is a matter of serious concern, not only to my Department but to the wider community. The wider availability of condoms, coupled of course with educational activities, has a major role to play in this endeavour.

The Bill also updates to a very considerable extent many of the provisions of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979, which itself was amended by the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985.

The Health (Family Planning) Act 1979 made provision for family planning services with a view to ensuring that contraceptives were available for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons. It provided that contraceptives might only be sold by pharmaceutical chemists, or chemists and druggists at chemists' shops. A prescription or authorisation from a registered medical practitioner was required for all purchases of contraceptives. It provided for the regulation and control of the sale, importation, manufacture, advertisement and display of contraceptives and other matters, such as the provision of grants for research, offences, penalties, etc.

Regulations made in 1980 required health boards to make available a family planning service and indicated the requirements to be met in relation to family planning services provided by other bodies. They dealt with the issuing of prescriptions and authorisations of contraceptives, their importation and their advertising and display.

The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985 made a limited number of amendments to the Principal Act. It extended the right to sell contraceptives to registered medical practitioners, employees of health boards, family planning clinics providing services with the Minister's consent and hospitals providing maternity services or services for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Such persons were enabled to sell contraceptive sheaths or spermicides to a person over the age of 18 years with a prescription or authorisation.

Under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, it was agreed that the operation of the family planning services would be kept under review. In view of this and the significant rise in the incidence of sexually transmissible diseases and of the incidence of AIDS, in 1991 the Government drafted legislation to provide for greater availability of condoms while at the same time respecting the concerns of many groups and individuals, not least parents.

This led to the publication of the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill in July last year. This Bill provided for (i) an increase in the range of outlets permitted to sell condoms and certain spermicidal preparations; (ii) a reduction in the age limit at which persons could buy condoms and certain spermicides, without prescription, from 18 years to 17 years; and (iii) the removal of the anomaly whereby pharmacies which were limited companies were legally prohibited from selling contraceptives. It provided that condoms could be sold without prescription or authorisation provided that: (i) the purchaser was over the age of 17 years; (ii) the vendor was over the age of 18 years; (iii) the sale was not by way of vending machine; (iv) the sale was either from one of the existing approved outlets selling all contraceptives, that is pharmacies, family planning clinics, hospitals, etc., or from a premises registered by a health board.

The Bill provided that if, on the application of an owner or occupier of a premises, a health board were satisfied as to the suitability of the premises for the sale of condoms and certain spermicides, they could approve the premises for such sales. It also provided that each health board would be required to establish and maintain a register of such premises.

Where a person was convicted of an offence under the Bill, or where the health board considered that his premises were no longer suitable for the sale of condoms and certain spermicides, they could withdraw their approval and remove his name from the register.

As the House will be aware, I have always had a particular interest in family planning services. As a general practitioner I can safely claim to be more familiar than many other people with the concerns, anxieties and problems experienced by couples in this very sensitive and personal area of their lives. Individuals have concerns on religious and moral grounds as well as in the purely physical domain. Communication and understanding between couples and with their general practitioner or family planning professional, are important aspects of the issue. The question of family planning and contraception is complex and highly personal. It may sometimes appear to involve a mere purchase or a prescription but, of course, life is rarely that simple and straightforward. Individuals and couples are frequently concerned or uneasy about the method of family planning which they are using and need a professional but sympathetic ear.

For these reasons I was very much struck, as a practitioner, with the positive elements of the 1979 Family Planning Act, which, over a decade ago, provided for a general approach to the issue which clearly required not only the regulation of the supply of devices, etc., but also for the provision of advices, information and consultation with regard to family planning services. Such advisory services are as relevant today and, in fact, I moved an amendment in the Dáil last week which empowers the Minister for Health to make regulations for the provision of comprehensive family planning services by health boards or other organisations.

Naturally, in my consideration of the family planning legislation, including the Bill which was introduced in 1991, I felt a number of matters needed to be repealed, updated, or amended in a number of ways. As we go through the 1992 Bill in detail I will signal where such changes are being made.

However, at this stage I will just refer briefly to one aspect of the 1991 Bill which attracted considerable attention last year; that was the role proposed for the health boards. The Bill provided that condoms and certain spermicides could be sold without prescription or authorisation provided that the purchaser was over the age of 17 years; the vendor was over the age of 18 years; the sale was not by way of vending machine; the sale took place in the usual premises, chemists shops, from doctors, family planning clinics etc. or in premises registered by a health board.

If, on the application of the owner or occupier, a health board were satisfied as to the suitability of premises for the sale of condoms and certain spermicides, they would approve the premises. Each health board would have been required to establish and maintain a register of premises approved for the sale of condoms and certain spermicides. Where a person was convicted of an offence under the Bill, or where the health board considered that his premises were no longer suitable for the sale of condoms and certain spermicides they could withdraw their approval and remove his name from the register.

I felt that such a role was not appropriate for the health boards. I could not see the need to establish an elaborate registration system for the sale of non-medical items. I also felt that it would have placed perhaps an unfair burden on health boards in trying to reach consensus on what constituted appropriate outlets for the sale of condoms. Rather, I thought, the Bill should spell out clearly where condoms could be sold. An unambiguous statement to this effect would remove any doubt in the minds of health boards or the public as to the legal outlets. Persons found in breach of the Act can be prosecuted in the normal way.

I would now like to take the House through the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 states that the reference in the Act to the Principal Act means the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979. Section 2 of the Bill amends the definition of contraceptive.

The 1979 Act contained the following definition:

"contraceptive" means any appliance, instrument, drug, preparation or thing designed, prepared or intended to prevent pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse between human beings.

This definition has been taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.

The proposed new definition in effect, limits contraceptives for the purpose of control under family planning legislation, to condoms, diaphragms and any other non-medical, non-pharmacological appliances. The new definition of contraceptive specifically includes contraceptive sheaths or condoms which had not been specifically included in the definition of the 1979 Act.

The definition of contraceptive will exclude oral contraceptives such as "the Pill" and spermicides which will be subject to the controls over medicinal preparations under the Health Acts. The removal of spermicides from the definition of contraceptive was one of the issues which gave rise to a number of queries during the Dáil debates.

The definition of "contraceptive" in section 2 of the Bill removes spermicides from the provisions of the Bill and transfers these totally to the controls over medicinal products under the Health Acts, 1947-1970. These controls are operated by the Department of Health, in conjunction with the National Drugs Advisory Board. This does not mean, however, that spermicidal preparations will now be subject to a more rigorous regime of control than heretofore and thus more difficult to obtain. It is possible to obtain certain medicinal preparations, without prescription, through non-pharmacy retail outlets, and, subject to the outcome of a review over spermicidal preparations currently being undertaken by the NDAB, spermicidal preparations will be available through outlets considered appropriate by the board. Irrespective of any requirements, therefore, imposed by the family planning legislation, the requirements of the NDAB would be paramount.

The primary consideration, however, was to confine the provision of the Act through section 2 of the Bill to contraceptive devices only and transfer contraceptives with a medical dimension to the more relevant medicines legislation.

Section 3 is a new section I moved in the Dáil last week and I will refer to it in detail later.

Section 4 sets out the list of persons who may sell all types of contraceptives; in effect, condoms, diaphragms, etc. It repeals section 4 of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 and the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1985, in its entirety. It repeals some of the provisions contained in section 4 of the 1979 Act and in the 1985 Amendment Act.

Section 4 (1) provides, in general terms, that: a person may not sell contraceptives unless:

(a) the sale is in accordance with regulations;

(b) (i) (I) the vendor is a pharmacist or a limited company pharmacy or a Licentiate of Apothecaries Hall and the same is made at the place where he keeps open shop; or

(II) the vendor is a registered medical practitioner and the sale is made where he ordinarily carries out his professional duties; or

(III) the person is an employee of a health board, acting as such and the sale is made at a health institution; or

(IV) the person is the servant or agent of a family planning service and the sale is made where that service is being made available, or

(V) the person is an employee of a hospital and the sale is made at the hospital; and

(VI) the purchaser is over 17 years of age or is married or is named by a doctor in a prescription.

The provision of the 1979 Act whereby a doctor had to indicate on a prescription that a contraceptive was required, bona fide, for the purposes of family planning or for adequate medical reasons is being dropped in the Bill. I felt this is unnecessary at this age and I know that it is unacceptable to doctors.

Sale may also be effected by a licensed importer or manufacturer where it is being made to one of the persons which I have listed.

Section 4 (2) provides that contraceptives may be supplied only by way of sale in accordance with the terms of the Act except where supply otherwise is prescribed by regulations.

Senators will be aware that the 1979 Act did not permit the supply of contraceptives free of charge. It was not considered appropriate, or desirable presumably, at that time. Obviously times have changed and it is important particularly in view of the dangers posed to society through the spread of AIDS, that contraceptives, and obviously condoms in particular, can be given out free of charge, as appropriate. This subsection, therefore, empowers the Minister for Health to introduce regulations governing such situations. I would have in mind, for example, the supply of free condoms to, perhaps, certain drug users and persons who are HIV positive.

Under section 4 (3) it will be illegal to supply contraceptives which do not meet standards which the Minister may lay down. This is a very important provision which was not in the 1991 Bill. If we are to make condoms more widely available we must ensure that the public are provided only with quality products. There is no EC standard for condoms as yet, and I will, therefore, be looking at what needs to be done by way of regulation to ensure that condoms of a suitable quality only are available in this country.

It will be an offence to contravene section 4 of the Act. Section 4 (5) provides for the repeal of section 4 of the 1979 Act and all of the 1985 Act.

It is in section 4 that we find the first reference to age in the Bill. Section 4 (1) (b) (ii) provides that a person may buy condoms without prescription if over 17 years or married. The 1985 Act provided that condoms and spermicides could be bought without prescription by persons over 18 years of age. It excluded young married couples, that is under 18 years of age, from obtaining them without prescription. The 1991 Bill would have reduced the age of the purchaser to 17 years, as in this Bill, but would not have permitted young married couples to obtain contraceptives without the prescription or authorisation of a doctor.

I do not consider it appropriate that married couples should seek a prescription for non-medical items which they need for contraceptive purposes. It is an unnecessary intrusion into their married life and, therefore, I have provided that they should be treated as though they are mature adults, that is over 17 years.

Section 5 of the Bill covers the supply of condoms only. Subsection (1) (a) provides that condoms will be available everywhere other than from the excluded outlets which I will list, to persons who are married or over 17 years.

Subsection (1) (b) prohibits the sale of condoms from vending machines; mobile outlets; street vendors; schools, youth clubs or sports centres catering for persons under 17 years of age, or from any other place and in any manner except in accordance with regulations which may be made by the Minister for Health.

Subsection (2) provides that condoms may not be supplied in any place which is not under the supervision of a person over the age of 17 years. Subsection (3) provides that it shall be an offence to supply condoms in a manner not in keeping with the Act. Subsection (4) defines "sports centre" for the purposes of this legislation as being "any premises purpose-built or adapted for the practice or playing of active sports".

Senators will be aware that the 1991 Bill specifically excluded vending machines only. However, it provided a registration function for health boards whereby the boards would approve premises as being suitable for the sale of condoms. I felt that by specifying a clear list of excluded outlets the interpretation of this Bill should be less cumbersome. With regard to the exclusion of vending machines for purposes of sale, I have stated my reasons for this in the Dáil.

The Bill represents a significant liberalisation of outlets through which condoms may be sold and, by extension, greater access to condoms for those who require them. By prohibiting sale by way of vending machine it balances such wider access with the desire of parents to have some objective level of supervision over the availability of condoms where young persons are concerned.

Section 5 (2) provides that condoms may only be sold in a place under the supervision of a person over 17 years of age. This is intended to ensure a certain element of control and supervision of supply. The 1991 Bill provided that a sale could only be effected by a person over 18 years of age although condoms could be bought by a person over 17 years of age. I felt that there was a certain inconsistency in this approach and I have, therefore, reduced the age of the vendor to 17 years.

Section 6 relates to importers and manufacturers. Subsection (1) provides that a person shall be entitled to sell condoms to persons over 17 years for resale in a manner not in conflict with the Act. This provision permits wholesalers, importers and manufacturers to purchase and resell condoms to permitted outlets. Under section 6 of the 1979 Act licensed manufacturers of contraceptives are not permitted to export. There is no good reason for continuing this situation which could restrain the activities of some pharmaceutical companies and subsection (2) provides, therefore, that a person holding a manufacturer's licence under section 6 of the Principal Act shall be entitled to export contraceptives to which the licence relates.

I do not consider it necessary to continue to require importers and/or manufacturers of condoms to obtain licences. Section 5 of the 1979 Act requires importers of contraceptives to have a licence from the Minister of Health. In future, therefore, the provisions of sections 5 and 6 will not apply to importers or manufacturers of condoms.

Section 7 provides for the inclusion of medical contraceptives in the definition of medical preparations. The Health Act, 1947, contains the definition of "medical preparation" which is widely used in respect of the control of advertising, sale, etc., of drugs and medicines. This amendment to the definition of "medical preparation" will bring the contraceptive pill and spermicidal preparations within the scope of medical preparations, which is generally the position in other EC countries. The "pill" will no longer be covered by the family planning Acts and "contraceptive" has been redefined in section 2 to take account of the new situation.

I would like, at this stage, to draw Senators' attention to two sections of the Bill which are consequent on amendments agreed in the Dáil last week. Section 8 is a new section which is inserted on foot of an amendment which I moved on Thursday last in the Dáil. This section repeals section 2 and 3 of the 1979 Act. Section 1 provided for the general duty of the Minister and section 3 catered for the provision of family planning services by health boards or persons other than health boards.

The new section 8 retains the positive features of sections 2 and 3 of the 1979 Act in that it requires the Minister to secure the orderly organisation of comprehensive family planning services and enables him to provide for the making available of such services by health boards or other organisations such as family planning clinics. It does not emphasise any particular types of family planning service whereas the 1979 Act distinguished between what were described then as "natural family planning services" and "family planning services, not being exclusively services which did not involve the use of contraceptives". I will be looking at the need to make regulations under this new section 8. The Minister is empowered to do so, in subsection 8 (2).

Section 3 is a new section, further to the debate in the Dáil last week. The section deletes certain words in section 9 of the 1979 Act, the effect of which is that the Minister for Health may grant aid research into any method of family planning. The 1979 Act confined the Minister to funding research into methods of family planning that did not involve the use of contraceptives. This is patently inappropriate today.

Section 9 (1) is a technical section giving the short Title of the Act and is a normal provision. Subsection (2) provides that the Principal Act and this Act may be cited together and is also a usual provision where there is an earlier Act concerning the same matter. Subsection (3) provides that the Principal Act and this Act will be construed together. Where, for example, provision has been made in the 1979 Act for specific activities or where certain words have been defined in the earlier Act, it is not necessary to repeat these activities or definitions in this Act.

I hope this Bill will meet with the approval of the House. In conclusion, I will refer briefly to those areas in which I will be introducing regulations under the Act. First, as I have already mentioned, I will be introducing regulations under section 4 (2) to provide for the supply of contraceptives free of charge in certain circumstances. Second, under section 4 (3), I will be looking at the question of introducing standards for contraceptives. Third, in the light of the new section 8, I will be considering what regulations are required with regard to the making available by health boards or other bodies of a comprehensive family planning service.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that I will be amending regulations at present in force under the 1979 Act with regard to the advertising and display of contraceptives. Section 7 of the 1979 Act provided that a person could not take part in, or procure, the publication of an advertisement or notice in relation to contraception or contraceptives except in accordance with regulations. The 1980 regulations provided that publication or display should either be: (a) related to family planning services authorised under the Act or, (b) is reasonably necessary for the purposes of informing persons providing family planning services under the Act; registered medical practitioners; registered chemists and druggists; registered nurses; trainee doctors, chemists or nurses and (c) where the publication or display is arranged by or on behalf of the Minister.

It is fairly obvious that these provisions are now out of date. They were framed at a time when acceptability of advertising and displaying condoms, for example, was quite different. Today we are talking about a serious public health issue. We want to encourage young people and all who are sexually active and may be at risk to take sensible precautions against both sexually transmissible diseases and unwanted pregnancies. This is important. The new outlets should be able to display condoms as should the traditional outlets, many of which have had concerns about advertising and displaying contraceptives for some time. I will be looking at the changes which should be made to the current regulations to bring them into line with the provisions in the Bill.

In conclusion, a Chathaoirligh, I hope I have explained the Bill in sufficient detail and I commend it to the House.

I understand the Leader of the House wishes to make an announcement.

Because of the number of Senators offering, I suggest that we allow 20 minutes for the party spokespersons and 15 minutes for other Members, subject to the agreement of the House.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

At the outset, I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him good luck in his role as Minister for Health. This Bill is all right in theory but in practice it falls short in a number of areas. If we work on the premise that this Bill is being introduced as a disease prevention exercise, in that it is one measure in our fight against AIDS, my party contend that this objective is not being achieved in the Bill because condoms will not be available in the areas where young people are likely to congregate and therefore more likely to avail of them and use them to prevent the spread of disease. It is my party's view that sexually active young people who might be likely to contract or spread AIDS are unlikely to have access to condoms in the outlets proposed in this Bill.

On a practical level, it would appear to me as a practising politician from a fairly representative constituency that many outlets, shops, etc., will not stock condoms. That will be the first difficulty. The second difficulty is that it is highly unlikely that the group of people we are targeting as being at risk from AIDS and as being likely to spread AIDS will responsibly enter a business premises and ask for a packet of condoms. There are all these jocose suggestions and extravagant notions about people asking for their pint of lager and their packet of condoms. It is unlikely that that kind of activity will take place. There would be a greater likelihood of these people using vending machines. Even at that, there is the possibility that quite a number of people would still act irresponsibly and not use vending machines even if they were available.

I want to make it clear to the House that there is no suggestion implicit in this proposition that we favour promiscuity among youth. That is not in question. There is no suggestion that we condone irresponsible sexuality in our young people. All of us here would want to inculcate responsible attitudes to sex in our youth. That is unquestionably the case. That would be the great aspiration of any Members of the House who are parents. It would be my aspiration as a teacher by profession and by training. There is no question that that is the position from which we are approaching the Bill.

The reality is that some people are sexually active at a progressively younger age; they may be irresponsible in their sexual practices and give rise to the spread of AIDS. That phenomenon is increasing. It is these people we want to target and it is these people for whom vending machines would be the most relevant medium.

I do not mean to be flippant but I know from Sunday Tribune interviews given by the Minister before the introduction of this legislation that, as a person coming from general practice he identifies with these points on a private level; but he has been reacting to politicial whims and that is regrettable. Even at this stage, the Minister should reconsider and not allow himself to be the victim of groups who are not basing their case on medical considerations. This is fundamentally a medical question and that is how it should be viewed.

There is no need for me to rehash unduly the incidence of the increase in AIDS over the last number of years. Suffice to say that at the end of last October, there were 216 cases of full blown AIDS diagnosed; 1,138 people have been diagnosed as HIV positive and there was an annual death rate from AIDS of 114 people. The rate of increase of AIDS among heterosexuals is running at over 50 per cent. If any of those statistics is slightly off — I do not think they are — the House will understand. The fundamental point is that we are dealing with an increase in AIDS. We are dealing with something that is potentially explosive and dangerous and some commentators estimate a possible 20,000 cases of AIDS at the end of the century. We are dealing with a health hazard and something that is increasing among the heterosexual population.

There is the unquestionable data from the World Health Organisation but again I do not see much merit in boring the House with a regurgitation of this. It is here for any Members of the House who are interested to see. There is unquestionable scientific data from the World Health Organisation to suggest that condoms are 90 per cent effective in the prevention of AIDS. If they are 90 per cent effective in preventing a killer disease of such horrific proportions that is enough for me. These data are tabulated and documented by the World Health Organisation. I am sure most of the Members are familiar with them already. There has also been an increase of 45 per cent in other sexually transmissible diseases last year. This is a pattern that repeats itself in the rest of Europe.

For a certain section of my life I worked during summers among the Irish emigrant community in London in bars and so on. It was a tremendous educational experience and something I enjoyed immensely. During that time I met members of the Irish community and saw them in action. I had the privilege of visiting the County Cavan Association dance last year in London. Vending machines are clearly available throughout London in many locations but there are many responsible family units in London. There are tremendous centres of Irish life in London and values and morality are not affected by the availability of condoms in vending machines. In other words, sexual promiscuity does not arise from the presence of the machines. It is independent of the availability of contraception. We want to make that clear because there are people who argue the contrary. It is not the case that people are sexually active, and sexually promiscuous in some cases, because of the availability of contraception. They are that way anyway and contraception is possibly a response to dealing with that. I certainly was impressed by the quality of life of our Irish emigrant community in England. I would like to re-emphasise the point that people do not become sexually active because of condoms.

I do not believe this scheme will work. At the moment 40 per cent of pharmacies are making contraception available; I do not see many small outlets throughout the country doing this. As a practising politician, as a person in a small retail business and knowing the retail community, I do not see this being very functional in the short term.

I know the Members of this House individually and collectively and there is not one who would advocate sexual profligacy on the part of people under the age of 17. Nobody would want that for our young people; we all hope for the opposite. The tragic reality is otherwise. The number of teenage pregnancies around this country is huge. There is no getting away from the fact — and it is important in the context of the recent abortion debate — that 4,000 people made that horrific, lonely journey to England for abortions in the last year. These are the tragic realities of life and we have to face that reality.

I do not mean to be chauvinistic or triumphalist, but my party have always had a fixation with getting things right. It is my party's view that there is an illogicality, an inbuilt wrongness about this simply because of the impossibility of enforcing it. We do not believe it will be possible for a retailer in Finglas, Cootehill or Bantry to tell whether a man or a woman is over 17. Some people of 16 look 18; some people of 20 look 17. There is a grey area there. This has been a problem with the drink laws as well. Because of the age consideration we see that provision in the Bill as unworkable.

The Minister has stated publicly that in time he may adjust to the public attitudes on that. It is regrettable that we, as politicians, must lead from behind. For too long we have done that. The age factor will be difficult to enforce. I have often had the mortifying experience during a general election campaign of being told by people whom I did not think had a vote that they were 19 or 20 years old. As we are all aware, similar problems can also arise with student passes on buses, trains, etc. This problem has to be dealt with. I welcome the fact that the Minister is introducing an order on the price of condoms and that there will be free availability of condoms. If the objectives of the Bill are to be lived up to it is important that this is done.

I am glad we are moving away from an exclusively natural family planning approach to a comprehensive family planning approach. I have tremendous respect and regard for people and their views. Like all Senators, I value human beings, their views and philosophy on life. If people believe that natural family planning is the only method of birth control for them that is fair enough; that is a respectable and legitimate position. However, it is wrong for us to exclude people who believe in other methods of family planning.

Last year 2,000 children were born to young unmarried mothers. Some of those were wanted pregnancies but many of them were not. Unwanted pregnancies cause great trauma both for the mothers and babies and this fact must be taken into account in any consideration of the Bill. Last year clinics that treat people for sexually transmitted diseases had to deal with 800 new cases.

If we say it is wrong to put condoms in vending machines, then it must equally be wrong to put cigarettes, which are life threatening by any objective criteria, in vending machines. I am struggling in my efforts to give up smoking at present. Nobody in their right mind could contend that cigarettes are not life threatening. It would be much more logical to talk about removing cigarettes from vending machines in nightclubs and bars. As I said earlier, it will be difficult to implement the provisions in relation to availability. I believe the spread of AIDS and other sexual diseases will be greater if there is not wide availability of condoms.

I hope we are coming to the end of the contraception debate in general, that it is coming close to the final chapter. I regret the limitations of the Bill in this respect. The contraception debate, a bizarre, twisted and perverted kind of debate, has been going on for 20 or 30 years. It has sapped the energy of politicians in the Houses of the Oireachtas and in local authority chambers at a time when they should have been addressing issues such as education, and the creation of jobs for youth and adopting a sensitive approach to young unmarried mothers and people on the fringes of society.

We need a comprehensive sex education programme in our schools. This must take account of the philosophy of our schools, etc. I urge the Government to make this an immediate priority. In conjunction with that we must conduct an information campaign which stresses the need for safe sex and the use of condoms as part of the fight against AIDS.

I would be shying away from my duty as an Opposition spokesperson in the Seanad if I did not say it is regrettable that we have missed the opportunity to end this saga in this Bill. In view of the fact that what we are engaging in here is a charade — the Dáil is in recess and we cannot amend the legislation — I ask the Minister, even by stealth if necessary, to amend a few inadequacies in the Bill. The fight against AIDS has to be the main priority of the legislation. It is regrettable that the Minister has missed the opportunity to do this under this legislation and I urge him to do so in the future by whatever means possible.

I ask the Minister to look at the age limit. The different styles of clothing, hairstyles, etc., makes it almost impossible to establish the exact age of a person.

I hope for the sake of this country that we are having one of our last debates on contraception. We will remain peripheral to Europe if we continue on in this vein. The Maastricht referendum showed that we do not want to be peripheral to mainland Europe, we want to be in the mainstream of Europe. We will remain peripheral to Europe if we continue to have these bizarre outdated debates at a time when many more pressing issues need to be dealt with.

Mr. Farrell

Ar dtús ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an tAire go dtí an Teach seo agus don Bille.

This is a very important and good Bill and I compliment the Minister on the balance he has struck. I believe he has improved and modified the Bill to the satisfaction of everybody. I am delighted the health boards do not have to decide where condoms should be sold. As a member of a health board, I do not have any hang-ups about that — we would gladly have done it — but there was a danger that condoms might be sold in different outlets in different areas. We now know where condoms can and cannot be sold.

This is very important as we are dealing with a very serious health problem. The North-Western Health Board, of which I am a member, were aware of this a long time ago. I am glad to be able to say that our health board made arrangements to provide services and care in their area for those suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS.

We have in the west the services on a routine basis of one of the best specialists in Ireland in genito-urinary medicine. We have divided the area in two in order to facilitate people. A walk-in confidential service is available in Sligo General Hospital on one day each week. In most cases diagnosis and treatment can be provided on a first visit. This service also involves a general practitioner and a public health doctor, as well as a laboratory technician. The involvement of a general practitioner on a routine weekly basis in a hospital-based service is commendable. It reflects the value placed on the role of the GP in the north-west.

The range of services provided at the STD clinic in Sligo is an example of what a health board can do where there is a clearly defined public need. Diagnosis is made and treatment initiated at the first consultation. Consultation and treatment are provided free of charge to encourage attendance at the clinic. I am delighted the Minister is making condoms available free of charge to drug users and those in the high risk category. If we are to get at the root of the problem we must take care of people in the high risk area.

There is also full screening for all common types of sexually-transmitted diseases and for the less common conditions. HIV testing and pre- and post-test counselling are provided by the medical staff. To ease patient anxiety, a result is available within 90 minutes of the consultation. We are working very hard to try to prevent the spread of this disease.

As the STD service encounters individuals who engage in high risk sexual behaviour, the medical staff are also involved in health promotion among their clients with a view to preventing HIV in such individuals. This is only a minor function of the clinic because the board, as an effective strategy, have devised public information and health education programmes at local level with regard to the prevention and control of AIDS. We also have contact tracing, etc. This is very important because in the case of some people this is a self-inflicted disease, but others contract the disease through no fault of their own. It is a killer disease. How delighted many people would be if we could tell them that by avoiding a certain practice they would not get cancer.

AIDS, a killer disease, could be prevented if people would live as their grandparents did. A recent survey in the United States has shown that the "Dallas" syndrome is not as popular as it used to be. There are more virgins now in the US than there used to be. People are having sexual relations with one partner, a type of behaviour which was traditional in this country for many years.

AIDS can be prevented. The abuse of drugs is a common means of spreading this disease. The Minister is working hard on this problem. It is impossible to dictate to people but we must appeal to them not to abuse drugs or alcohol. Alcohol abuse causes the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies. It amazes me that there is not a greater outcry about the abuse of alcohol. In itself, alcohol is good. Our Lord turned water into wine at the marriage feast at Cana. I am talking here about the abuse of alcohol. Teenage pregnancies are a problem. I do not believe the availability of contraceptives is the complete answer but I welcome it as a partial answer.

I should like to see a better service for pregnant women and those who have abortions. We must remember the number of people in this country who cannot have a family and who would dearly love to have children. We can see how well reared adopted children are. I have lived in the same area all my life and I have seen the great happiness which has been brought to many homes by adopted children. All health boards are doing their best to promote adoption. Greater efforts should be made to persuade pregnant women to have their babies and to put them up for adoption. This would bring untold joy to many people and I have no doubt that those children would be well reared. Many adopted children like to trace their natural mothers later in life. Recently I saw in the newspaper a letter from a person who did not want to trace her natural mother but wanted to thank her for the chance to live. As a child she had been reared in a very good home and she is now married and has her own children.

I do not believe that the sale of condoms through vending machines should be allowed. This would seem to be an easy solution to the problem but such machines would probably be placed at venues frequented by young children. They would put a pound in the slot and take out condoms just for the fun of it. It would give very bad example. People who want condoms are not shy about going into a shop to buy them. I agree with the Opposition speaker who wondered if those who will be allowed to sell condoms will avail of the opportunity to do so. People will have to be encouraged to sell them.

A term which is much bandied about of late is "sexually active". I lived in the day when there were no supermarkets and people were not categorised.

Before there was sex in Ireland.

He did not say that.

Mr. Farrell

Nowadays there are teenagers and various other categories of people, as well as adult dancing and all the rest. I grew up in an age where we rambled around with everybody in the one rambling house and we all danced together. The youngster travelled on the bicycle of some older person. It was a good thing, because we all grew up together. In those days people were referred to as either "man mad" or "woman mad". It is amazing how we have changed over the years. At one time it would have been said that a fellow was out of work; then he was described as unemployed. Now we have a still nicer term — he is redundant. It is the same thing. We have been playing around with words and phraseology but it all means the same thing in the end.

I believe that one hundred years ago or longer people were as sexually active as they are today. There was a better moral code which people upheld and that moral code probably helped keep people on the right line. Of course, there was also less chance of disease spreading through travel. People did not travel as much then as they do today. If one went to England, one stayed there.

The Minister has taken a great step in bringing this Bill before the House. He has done a good job and I believe the Bill is a real effort to combat the spread of disease. I thank the Minister for providing for free contraceptives for those who have a drugs problem. I appeal to people to avail of the contraceptives and to avail of the services provided. A free needles scheme was introduced and I am told that it is reasonably successful. We should highlight the success of those measures. Our one ambition is to try to avoid disease. Disease costs all of us money; it causes hardship and it inflicts much hardship on the sufferer. I welcome this Bill.

It is extraordinary that this legislation should cause such great controversy. In many ways I have a great sense of sympathy for the Minister producing this legislation. I have known him for many years, have listened to his views——

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Sheanadóir. Is mian liom a chur in iúl duit go bhfuil 20 nóiméad agat.

Beidh go leor ama agam sa mhéid sin. Bhí mé ag rá, a Leas Chathaoirligh, go bhfuil seanaithne agam ar an Aire agus ar an dearcadh atá aige ar an ábhar atá á phlé againn. Tá mé cinnte nach bhfuil sé in aon tslí fábharach leis an méid atá sa Bhille.

I feel that the Minister has been compromised. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced the legislation. I recognise the difficulties that have been created on all sides of the House and within parties. The legislation is a move forward. I have always said the worst kind of legislation is legislation that is unimplementable. I believe that this Bill is unimplementable. There are many internal contradictions. For example, there are the provisions relating to licensed premises. The reality is that a person under the age of 18 years cannot be served in a pub. That seems to me to be the way to deal with the sale of condoms in pubs; those too young to buy condoms would not be able to be in the pubs.

Society has different views on issues. Senator Farrell spoke about the arrival of the phrase "sexually active" and the increased opportunity to travel. When I was a student I wrote a letter to Robert Graves, who at that time had published his book, I, Claudius. The book was a novel about ancient Rome and reference was made in it to the level of venereal disease in Rome at that time. Venereal disease was not in Rome then because people had not travelled in certain directions where the disease was endemic. Now the problem is rather different.

Why do you not write another letter?

He is only pretending that he wrote to him.

I am trying to make a considered, reasonable, rational and unemotive response to a Bill about which I feel very angry. I am trying to find the middle line. I know that there are as many people on the Government benches who feel as angry about this legislation as I do. From what I know about the Minister, I believe he must be less than satisfied with the compromises that he has had to make in this legislation. I compliment him for bringing the Bill before the House. I know his views well enough and have known them for long enough to know that he would prefer to have brought another piece of legislation before us. Times have changed and attitudes have moved forward. The Minister has had representations from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, of which I am an executive council member. We made very clear the kind of response we require at this time.

The Minister has spoken time and again about the availability of the condom as a prophylactic in particular. Nobody has made the case for non-availability; nobody has made the case against the vending machines. The Bill is a vote of no confidence in our young people. My own daughter, who is 18 years of age, listened to this debate when it started some weeks ago and just could not understand what the debate was about. This is not a major issue throughout the country.

I do not know who the people are who have created a problem for the Minister in this legislation. Time has moved on and we live in a different age. If a previous Member of another party said that there was no sex in Ireland before television and if Senator Farrell says that the phrase "sexually active" means something now that it did not mean before, those are just words — as Senator Farrell pointed out. I accept the Senator's point that people are no more sexually active today than they were 100 years ago. People knew less about it, read less about it and saw less about it, but it was going on. We, as legislators, need to understand that there is a world out there which is different and which is changing, a world which was not reflected 20 years ago in the last debate in this House on legislation in this area when the President, Mary Robinson, from these benches proposed legislation on family planning. At this stage this is not a moral issue, it is a purely medical issue.

Not in a critical way but in as supportive a way as possible I say to the Minister that people recognise this Bill as a compromise response to deal with an issue which needs a pragmatic response. This Bill is not a pragmatic response. It does not meet the needs of today's Irish society. People live different lives and they come under different pressures. The disease of AIDs has opened up a whole new area. Whatever way we are doing it parents, in particular, would question what we are doing here today. Parents with children in their mid to late teens would be worried about what we are doing. We are not doing them a favour. We are failing to meet their needs and we are failing to respond to the problem.

I listened earlier to Senator O'Reilly who, like myself, is a teacher by profession. In any problem we need to understand what is involved and in order to reach that understanding, we need knowledge. Knowledge needs some level of education. Following the education, we need the resources to put to the best use the knowledge that we have.

We have a society in which there is resistance to sex education of young people, a society which refuses to recognise the "sexual activity" of our young people, and we have a Legislature that is responding to a world that has changed. I recognise and have some sympathy with the genuine problems articulated by people who see a moral dilemma here. This Bill does not, or should not, create a moral dilemma for anybody. It is simply a practical response to the real world. The reality, as we all know, is that we do not have the full figures relating to AIDS and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Anybody who has dealt with the matter knows that the Irish figures are somewhat perverted in the sense that many people suffering from such diseases go abroad for treatment and do not feature in the statistics. This means that we do not have the relevant statistics on sexually transmitted diseases or problems arising from drugs abuse and this means we are failing those people.

The reality is that no amount of education into the dangers of AIDS will deter people from acting in a particular way. All we can educate people into is a sense of responsibility to self. For example, climbing mountains is dangerous; driving racing cars is dangerous; driving speed boats is dangerous — the world is full of dangerous pursuits. Very often the more dangerous they are the more attractive they become. Therefore, it is not a question of outlining the dangers of AIDS. One does not frighten people from using drugs by talking to them about the problems they create. We can endeavour to educate them into the dangers for society as a whole, for their dependants and others, which is the only way we can approach the problem.

What advice does a parent give a young teenager or adult today? Does one tell them that using a condom is a greater sin than something else? No matter what a person's background, that is no longer acceptable. The reality is that sons must recognise the need for contraceptives and daughters the need to protect themselves. We need to make this a part of our lives. This Bill fails to do that. I am attempting to put forward this viewpoint in a neutral manner, exercising restraint, in that I would not wish to be negative, carping or be seen to be having a "go" at the Minister.

I believe its provisions do not meet the needs of modern society, one in which everything to do with sexuality takes us into a so-called moral area, which apparently is perceived to be the only moral area within our society. We can no longer tolerate this kind of thinking, our attitudes to sexuality being different from those to all other aspects of life. Sexuality is central to life, to the creation of life, to the enjoyment of life, to living life fully in all its facets.

Any interference of the State in this area should be done with a great sense of sensitivity and sympathy, recognising the reality of present day society. I contend that the age limit provision is unnecessary; I will not qualify that contention. I put it to the Minister also that whether contraceptives be sold through vending machines or otherwise is irrelevant; that is not the issue. Time and society have moved on and we are failing our young people. Every organisation nationwide with responsibility for young people has expressed reservations about the provisions of this Bill as have parents, whether in urban or rural areas.

I have carefully examined the Minister's regulatory authority under the provisions of this Bill. I regret that he does not have the regulatory authority to effect changes in key areas with which I have problems. I predict that the provisions of this Bill will be recognised more in their breach than observance. That amounts to bad law.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has endeavoured to respond to a real need in society. I compliment him on having introduced amending legislation in this area but I have to put on record that I do not believe this Bill represents the Minister's firmly held views on how best we might tackle the problem. Politics are always about compromise. Therefore, the Minister is to be complimented on having introduced this Bill.

It is my practice to refer to the presentation of various Bills. Earlier today I spoke on another Bill when I complimented the draftsperson on its having been almost devoid of sexist language. In this case I have to say that language such as that contained in section 6 (2) is unacceptable. It reads:

(2) A person who holds a licence granted to him under section 6 of the Principal Act and for the time being in force, or a person who is a servant or agent acting as such of that person, shall be entitled to export contraceptives to which the licence relates.

That type of sexist language is out of date. I know the Minister's advisers will say that under the Interpretation Act of 1937 "him" means "her" and so on. If we deleted the words "to him" in that subsection it would still read perfectly well. I request the Minister to ask his parliamentary draftspeople to explain why it had to be written in that language. In a Bill which affects women more than men in many ways, but not all, such language is unnecessary. Section 4 (1) (b) (i) (II) reads:

the person is a registered medical practitioner and the sale is made at a place where he ordinarily carries out his professional duties, or

We must remember there are also women medical practitioners. Therefore, such language is offensive and unnecessary.

I want to read into the record section 8 (2):

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may, without prejudice to the generality of this section, provide by regulations for the purposes of this section for the making available of a comprehensive family planning service by a health board or by persons other than a health board.

This is the type of English people are afraid to admit they do not understand. I had to read that subsection five times before I could decide what it meant. That type of terminology is unnecessary.

For example section 4 (1) (c) (i) reads:

the person is, or is a servant or agent acting as such of, a person who holds a licence granted to him under section 5 or 6 of the Principal Act and for the time being in force and the sale is in accordance with the licence, and

The syntax in that subsection is completely wrong. People may contend that, because I am a teacher, this is the type of phraseology I am interested in. We must remember that the provisions of this Bill concern ordinary people who will want to read them and that that type of language creates a barrier to understanding; it is the type of phraseology that makes money for lawyers. It could have been written in simple English. I could have asked children in sixth class in a primary school to draft what I wanted them to say and they would have written it better. I ask the Minister to raise these matters with the draftpersons because it is important to engender awareness in this area.

I reiterate that the provisions of this Bill do not meet the needs of present day society. I decided I would not have a go at the Minister on this occasion. I know the reactionary, unnecessary and unrepresentative difficulties he has experienced in his party do not respond to the needs of Irish life today. Many people within the Minister's party are ashamed of this Bill. I know also from members of the Government partners to whom I have spoken that they have grave reservations about it, particularly Members of the Progressive Democrats. There are unnecessary restrictions on it. It is a step forward and in that sense it is progression. Everybody knows we will pass this legislation, that it will become law in a few weeks. I know that within a half a mile of this House three vending machines which are selling contraceptives will still be there following the enactment of this Bill. The Minister and I know that he has no will to move against the owners of those machines but he will probably be pushed by some person to take action on the basis of this legislation.

It would be an embarrassment if the Minister or the Attorney General have to take action. It would show that we are out of touch with reality. This does not reflect the pragmatism for which the Minister's party has been famous over the years. I ask the Minister to reconsider the critical elements of this legislation, the age barrier and vending machines, with a view to coming back as soon as possible with changes in that area.

I welcome the Minister to the House although I have grave misgivings about the Bill. I agree with the previous speaker that it is sad that the Bill will still not end this interminable debate about contraception. I am sure that if the Minister could impose his will in this matter we would have a considerably different Bill before us this evening. The best I can say about this Bill is that it is a great disappointment. It does not face up to reality, but yet I am supposed to be satisfied and happy that it is a step forward. It is a step forward but I will not dance in the streets about it.

I finished my formal education in the late sixties and early seventies and I wondered, as an 18 year old, if I had the opportunity to be in Dáil or Seanad Éireann, what I would say to these — as I perceived — old grey men in grey suits who even then were out of touch with modern Ireland and its youth. To be a party in Government and supporting this Bill, having been in a position to do something positive, I have had an enormous sense of disappointment and frustration about this Bill. Indeed I would consider myself a hypocrite if I had to support this Bill. There will not be a vote. But I want to express those views at the outset.

The one thing that comes out of this Bill is that in the Houses of the Oireachtas there is still an enormous mistrust of our youth. I do not understand why politicians hold that view, that they somehow feel that our youth are incapable of making responsible decisions and judgments or acting in a responsible manner. Even the painful process of growing up and learning about the greater issues of life is part and parcel of that. Somehow we want to create certain connotations about the whole area of sexual activity and contraception which is unacceptable.

It is clear, as previous speakers said, that large parts of this Bill will not be implemented. The age of 17 years is not acceptable because it is based on the fact that one side wanted to keep it at 18 while the other favoured 16 years. They compromised and agreed on 17 years and we are supposed to be happy about that. The plain fact is that people can marry at 16 and now we are telling them they cannot use condoms.

It is difficult to find words to describe the provisions of this legislation. How can I talk to my own children when they can clearly see ludicrous provisions in legislation which cannot be implemented? Will someone explain why we have to do this? Who are the groups, the concerned parents? I am sure they exist but who do they represent? I have never spoken to them, they do not represent my views and I am sure they do not represent the views of many parents throughout the country. These concerned parents wish to impose on others moral values which they hold. I do not want to interfere with their moral values, I have my own moral values. The reality, as another speaker said, is that we will have to come back again after 20 or 30 years to deal with this issue. I find it difficult to understand why we have to grapple in such a fumbling way with this sort of legislation.

I call myself a liberal on many issues and I make no apologies for it. That is why I joined the Progressive Democrats and I am sorry we are party to this legislation. It is typical Fianna Fáil legislation, with one eye on the various pressure groups and churches, wondering if it is all right to take one step forward, in spite of the Minister's broad views and attitudes when he took office. I feel sorry for him because obviously, within the Cabinet he was unable to put forward the type of legislation that I feel he wanted in this area.

In the debate on Maastricht over the past few months we spoke about becoming citizens of Europe. It is an ideal to which I subscribe; we would embrace European ideals and we agreed on the major economic issues. Yet, we are saying, in the same breath that our youth are incapable of making their own judgments with regard to their sexuality. Whose responsibility is that? It is a responsibility which emanates from the home and through parental guidance but young people must make up their minds in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Nobody has said that it is an irresponsible act or medically unsafe to use a condom. Yet, we are bringing in laws to control something to which nobody particularly objects; it is not an irresponsible act to use condoms and there is nothing medically wrong with them. The law is a contradiction in terms.

It was said earlier that many of the outlets the Minister may want to see stocking and selling condoms will probably not stock them. One of the reasons they will not is because this type of legislation makes them feel uneasy because it imposes an age restriction. We are obviously still making moral judgments for them and they do not want that. They would rather be excluded from the debate than be involved in delivering a simple product to the market, although it is a product that is necessary in the daily lives of the vast majority of people. The same applies whether a person is married or single. There is probably a greater need for condoms among young people than older people. They are more frequently used by young people. Yet we cannot say to them that condoms will be available, and that they can make their own judgment. However, we do not have to say that because young people act very responsibly. I dislike the patronising way we give the impression to young people that they need to be controlled, that they are incapable of making these judgments. That is not the case. It goes deeper than this. As a people we have a difficulty about sex, what it means and as a result we find ourselves somehow restricted and incapable of making judgments lest we offend somebody — who I do not know — by being too liberal or open in these matters. It is impossible to deal with this issue.

Another serious issue which is not dealt with in this Bill, one on which I would like to see greater emphasis, is the question of sex education in our schools. We seem to find it impossible to put this on the agenda as a serious subject. We cannot talk about all of its aspects, the dangers, joys, and so on, of sexual activity. As legislators we do not seem to be able to hold to the notion that it can be and is a very joyous experience for the vast majority of people, but that there is the danger of transmitting diseases, including AIDS, and also the danger of becoming pregnant. We should explain those matters in our schools and we can do so by making it a subject on the curriculum, at least from the beginning of secondary school.

I am the parent of an eight year old child, and I am amazed at the questions he asks. He does not understand many of them and I do not explain everything to him, but even at that age there is an interest, some notion, and matters are discussed in the school playground. We need to bring to secondary school level a formalised discussion policy on all of these matters. If we had done that there would have been no need for us to decide whether condoms should be available in vending machines in public houses, and so on.

I am not saying that vending machines are the panacea and that if they are available through that outlet it will end unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of sexual diseases and AIDS. The issue is much deeper. It is one of attitude, of leadership. Once again the Legislature is not leading. All levels of society and age groups are ahead of us. They do not understand what we are doing in the Bill.

Hear, hear.

This is a nonsense. What am I supposed to be trying to protect here? Who am I, in this legislation, trying to protect? Am I now saying that I want to criminalise people under 17 years of age? That is the theory. We all know this law will not be implemented; we will pass the Bill but we will not bother implementing its provisions. We will not bother about the vending machines that are in operation. We will not prevent 15, 16 or 17 year-olds having access to condoms but we will put in an age limit because it keeps somebody somewhere happy. We are not quite sure who it is, but because somebody whispered to somebody, it is acceptable; it is middle ground.

This Bill represents a failure in leadership, a failure to accept responsibility, to be confident enough to stand up and say that this is the era we live in; let us get these issues off the table; let us get all of these old hang-ups out of the way; let us be mature as a people, and allow our youth the freedom of our trust and our confidence in their ability to make responsible decisions.

If this is the kind of liberal thinking which is now emanating from the Government, I shudder to think of what we will do when it comes to the question of divorce, or how we will attempt to deal with the substantive abortion issue. That is not to say that I am looking for liberal values on these issues; I am not. I would like to debate it in a mature and honest fashion. There is no honesty in this Bill. It is pandering to somebody's view without recognising the real issues involved. We have a failure in it. I would table many amendments this afternoon but because the Dáil is not sitting and this Bill was passed by that House we all know that that would be a pointless exercise.

Hear, hear.

I will only signal my discontent in a restrained fashion. I am not being overly emotive about it, but I feel strongly about the issue. It indicates we are failing to deal with many issues for our youth and for a modern Ireland. I want to be part of a pluralist society. I want this country to embrace all the values of the different churches and the different views, and I want to legislate not as a Catholic but to ensure that what we do is fair, right, desirable and of a benefit to the people.

Condoms should be widely available. The question of AIDS is only barely dealt with here. We are great throwing out a few statistics and a few figures, suggesting that they have something to do with the drug users or the gay community. We are comfortable with that, because it is somehow removed from us; it is something different; it has nothing really to do with the heterosexual community. We should be fighting to ensure that whatever methods are put at our disposal to fight that disease, should be availed of. While condoms will not solve the problem, I have absolutely no doubt that we should make them widely available. People will purchase them because they are sexually active. Are we saying to them to go ahead and be sexually active, but we will not give them the protection they require if they are under a certain age? That is nonsense — a total contradiction.

I am terribly disappointed to be party to a Government who bring forward this sort of legislation. I cannot subscribe to the value system of this legislation. It does not relate to the vision of a pluralist Ireland that I subscribe to. My only hope is that in the future the other issues I have referred to very briefly can be dealt with in a far more mature way. I guarantee that we will have to deal with this issue again in the near future to further unburden ourselves of the hang-ups.

Senator Cullen made a very fine speech criticising elements of the Bill but his party are in Government and must share some of the responsibility in this matter. Perhaps when we get the Cabinet minutes we will find out the contributions regarding the changes to the details of the Bill. However, we will have to wait for those.

I must say I, too, have very strong reservations about many aspects of this Bill. The Minister states that the purpose of this Bill is to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and also to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but the tenor of the Bill and its wording are very different. It refers to family planning, as if family planning has anything to do with preventing the spread of disease. There is a new definition of "contraceptives" as a means to prevent pregnancy, but the spread of disease is a much broader issue. It puts restrictions on the sale and supply of contraceptives but the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases knows no such limitations and makes no distinction between married and unmarried persons, or on grounds of age. Last year approximately 14,000 people attended St. James's Hospital to be treated for sexually transmitted diseases and this gives some idea of the extent of the problem we are facing. Last year there were over 2,000 births to unmarried teenagers, many of them ranging from 14 to 17 years. This gives us some idea of what we have to face.

This is a tragic, sad little Bill because it does not deal with what it purports to do. It is disappointing also because the Minister is well aware, as a medical practitioner, of the problems people face in this area and yet he has not been able to give practical effect to his concerns. Indeed, many Members of his own party are on record as regretting that this Bill does not go far enough. Already this Bill is out of date. It is a shame the Dáil is in recess because the only thing we feasibly can do is to amend the Bill. It is a useless exercise to discuss it unless we have the power to amend in order to ensure that the provisions go beyond what is contained in the Bill. This Bill is a great disappointment to me. Indeed, it does nothing to make progress on what the then Minister for Health, the former Deputy Barry Desmond, achieved in liberalising the sale of contraceptives in 1985. It must be remembered that the medical problems associated with AIDS were not identified until 1986-87 when we then became aware of the seriously infectious nature of the HIV virus. This problem needs to be addressed not in terms of liberalising the 1985 legislation but by specifically addressing the new problem that has arisen.

At the heart of the Irish attitude to sexuality there is an eternal lie — the Irish solution to an Irish problem — in relation to our sexuality. We can never call a spade a spade because we consider sex sinful. This is part of our psyche. While we are prepared to turn a blind eye to the problem elsewhere when we have to face it at home we feel compelled to interfere and put obstructions in the way of dealing with the matter clearly and in the medically correct manner. We have not been able to rid our system of our obsession with sexual morality. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that we as a nation consider the celibate state as desirable and give it precedence over inter-personal relationships. We have to grow up and recognise that inter-personal relationships are the more natural calling and the state of celibacy is the unnatural state. Until we do that we will never rid ourselves of our guilt complex in relation to sexual morality. We have not been able to rid ourselves of the idea that sex is sinful but we must now ensure that we assert the positive rather than the negative — the positive being the inter-personal relationship in all its complexities, which includes sexual relationships rather than asserting the non-sexual relationships. We have to rid our psyche of our hang-ups. Indeed, we can see that these hang-ups pepper the Bill. We are failing to face up to the issues that the Bill purports to address because we have to deal with the matter in a convoluted fashion and make distinctions between married and unmarried, the different age levels and insert new definitions of contraceptives. We are simply failing to live up to the reality of what we as legislators purport to do. That is the tragedy of this Bill, either we should legislate to solve the problem or not at all.

Condoms should not be subject to statutory regulations. A piece of rubber or plastic is no threat to anybody's health or welfare. Nobody has died through purchasing a condom either at home or abroad. Nobody's life has been put at risk by doing so. Therefore we should not be making regulations in relation to the place of sale, or the age at which consumers may purchase such items. It is a harmless piece of merchandise and should be dealt with in the same way as any other. Therefore, the question of the sale of such items from a vending machine, in secondary schools, youth clubs, or the setting of age limits and whether different rules apply to married or unmarried persons is irrelevant. We must define the purpose we have in mind and deal with it but we are not doing so.

Section 2 defines "contraceptive" and states:

"contraceptive" means any applicance or instrument, including contraceptive sheaths, prepared or intended to prevent pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse between human beings;

Three-quarters of the Bill deals not with the prevention of pregnancy but the prevention of the spread of the HIV virus. Yet, the only definition we have here of "contraceptive" is the prevention of pregnancy. Again, it is double-speak we are dealing with all the time. The US army in the Gulf War used condoms to prevent sand getting into guns. That is one use to which a condom can be put.

There is also the matter of the use of condoms by the gay community and perhaps no section of society has dealt better with this serious problem than the gay community. The gay alliance have produced literature on how to have safe sex and the use of condoms is paramount in all of the literature they have circulated. The figures show there is a decreasing decline in the spread of this infectious disease in that community while, at the same time, it is increasing in the heterosexual community. Clearly, this Bill is not dealing in a straightforward way a large part of the problem.

It must be recognised that a condom is not just a contraceptive, it is a prophylactic. It should be stated in the legislation — otherwise it is laughable — that part of the reason for using a contraceptive is for prophylactic purposes as well as contraceptive purposes. The Minister has dealt in detail and at length with that issue and yet the Bill does not make the slightest reference to it even though listening to him you would think that should have dominated the Bill. We should not be legislating for condoms for men or the new femadoms for women or, indeed, for spermicides, where no medical intervention is required. We should be concerned about quality control, rather than intruding into the area of private morality in relation to these matters.

There is no doubt that the AIDS virus is a killer disease. We have statistics to prove it. In 1987, our first statistics showed that 37 people contracted the AIDS virus; in 1988, 74 people contracted AIDS; in 1989, 124 people contracted AIDS; in 1991 the number was 241 and June of this year 276 people had contracted full blown AIDS. Up until 1991 we had on our books almost 1,200 cases with 114 deaths from the AIDS virus. Dr. James Walsh has been to the fore since 1986 in the Department of Health campaign to deal with the question of AIDS and is involved in the National AIDS Strategy Committee. He is on record as stating that condoms are 90 per cent effective — these are the international figures — in controlling the spread of the AIDS virus. One can see the extent of the problem and what is required to deal with it.

The National AIDS Strategy Committee have identified the north inner city of Dublin as the area where the problem is worse and where entire families have become subjected to this killer disease. I know of one family where only a month ago a member of the family was buried; the grandmother, two brothers and a grandchild have died from the disease so it is literally going through entire families. I know dozens of people who have been affected by the disease and for whom too little is being done. Certainly the free availability of condoms should be considered, not only as recommended in the Bill when the disease has been contracted, but there are certain high risk groups where it should be considered prior to any diagnosis of the disease.

I refer particularly to the very high ratio of the AIDS virus in prisons, to the inadequacy of the treatment of prisoners and the fact that they are segregated, against all medical advice; we are the only country in the EC that does this. I ask the Minister to take up with the Minister for Justice the subject of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases in our prisons.

I am very concerned that the means of disseminating and researching information are more scarce now than they were five years ago. I refer particularly to the abolition of the Health Education Bureau in 1987. At that time, just as AIDS was becoming known as a serious threat to the health of the community, they were spending £2 million on health education and it dealt specifically with drugs and the AIDS virus. When they lost their budget of £2 million the HEB was abolished. What replaced the HEB was given a budget of £375,000 in 1987. Since that time there has not been a sufficient amount of literature, video material and educational aids for schools and where young people congregate. It is a shame the bureau was abolished. I ask the Minister to have it re-established and that they be given a reasonable budget to enable them to do the work that is required.

Last night Dublin City Council passed a resolution to publicise in all areas under their jurisdiction, whether it be a public library, a community centre or any public area such as sports halls where young people may congregate, the facts, the dangers and the precautions that should be taken in relation to the AIDS virus. That was a welcome move on our part and it should be extended to the vocational education system. We should emphasise again the importance of educational awareness in this matter.

We should not seek to legislate for private morality. Medical protection should be just that. We should ensure that we do not mix the two, but whatever measures are required for the protection of society against this dreaded disease should be put in place. Disease knows no age limit and by imposing an age limit here we are simply introducing an unenforceable condition which will be disregarded and bring the legislation into disrepute.

We must disseminate information widely about this problem and without any sense of embarrassment. No longer should we put our heads in the sand and say that because this is associated with sex, which of course it is, we must be terribly sensitive as to how we deal with it. We must be straightforward and honest. That is the approach that people will respect and that young people particularly want. Eventually there will have to be vending machines and the sooner the better. They are no threat to the health of child or adult. Therefore we should not legislate for them unnecessarily.

Finally, we should be concerned with the quality of the products and with the cost. These products that we are referring to here, particularly condoms and spermicides, should be quality controlled, which is not the case at present, and we should ensure that they are available at a reasonable cost. That would do more to prevent the spread of AIDS than this legislation.

Apart from fine tuning the Principal Act, that is the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 and the Amendment Bill of 1985, this Bill concerns itself with the distribution of condoms or, more specifically, with their availability. The purpose of this Bill would appear to be to make condoms generally and easily available particularly for the purpose of what is now commonly known as safe sex, meaning safe sex without the fear of AIDS. To be totally honest, what we are considering is the availability of a contraceptive device which has been around for longer than most of us. It has been in common use in this country; the plain unmarked packages have been arriving in this country for over 50 years. Most of us would at some time have been aware of somebody in our class at school sending away for one of these packages and having them sent to them. We are now discussing the greater availability of such a device but with restrictions.

For my part, I must commend the Minister for taking what tragically has to be seen as a bold step in putting forward this legislation. Whether the condom is seen as a medical device for the purpose of the avoidance of or the reduction in the spread of sexually transmissible diseases or as a basic contraceptive device matters little. This legislation is offered to get us to move in the direction in which the rest of the world and certainly the rest of our European partners, have been going for a very long time.

Clearly there are no hard and fast statistics on the use or lack of use of the condom by consenting couples in sexual intercourse. However, the very best we can do is to make available in that context a device which will greatly reduce the possibility of the transmission of a disease from an infected partner.

It would be grossly dishonest of me not to put it on record that I am personally at a loss to understand why, given that we are looking at something which can help in the containment of the spread of such a lethal disease, we are on the one hand liberalising distribution and availability and, on the other hand, putting down restrictions as regards outlets and the age of persons to whom these devices can be made available. The truth is that the disease can be contracted by anybody. Anyone who would argue against that has to be blind to the realities of existence, of living. However, I am conscious that the objections do not come from that angle and that others do not necessarily see things as I do, and I respect that. I see the Minister's dilemma. There are those who would see the greater availability of condoms as a contraceptive device as encouraging greater promiscuity. They see it leading to a greater number of unwanted pregnancies, particularly where the parents are not in a position to offer a child all that it needs and is entitled to from its parents, thus undermining the fabric of our society which is based on the family unit.

I have no doubt that a great majority of Senators would see this Bill as offering something but not enough in the context of making condoms and contraceptives in general more widely available. I therefore see this Bill as a prelude to one which will open up the whole spectrum of contraception, of family planning on a proper and legal basis in our society. The size of the average family in Ireland is now reduced to levels similar to those in other parts of Europe and the United States. Unless we are to believe that the rhythm method has become more effective than it was in the past, we must accept that family sizes are being contained by the greater use of contraceptives. This is in itself a clear statement from the people whom we are here not to preach to or to lay down any religious or moral code for but simply to represent. It is a clear statement that tells us that contraception is part and parcel of our way of life and that we must make it properly available without the necessity to play with or break the law in order to carry on our normal existence.

The more we procrastinate, the more we play around with the when, the why and the wherefore of the availability of contraceptives, the more we preach about the business of whether contraception or its availability encourages greater promiscuity, the more we remove ourselves from the lawful position which we hold, which is public representation, the more we deal with one particular contraceptive device in isolation, the more we talk about contraception itself in isolation from the broader context, the greater the problem we create for ourselves in dealing honestly with the whole business of sexual relationships in their right context. The more we do all of these things the more disillusionment, confusion and fear we build for our young people in dealing with and living with an aspect of life which should be and is unquestionably one of the most beautiful and important functions in individual human relationships.

It is long past the time to get to the whole business of understanding one another and in particular of understanding sexual relationships and their place in individual human relationships, within the family and in society and, within that framework, coming to a clear understanding of contraception, not just the sheath but the whole range of contraceptive devices and facilities. We have a job to do to make available to people the information on which they can make their own decisions and to ensure that the facilities are there to enable them to follow through on those decisions without confusion, fear, intimidation, embarrassment and all the silly frustrations which have always led us to see sex as a subject of vulgar jokes made in extremely poor taste.

I am more than aware that if the Minister had put before us a totally comprehensive Bill on contraception its passage would undoubtedly have been a slow one, as indeed it should be. People are slow to change attitudes. Despite our reputation for being exceedingly conservative I have no doubt that we will set a new standard in our attitudes to sexuality and contraception. I am certain that the Minister for Health will not get involved in the issue of the availability of condoms other than to establish and take some responsibility for the maintenance of standards. We will have to deal with the availability of condoms on supermarket shelves in the same way as we deal with any other family household product.

Given the short time the Minister has had to deal with this and many other matters, in his own forthright manner, the Bill must be given the support it deserves. It has been designed in such a way that it can be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas with the absolute minimum of amendment or delay. Despite its limitations, I propose that we support the Bill as a forerunner to a more comprehensive Bill which, I hope, will be introduced in the not too distant future.

It galls me to have to congratulate the last few speakers from the other side for their speeches; it is not something which comes particularly easy to me on an issue of this sort. It is indicative of the mood in Irish society and the direction in which we are going that the two last speakers from the Government side expressed serious reservations about the Bill and then obvious relief that they were not going to have to vote for it this evening. I wonder who had the ear of the Government and the Cabinet and what Senator Cullen said to Minister O'Malley and what Senator Bennett said to Minister O'Connell in the last few weeks. It is indicative that all of what they said today was a reflection of the growing opinions of the Irish people. This Bill remains the product of the out-of-date thinking of the Fianna Fáil Party, which I am glad to be able to say is receding.

It is significant that those two speakers expressed such serious reservations about this Bill. It is obvious that there are many other people on the Government benches, in both the Dáil and in the Seanad, who feel that way but whose input into the Bill has not been sufficient to get a Bill of the sort I am convinced the people would have wanted.

This is not the first time a bad Bill has been introduced in the Seanad by a good Minister. It is a pity that Minister O'Connell, who started so well in so many areas and for whom I have expressed, and retain, an enormous personal admiration, has felt constrained to introduce such an inadequate Bill. He has shown in his first few months in Government that his heart is somewhere in the liberal, sympathetic wing of Irish politics. Yet it is obvious that there has been dictatorship from some backwoodsmen within the party, of which he is a Member, not to go very far on this issue. This is not only a mistake in political terms but shows that the Government do not realise how out of touch they are. This Bill, which ought to be about medical ethics and medical matters — after all, it comes from the Department of Health — reflects a moral philosophy which is rapidly going out of date.

I have been a Member of this House for 11 years and I am sick and tired of discussions on family planning, contraceptives, condoms and issues of this sort. I am sick and tired of the difficulties which all political parties create for themselves when the issue of condoms arises. It is time we realised that the next time around we should introduce the final family planning Bill in the history of this State. Family planning of this sort is simply no business of the Government. The Government had a heaven sent opportunity during this period and the post-Haughey era to introduce a liberal family planning Bill which would be the last word and which would have ensured that we did not have to through these extraordinary contortions once again. The Government have funked this opportunity. As Senator Cullen rightly asked this evening, why did the Government funk it? Who are they afraid of? Are they afraid of Senator Lydon, Senator Farrell or any of the other more conservative Senators on this issue in this House? Who are they frightened of?

I thank the Senator for the description.

Senator Lydon who expresses a point of view with which I disagree also expressed the view of a wing of the Fianna Fáil Party who seem to wag the tail of the Government and who seem to have a disproportionate influence. It is folly for the Fianna Fáil Party to listen to that wing of the party because they have become more and more out of touch with modern young opinion, as was so eloquently expressed by Senator Bennett and Senator Cullen.

As many Senators have said, regrettably we will have to go through this sort of exercise again and again until we get a Bill which literally leaves matters of this sort to the personal discretion of individual people, and not to people like Senator Lydon and the cohorts who follow him in that wing of the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope the international press, and especially the English press, have been asleep for the last two weeks and have not been examining this Bill. We will once again be the laughing stock of Europe, America and all the civilised world if they examine this Bill in any detail. The Bill is a reflection of our thinking which is completely out of sync with the rest of modern thinking, especially in a European context.

It is particularly sad to reflect upon the age of the people who make these laws and the age of most of those whom they will affect. It is no insult to the Taoiseach or any members of the Cabinet who are over 60 years to say that they are not the most suitable people to be making laws of this sort which will affect people at least a generation younger than themselves. It is a typical example of a philosophy dictating to a practical problem in a very inept way. As many speakers have said, young people find the debate going on here today, and the one that went on in Dáil Éireann last week irrelevant and laughable. To most young people the questions begged by this debate and the details of this Bill are so ridiculous as not even to merit attention. The restrictions in the Bill will not be adhered to. These restrictions and the age limit of 17 will be by-passed. They are in the Bill for cosmetic reasons so that the individuals who have brought forward this Bill can go to the pressure groups and claim that condoms are not available to those under the age of 17. There will be a paper thin answer to anybody who brings pressure to bear. This Bill is an exercise in hypocrisy. It will not be adhered to but it will be protection for the hypocrites in our society on these issues.

I deeply regret the continuing determination of legislators to impose restrictions and to make an exception of married couples. It is provided in section 4 (5) that the person to whom contraceptives are sold must be over the age of 17, or married. This is a value judgment. It is all right if people are 17 because they are capable of making a sensible decision. It is also all right if they are married, which is making an ethical judgment on this matter. If a person is married at the age of 16, it is all right. The Minister and the Government had better make up their minds. If 17 is the cut off point, why should people be allowed to use condoms at the age of 16 if they are married? It does not make sense. It is designed to protect an ethos who no longer exists in any country in Europe except Ireland. We had a wonderful opportunity to portray ourselves as having got rid of these extraordinary shackles which have bedevilled us in various Family Planning Bills for the past 20 years. We funked the issues badly.

One of the most extraordinary things about this debate is that nobody has mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. I have sat through the whole debate and I have not heard it mentioned once. The reason for these absurd restrictions is that they reflect a denominational ethos in our society. It is the Roman Catholic Church which believes that it has the right to interfere and dictate the moral welfare of our people. The Roman Catholic Church has that right. It has a right to pronounce and make statements and give advice on all issues of morality, but the State should have the courage and the sense not to respond. That is where the real problem lies. This is part of the pluralist legislation which we are finding so difficult to cope with. How are we to cope with the trauma of the abortion issue in November — many would say we will not — or of divorce later this year or next year if we cannot deal with this, the easiest and simplest of the pluralist issues?

This issue does not require constitutional change. God help us if it did. It simply requires legislation and we have shown no indication that we are prepared to take bold steps. This indicates that we will certainly make a holy mess of the abortion issue and the divorce issue if we face those realities later this year. It is a great pity that we continue to funk the pluralist society with this Bill. It is a pity that we cannot separate Church and State by accepting that the Church has a right to pronounce Catholic teaching but also asserting that the State does not believe it should reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church. We have not done so. This Bill is only a first step and a forerunner of many more Bills, unless we take the giant step which is necessary.

There are some enlightened parts in this Bill and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, whose fingerprints are evident on the Bill. His speech was tremendously encouraging when he claimed that this is a health issue and an AIDS issue. He went on to do damn all about AIDS in the Bill. We can see that he would have liked to go much further but the conservative men in his party would not let him do so and restrained him. Certainly his commitment to regulate condoms to ensure that they are of the right quality is to be encouraged. His decision to give condoms free of charge to certain categories of individuals whose health is at risk is to be encouraged. Unfortunately he became the prisoner of a philosophy which he should have attacked. He became the victim of a party who are still refusing to part with that ancient philosophy which is not part of modern Europe. It is something we hope to see discarded in the near future.

I welcome this Bill. I, too, should like condoms to be available in vending machines. However, the Bill goes a long way towards tackling a very serious problem in society. It is a problem which I have met in my constituency on too many occasions. I refer to the number of people who have AIDS or who are HIV positive. I welcome the Bill because it makes condoms more readily available to people who are infected or those who may become infected.

We should be in no doubt that condoms give protection against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Recently I met someone who worked with AIDS patients in America. From reading about the disease, I think we get the impression — I certainly did — that in certain countries, such as America, the incidence of AIDS is beginning to decrease. The person I met told me that that impression was far from the truth, that those who work with AIDS patients are inundated with people who have the disease, that the problem is very serious and seems to be on the increase all of the time. I hope that this country will not see AIDS become such a huge problem.

I disagree with Senator Ross in his contention that the Minister is not facing up to the situation. I consider that the Minister should be commended. He implied that the statistics available in this country are probably incorrect and that there are probably many more people here infected with AIDS than are registered on our lists. I do not recall many Ministers being prepared to admit openly over the radio that many more people are infected with the AIDS virus or are HIV positive than are registered with the health boards and that our figures underestimate the extent of our problem. The Minister should be commended for his honesty and for making a statement that many Ministers would not make.

As I said earlier, I have had far too many people come to me in my own clinic who have told me that they are HIV positive. Each case represents a huge tragedy. I have had men come in with their girl-friends or their wives. I have expressed to them my hope that they are taking protective measures and I have referred them to various doctors in order to make sure that their girl-friends or their wives are being protected against the spread of the disease. To me, the real problem lies in the spread of the disease. An argument put up is that the disease does not spread. I recall a case I was dealing with some months ago in which a 17 year old girl who came to me said that her 22 year old boy-friend was HIV positive. That girl is not HIV positive but if she were HIV positive and if she were to break off her relationship with her boy-friend she could — without knowing for a great number of years that she was infected — pass the disease on to others through sexual relations and thus spread the disease further and further into society. That is why I believe condoms should be widely available. This Bill goes a long way towards ensuring much greater availability. Although I would personally prefer condoms to be more widely available, this Bill goes a long way towards tackling the problem.

Senator Ross expressed a hope that the international new media were not paying any attention to these events and said that we are a laughing stock. The Irish are not a laughing stock. The Senator seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to think that the whole world is watching Ireland and laughing at the Irish. There is nobody watching us and there is nobody laughing at us. In fact, most foreigners I have spoken to have been very impressed with Irish society and the way we are set up. We do have our drawbacks and perhaps in certain areas we are more conservative than we should be, but there are a great many people out there who admire our social and family structures. I do not think there is anything we should feel somewhat ashamed about. There is nothing wrong with us. I am a liberal person but I respect the fact that everybody does not agree with me and does not want the kind of society that I want. We all have to live together. The Bill respects everybody's point of view. I totally reject the chip on the shoulder attitude that manifests itself in statements about the whole world watching us and laughing at us.

Senator Ross also implied that the Bill represented Catholic teaching. That is not correct. Catholic teaching states that one should not use condoms at all. The criticism of this Bill is that condoms will not be available for people under 17 or from vending machines. As far as the Catholic Church are concerned, nobody should use condoms. This legislation has nothing to do with Catholic teaching at all. In fact, it goes completely against Catholic teaching.

I reject many of the comments made by Senator Ross, especially the idea expressed that we are in some way backward. The use of such emotive language is dreadful. The Senator seems to want to convey the impression that within Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael there are men of great backwardness who are trying to stop this, that, and the other. The Bill goes a long way towards trying to sort a serious problem in our society. It should be commended and welcomed. As I said, it may not go as far as I would have liked it to go but the Minister has to be congratulated on tackling the problem very quickly after his appointment to office.

At the outset I should like to say that I greatly regret and resent the fact that this debate on the important Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1992, is being held in the final week of the sitting of the Seanad, at a time that we all know there is not the remotest chance of there being even the tiniest amendment to the Bill being accepted. I am amused that when the Dáil debated the legislation the Minister said that he would be interested to have the views of TDs on this important health issue, yet in his statement to this House he said he looked forward to sharing his thoughts with us. At least the Minister is honest and honourable in that regard and does not try to kid us into thinking that what we are doing in this House is of any use in so far as amending this legislation is concerned. I greatly deplore the attitude that this House is not important. I feel very strongly that all such a debate does is bring this House into disrepute and make it more and more obvious that this House is simply not of any consequence so far as the Government are concerned.

The Government treat this House with the utmost contempt, and this debate represents yet another instance of that. I feel that it is simply playing into the hands of the Progressive Democrats who have made no bones about the fact that they wish this House to be abolished. I do not wish this House to be abolished, but if it continues to be a totally useless Chamber we will have no alternative other than to recommend that it be abolished. I find it difficult to understand the way in which Senators can find anything meaningful about this debate.

I spent my afternoon at a planning meeting in City Hall. I felt that that meeting was a very meaningful exercise. One felt one was really contributing something to the city. Coming back to this Chamber, one realises that it is full of spoof, talk and hot air and that nothing will change. This debate will make no difference to anything. My esteemed colleague, Senator Eoin Ryan, on a previous occasion, spoke most eloquently about the need for public representatives to have passion about issues. I like to feel that I am someone who has a certain passion when it comes to certain issues but I say to Senator Ryan that it is very hard to keep up any passion in this House when Members are treated the way we are treated.

I was interested to hear Senator Cullen's comments. While I believe the Senator was genuine in his comments and came from the heart, he cannot escape the fact that the Progressive Democrats share responsibility in Government. It is not reasonable that they should expect to have all of the perks yet when it comes to a Bill such as this, which they do not like, they can skate out from under by expressing in the House their dissatisfaction with the Bill. Why did their members in Cabinet not do something to have their views put forward? Is it that they are afraid that the Taoiseach is a little tougher when it comes to dissolving the Government if he does not get their support? Is that the problem? Is it their anxiety to hold on to power at all costs? I do not think it is altogether acceptable for Senator Cullen to come in here and to renege on their principles. What about all the people who voted for the Progressive Democrats at the last election who heard all these honourable stances they would take, that they would raise the whole standard of politics in this country, that they would have a liberal agenda. What about all that when it comes to a Bill like this? As far as the Minister is concerned, I have a certain sympathy for him. I believe he would have gone a great deal further with this Bill and eliminated its more ludicrous elements had he had his way. Presumably the Cabinet were concerned there would be a backbencher revolt and they went as far as they could. Why would a backbencher revolt take place? They would be afraid they would lose votes over this Bill.

Above all else this is a Bill whose provisions are determined to try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, a Bill which the Government hope will keep certain elements that they consider to be more important than I believe they really are happy on the one hand while keeping the younger more liberal members of the party happy on the other. We are all concerned, as is the Minister, about the serious implications of the general AIDS problem. I presume this Bill was the best the Minister could winkle out of the Government.

I know that one of the greatest joys of parents is to see their children subscribe to the same values and beliefs they subscribe to and to see their children perpetuating those same values and beliefs. There are very few parents who would encourage their children to engage in casual sex. I am sure that is the last thing most parents want. Yet I believe that those same parents do not want the criminal law to be used to encourage children to have a responsible approach to sex. They do not want the shopkeepers of this country to be used to police the moral code. I do not believe that is the way forward, nor do I think there are many parents who would believe it to be so.

It is interesting to note that legislation banning condoms has been in existence for a considerable time. Yet we are told that there is ever so much more promiscuity. The reverse of that is if condoms are freely available, why should we assume their availability will lead to a more relaxed attitude to sex? I do not think that theory has been proven. The saddest and most laughable element of this Bill is the age limit — allowing an 18-year-old to go into a public house to buy a condom but not allowing a 17-year-old. What about the 17-year-old who is sleeping with the 15 year old girl? Evidently that is all right. The whole thing is so preposterous and it must be wearisome for the Minister to have to listen to it all over again. I was not here all afternoon but I am sure other Members have said the same thing. We still have this hang-up in our schools and elsewhere about sex. No doubt that transmits itself to young people. What about the problem of an 18-year-old who wants to acquire a condom but who is too embarrassed to go into a shop, a publichouse or wherever to get one? Should he or she not be entitled to have the impersonal availability of condoms through a vending machine? I find that aspect of the Bill totally repulsive. I cannot understand what is the hang-up about vending machines. I have never understood and never heard it explained what there is so dreadful about condoms being available in vending machines. Is it because we want to have the ridiculous regulation where an 18-year-old can buy a condom but a 17-year-old cannot, presuming vending machines would not be able to distinguish between one and the other? Even the possibility of having vending machines installed in places where there is a restriction on age — like publichouses, adult discos and so on — has been ruled out. I would be very pleased if the Minister could explain why there is this hang-up about vending machines.

I believe that there should be no age limit at all. That all the brou-ha-ha which has gone on for so long about this would disappear very quickly if condoms were freely available. There should be no age limit at all. I believe if that were the position we would not find any great increase in the number of youngsters using condoms. The present position may well be turned around by the provisions of this Bill, that people will feel it is all right that legislators, all those wise people up in Leinster House, have told them that once you get to 18 condoms may be used. In itself I predict that will lead to an undesirable position.

I deplore most of all the unenforceable aspects of this Bill. We legislators often bemoan the fact that Irish people tend not to be law-abiding and ascribe that to the fact that we were under foreign rule for such a long time; it was seen as praiseworthy to defy the law; but, as we know, it has disastrous consequences for the running of the country. People who still feel that if they can get away without paying their taxes or with defrauding the social security system or whatever, that is great. In my view we are contributing to that by introducing legislation which is clearly unenforceable. I do not believe that there is one Member of the Dáil or the Seanad who in their heart of hearts believes the provisions of this Bill are enforceable. It is hypocritical to introduce such a Bill when its provisions cannot be enforced. Why are we doing it? It is being done because somehow or other having this age limit will placate certain sections of the voting public by whom Fianna Fáil do not want to be seen to go too far.

Obviously this Bill is a step forward, being better than what has obtained to date. Checking back on what the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Connell had to say in the past on this subject before becoming Minister, I am disappointed he is the Minister introducing this Bill.

I view this debate with mixed feelings. In the first place I do not believe that it is proper or necessary for legislators to attempt to lay down laws to govern the private morality of our citizens. However, I accept that such attempts are part of the reality of life and that until we become mature and self-confident enough to realise that we are irrelevant to such matters, we will again and again have to face issues such as the one before us this evening. In that context I am forced to have an opinion about the legislation and to make judgments on it. Again my judgments are mixed.

I recognise that the Bill is an attempt to liberalise our laws but it does not go far enough. It will inevitably have to be amended just as the 1979 Family Planning Bill had to be amended.

I recognise and respect the way the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Connell, approached his task, with sincerity and honesty. Since his appointment I have listened with interest to his many comments concerning this legislation and the wider question of AIDS. This Bill is a sincere attempt by the Minister to respond to the public health challenge facing this country to the extent that he feels possible. When the Minister's intentions are long forgotten, when we in this House are long forgotten and our words consigned to a dusty shelf in the Library, this Bill will be judged on its merits, as a response to the very real public health challenge facing us and on its relevance to young people. No matter how well intentioned the Bill is it will be found seriously lacking on both these counts.

The Bill has a twofold origin. In the first place it is a response to the farcical events last summer when the Virgin Megastore in Dublin was brought to court for selling condoms without a licence. It is also framed in the context of the growing AIDS crisis in the country and in at least part recognition of the role which condoms can play in slowing the spread of the disease. I say "part recognition" because I do not believe it fully reflects the importance of condoms in this regard. When the Virgin Megastore case was heard last summer virtually everybody in the Oireachtas realised that the laws on the availability of condoms were unrealistic and would have to be changed, particularly in view of the AIDS threat. The problems which have arisen occured when we tried to apply the general wish of the people and the general wish of Members of the Oireachtas to the specifics of legislation, not an unusual dilemma for legislators.

We have heard much about the negatives in this Bill but there are many worthwhile provisions in this legislation on which I compliment the Minister. It is positive, for example, to encourage the greater availability of condoms through the majority of ordinary retail outlets. It is equally welcome that the ridiculous provision where doctors were required to indicate on prescriptions that a contraceptive was for a particular purpose has gone. Like so many aspects of our laws, this was a provision more honoured in the breach than in the observance, in fact it was probably not observed. I am glad too that the Minister has dropped the supervisory role for health boards suggested by his predecessor. However, this legislation will be judged almost exclusively on two provisions, the retention of the age limit below which it is illegal to purchase condoms and the decision to ban the use of vending machines for the distribution and selling of condoms. Both are major mistakes and reflect poorly on the Oireachtas.

If the record of the Oireachtas on family planning legislation is notable for little else it deserves acknowledgement for the quality of the debate which it has generated in the past. I have been reading over the past few days some of the speeches made in the other House on this issue in earlier debates, in particular the speech made in 1985 by the leader of my party and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley.

It is significant that the party which objected so strongly to the 1985 Bill because of its ultra-liberal provisions, as they were perceived and characterised, should now try to further liberalise that Bill. It cast an interesting light on the outburst against the Minister Deputy O'Malley for his views on the subject. In the course of his speech in 1985 the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, made many relevant and significant points. Many would concede it was a truly historic speech, but I would just like to refer to two points made then. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, asked rhetorically if Deputies and people outside the House thought that "because the law says something therefore that is the way thing are". He also said that one of the most distressing aspects of the debate was "the lack of trust in young people". He added: "I have had plenty of experience of young people and plenty of experience of Members of this House and if I were to place my trust anywhere, today before God I would place it in young people". That is a very significant statement.

It seems that we have not learned an awful lot in the past seven years and the comments which my party leader made then are as relevant today as they were in 1985. We still believe that because we say something it is the way things are and we still do not trust our young people. It strikes me as extraordinary that we regard young people as idiots. We do not regard them as young, well educated adults with minds of their own and quite able to make judgements for themselves. It is a gross offence to young people for people of our age to continually lecture them as to what their responsibilities are when in many ways they are more responsible and more moral than we were at their age and as we are today.

The inclusion of an age restriction in this legislation is wrong for two reasons. It is wrong of us to try to decree by legislation whether a sexually active young person can or cannot avail of a possible life saving device. We may not like the fact that young people are now sexually active at a younger age but we should do all in our power to ensure that if they are engaging in sexual activity at any age they have access to condoms and practise safe sex. The age restriction is also wrong because it is unworkable. It is wrong and damaging for this House to make a law which cannot be enforced and which we all know even now will not be properly enforced.

In the other House last week it was argued that in the period between 1981 and 1990, inclusive, a total of 5,518 children were born to mothers of 17 years of age and under outside marriage. We know young people are engaged in sexual activity. That is a fact. It is not a question of whether we condone it or regard it as immoral. As legislators we have to deal with the facts and by seeking to place restrictions on access to condoms for young people we are endangering their lives and helping to promote the spread of diseases like AIDS.

The ban on the use of vending machines through which condoms are sold and distributed is an equally serious matter. The Bill is intended primarily to help in the drive against AIDS and to help protect young people. AIDS is at a critical level and the figures have been repeated here on several occasions; 1,250 people have tested positive for the HIV virus, 276 have developed full blown AIDS and 114 people have died. The Minister mentioned these figures. We know that AIDS is a widespread problem and spreading quickly.

The Bill recognises that condoms can play a role in fighting the spread of AIDS and can be literally life saving. The legislation is designed to make it easier for 17 year olds and older to have access to condoms. That is correct but it fails because it ignores all the evidence which tell us that allowing young people to purchase condoms anonymously through vending machines is one of the most effective ways of ensuring their use.

This would be a positive step if this Bill were recognised. I have do doubt that this Bill will be amended sooner rather than later and part of that amendment will be to allow vending machines to be used to sell condoms. It is only immaturity in this House that prevents us from facing that reality.

The most frustrating argument against vending machines and in favour of age restriction is that they prevent promiscuity. Surely the litmus test for that is the success or otherwise of our current laws. Up to 1935 there were no laws restricting condoms, no reference to age restrictions and no ban on vending machines. That is the state to which I would like to return. Family planning should not warrant legislation. It is not a matter for legislation at all. It would be far better to ban cigarettes which are killing people. We allow people to go into every high street shop in the country and buy cigarettes which kill people, but we will not allow them obtain items which will save lives and not destroy them and the simple reason is money. It is all about money. There is so much money involved in the tobacco industry that we would not dare — it would not be politically possible — to ban cigarettes. When there were no laws on these matters, did we live in some promiscuous den of iniquity? I do not think we did. We saw less promiscuity before we started to legislate in misguided attempts to prevent it.

It is not our remit within the Legislature to pass judgement on whether matters are sinful or not. That is a matter between an individual, his Church and his God. It is not a matter for a House of the Oireachtas. The State should not, and in the end, it cannot, involve itself in matters such as family planning. If it does so it will not enjoy success, it will ensure strife, pity and grief for many of its citizens who are unable or unwilling to circumvent its silly laws. That is a blot on all of us. The law must protect the citizen. The law must not intrude in matters that are purely personal, domestic, private matters. In the Houses of the Oireachtas we cannot institutionalise the beliefs or moral practices which a Church or Churches decide are what should be put into the law. That is not our function. It is a matter for the members of the Church to abide by whatever teaching their Church decrees for them, but it is not a matter for me as a legislator to institutionalise that in the laws of this State. I believe that quite profoundly. We are going to be confronted by far more difficult matters than this and that view is going to be at the core of how we deal with those matters when they arise in this House.

This is not a Family Planning Bill; if it is anything, it is a contraceptive Bill. Family planning is something much more comprehensive than that. For far too long, Irish legislators have been too preoccupied with sexual morality — a matter which cannot be legislated for — and far too little occupied with immorality in matters which they should and could have legislated for, such as fraud and violent crime. We need to revise the legislation in many of these areas.

Legislating to regulate the availability of condoms is a sick joke, when every politician must know, if he or she is in touch at all with reality, that anybody from national school age level to pension age level who wants a condom can get a condom. The problem is, however, with teenagers, regrettably, now more sexually active that they used to be, in that they may not be able to get a condom when they want it because of our method of making condoms available. Non-availability of condoms will not reduce the level of sexual activity amongst teenagers or promiscuous adults but it will certainly increase the risk of unwanted pregnancies and of venereal diseases, HIV and AIDS. Equally, making condoms freely available, as in Britain and other countries, will not prevent unwanted pregnancies or eliminate the risks of the spread of venereal diseases and AIDS. Only responsible sexual behaviour can achieve the right objectives and this is where the legislator has no role to play. This is fundamentally a matter for parents, then for the individuals and for the Church or Churches in as far as they can influence their members.

A recent White Paper in Britain on this subject made the following comments:

Much sexual behaviour is conducted casually, carelessly or in ignorance,

Half of all pregnancies are unwanted or unintended,

The incidence of some sexually transmitted diseases is rising, despite the threat of HIV and AIDS,

In 1989 nearly 8,000 girls under the age of 16 became pregnant, a rate 25 per cent higher than a decade earlier,

One in four Health Authorities has made cuts in family planning services,

The Policy Studies Institute established that young people will not use the services unless they are tailored for them and unless they are absolutely satisfied as to confidentiality.

The White Paper recommends that there should be special services for young people which emphasise the importance of "loving, stable personal relationship".

Finally, the White Paper says that HIV infection is "perhaps the greatest new public health challenge this century".

We have something to learn from the points made in that paper. As I have said, the first steps towards responsible behaviour begins with parents, not with politicians. Parents are abdicating responsibilities in this regard and putting a misplaced onus on politicians.

Where politicians can help, is in providing proper sexual education in schools and, as recommended in the British White Paper, a special service tailored for young people to which they can go in complete confidence, without the fear of being embarrassed, to ask questions they would not ask their parents, teachers or family doctor. Parental control, example and advice about respect for the dignity of the human person, particularly the dignity of women, motherhood and procreation is fundamental to establishing responsible sexual behaviour. That, allied with realistic help from the legislators will do much more than the nonsense of legislating as to where and to whom condoms can be sold, when we all know that if 17 year olds can buy condoms, they will naturally go out and sell them to 15 and 16 years olds at a handsome profit.

Putting an age figure on this implies that when one reaches the age of 17 or 18 it is okay to carry on with irresponsible sex or to be sexually active. That is a very serious matter and adequate thought has not been given to it. As Senator Dardis said in quoting Deputy O'Malley's speech in 1985, we are underestimating the responsible young people we have. The vast majority of young people are responsible, and it is offensive to take matters into our hands as legislators and tell them that they are irresponsible, that they cannot be allowed to have condoms and so on.

I would also point out that this legislation will be impossible to implement. How can we prevent under 17 year olds from getting condoms? They can buy them from their elders. How can we prevent them from getting condoms with the freedom and movement of goods, services and people after 1 January 1993? It is a nonsense and we should not be involved in it.

Far from limiting sexual activity among youngsters this type of legislation is encouraging it without the protection of having condoms freely available if they are going to be sexually active. With regard to the sale of the condoms from vending machines — much has been said about this — it is a nonsense not to allow them to be sold through those machines. Otherwise youngsters in rural areas will be too embarrassed to buy them in the local retail outlets. That is going to lead to a situation where it could, as Senator Dardis said, endanger the person's health. As several Members said today, if we can allow the sale of tobacco which can be a killer from a vending machine, why can we not allow the sale of a condom which can protect life, through a vending machine? Are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and we have one Cardinal for the entire country, very different on the other side of the Border from those on this side of the Border? Are they any worse in terms of their morality? Are they more sexually active? I do not think so. If we compare figures we will probably not come out too well out of that comparison.

I repeat, the ultimate responsibility for the behaviour of young people must start with parents. If parents are going to start relying on legislators to enforce standards of morality on young people then the rot has started. Legislators cannot do so and it is a nonsense to pretend that we can control the sexual activity of young people. Our obligation is to protect their health: not to dictate their morality. Nevertheless, this legislation is a slight improvement in this area.

While I can find much fault with the Bill the fact that it is a slight improvement means I can support it. I regret it does not go further. I regret this increase in sexual activity of young people, but it is a fact of life and we cannot close our eyes to it. I regret that we have so many people who are HIV positive, that 214 people have died already and that many more, unfortunately, will die. I regret that as a nation we did not face up to these facts long ago and do something about protecting their health; educating them in sexual matters and putting the onus back on parents to look after the sexual morality of their offspring.

I dtosach báire, fáiltím roimh an Aire. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an Bille seo faoin ár mbráid faoi dheireadh.

It is timely that this Bill comes before us and to a certain extent it is a pity it took so long. To a certain extent the relevance of the Bill as regards its practical implementation is very limited. Most persons who want condoms have found a way of getting them. First, I would like to address very briefly the specifics of the Bill and then to talk about the wider issues. In my view this Bill will be ineffective. For some time I have been in favour of having no age limit, not because it is desirable or advisable for young people to engage in sexual activity but because it will be totally ineffective and impossible to police. The reality, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, is that a 17 year old can buy condoms and what they do with them is their own business. Anybody who knows or understands anything about this recognises the fact that more males than females will tend to buy condoms. On the law of averages, males tend to copulate with females younger than themselves, particularly in that age group. The reality is that this legislation will be ineffectual. In fact, it could be even worse. My understanding of the way people will read the situation is that once one is 17 years of age it is expected that one should be involved in sexual activity. I have never been a great protagonist for age limits. It has always been a farce that I cannot send a young lad down to the shop to buy one lottery ticket; or, if I was in a public house, I could not send him up to the counter to buy a drink. We all know these laws are being totally disregarded every day of the week.

The limits put on the availability of condoms are irrelevant because they are freely available, legally or illegally. I do not wish to dwell too long on the legalities of the specific proposals of this Bill as I would prefer to dwell on the broader issue: the questions that have to be answered such as whether this legislation will solve the AIDS problem. Put bluntly, if the State were to decide tomorrow to send a condom in the post every day to every person in the country I believe there would be no significant difference in the incidence of AIDS during that year. Therefore, I do not believe this Bill will affect the incidence of that disease but I would like to be proved wrong. The statistics seem to support my view. In countries where condoms are legally and freely available, condoms do not seem to have an effect on the incidence of AIDS. For example, in 1989 in a table of countries, Ireland has the second lowest incidence of AIDS in the EC.

Highest rate of increase in the heterosexual population.

When we look, for example, at the serious question of AIDS much more complicated social factors come into play. One thing that should concern us for example, is the spread of AIDS among drug users. I have always thought it was slightly simplistic to believe that people who would swap and share needles would be particularly careful in their sexual activities.

The second argument that at times makes me impatient is the view that Dublin discovered sex in the last 50 years and the rest of rural Ireland has to be taught what sex is about. I come from Dublin and I do not find a huge difference in the average spread of attitudes in Dublin from what I find in the rest of the country. I certainly find no difference in the information available. This patronising attitude is resented by people in many parts of the country. Adhering to different norms and traditions, does not mean they are short on information or that there is a lack of information in rural Ireland. We must respect the differing views on what is advisable, desirable, sensible sexual behaviour and that is something on which each person must make up his own mind.

This belief that if we could only educate the people of rural Ireland to the standard values our problems would be overcome is to under-estimate those people. It is generally believed that people who take a conservative view on sexual matters do so because of religious beliefs, but if one goes back to the source, one would find that sexual morality derives from practical common sense.

I would be the first to accept that contraception has, to a certain extent, moved the goalposts regarding problems that arise from engaging in indiscriminate sex, but it has not changed the whole playing field. All societies made rules regarding sexual behaviour for their own health protection, for genetic protection and the protection of children.

Attitudes are much more important here than legislation, attitudes that we as legislators should propagate. I do not think any great service is being done by promoting the idea that nothing can go wrong, that there are no problems, that there will be no problems, no matter what sexual activities are engaged in so long as condoms are used. I wish it were that simple. Statistics prove that life is not that simple. In the Irish Independent dated 18 September 1991, an article appeared under the heading “One-third born outside wedlock”. It stated that the number of children born to unmarried mothers is rising eight times faster than that for births within marriage, according to the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys published in Britain. The autumn issue of “Population Trends” said births outside marriage totalled 200,000 in England and Wales last year. The figure, 8 per cent higher than in 1989, compares with a rise of less than 1 per cent. Births outside marriage included 45,600 children born to teenage mothers. In a country where condoms are freely available it has not solved their problem, but behind that statistic there is much human hardship and misery. Any of us who work day in and day out in a constituency knows what I am talking about.

I would worry if anybody promoted the idea to men that women were there for their sexual pleasure, with no commitment, with no responsibility for the consequences and that they do not have to answer for their actions if anything goes wrong. Unfortunately, many males feel that if something goes wrong it is the woman's responsibility. As somebody who would look positively at the woman's side, I would find that unacceptable.

I am much more concerned that the signals we, as elected representatives, send out are acceptable to the people. It is unacceptable that any male would cause any female, by accident or otherwise, to become pregnant or get a disease, and then shrug his shoulders, walk away and say: Tough luck, that is your problem. That is something I, and I am sure every Senator, would find unacceptable.

The question of teenage pregnancies looms large at present. If I were asked whether the bigger contributor to teenage pregnancies was a lack of contraceptives or teenage drinking, I would have to say the latter. The question of behaviour and peer pressure — any of us who have young families know all about this — must be looked at, not necessarily through legislation but by encouraging people to stand out from the group and make their own decisions. During the AIDS debate great play was made of the effectiveness of condoms. I wish I could believe it but the statistics would indicate otherwise. Monogamous relationships are the one foolproof way of ensuring that there is no spread of disease. Sooner or later, as this unfortunate epidemic spreads, that will once again have to be looked at as the ultimate answer. It is not for me to tell anyone what to do but the impression is given that those who advocate monogamous relationships are killjoys. As somebody who is married and has children, I say that is not so. The security and commitment in such a relationship is the ultimate, if we talk about sexual relationships in the total meaning of giving and receiving between a couple.

I regret we are not once and for all putting to rest the debate on the technical availability of condoms. There are broader issues to be addressed. Perhaps the next time around the question of availability will be buried once and for all.

It would be dishonest of me to say that this legislation on the provision of contraceptive sheaths is not an improvement on the existing legislation or that there has not been a genuine effort to improve things. Having said that, I must make the point that we have not, even at this stage, faced up to reality.

There is no way to enforce the conditions in this legislation in regard to the sale of condoms. When one looks back to the number of occasions when family planning matters were raised both here and in the other House, when only about ten people voted in favour, one must admit that some progress has been made with this Bill. Up to now, very little progress has been made. We have just had Irish solutions to Irish problems.

Let us get back to the matter of not facing reality. At 12 years of age I went to work in a chemist shop in Parnell Street, Dublin. At that time, 1932, it was in fact legal to sell condoms over the counter. It was not unknown for me, even as a very young boy, to deliver condoms contained in parcels of medicines both to doctors' premises and to individuals. At that time medicines were also delivered direct to hotels. Things have changed a lot since then. People in the inner city knew all about condoms long before they were 17 years of age.

My second experience in this regard was when I joined the British army in 1937 when I was not allowed to leave the recruiting office without a condom from a machine because if one contracted a venereal disease as a result of not using a condom one lost one's proficiency pay. Dublin is not much different now from what it was in 1932. In fact the pace is a lot faster and there is earlier indulgence in sexual activity.

This Bill does not deal with family planning to any great extent. Admittedly section 8 refers to the Minister securing the orderly organisation of comprehensive family planning services. That is vague and looks very limited at this stage. We are, therefore, not in a position to make any argument for or against it. It is sad that the Bill is so narrow because this is such a serious problem. It does deal more extensively with contraception in the context of the sale of contraceptive sheaths. Consequently the debate is limited.

Because this is such an emotive issue there is often a spoonful of thought to a gallon of feeling when dealing with Bills like this; we get emotional and upset and try to protect the situation as we would wish it to be. The fact that we do not have a comprehensive family planning service is interpreted by some as a way of keeping women as second class citizens. That may be an emotive way of putting things but that is how people actually feel.

There is no mention of the provision of money for research. In previous family planning Bills there was provision of money for research but only for natural methods of family planning, the implication being that the other means of contraception are not natural. This is an area of great concern.

On the question of keeping our heads in the sand in regard to contraception and the provision of contraceptive sheaths, it is not too long ago that out of 140 sovereign states in the world we were the only country that actually had legislation banning the sale of contraceptives. We are moving, but very slowly indeed.

I agree with Senator Dardis about the question of relationships between consenting people, even if they are unmarried. It is a private matter and it is a disgrace to have to bring it before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The other side of the coin is that a former general secretary of the Labour Party who was a Senator here, Mr. Brendan Halligan, made a wonderful speech on family planning here but at the end of it said that he would confine the sale of contraceptives to married couples. I make these points to strike a balance in criticising the Bill.

I have great sympathy for any Minister trying to deal with this. He must try to regulate for an undesirable and new situation. If he does not go far enough he is subject to much criticism. The late John Kelly, TD, said that we should not legislate for morality, that it is a private matter and should be left to the people themselves.

I am sorry to have to criticise the Bill because in 1976 the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, along with the then Deputy Noel Browne, tried to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill and they got short shrift. They received no support and the Bill fell. I can understand the Minister's desire to bring in this legislation. As a doctor he is conversant with all the problems. Unfortunately he, too, has run into difficulties. There are thousands with views to the contrary and he must take them into account. People know about herpes, genital warts, the link between sexually transmitted diseases and the increased risk of cervical cancer. However, in the heat of passion they do not think about such things. There is no such thing as safe sex. We all talk safe sex but it is a myth.

While I am in favour of condoms and their distribution on a wider scale and in a more realistic way, I could not argue that they are 100 per cent safe. If used properly with other family planning devices, condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. At present condoms are the only protection sexually active people have against AIDS. The phrase "safe sex" should be changed to "safer sex". Nobody can tell who is infected with the AIDS virus. Reducing the risks of AIDS is different to eliminating the risk of AIDS. As at the moment condoms are the only protection against AIDS I am in favour of them.

In the same way as a can of water will not put out a blaze in a petrol station, condoms will not solve the AIDS problem. The Bill has more to do with contraception than family planning. I regret that it does not deal with the prevention of AIDS.

The problems of gonorrhoea and syphilis also need to be tackled. Consideration should be given to the possibility of contact tracing in an effort to break the chain of transmission. We should introduce a system of partner notification similar to that introduced in the UK to cover homosexuals; I am very pleased that this system was extended to cover heterosexuals in 1986. There are approximately 200 clinics in England treating people with sexually transmitted diseases. They offer confidential counselling and free testing. We should consider providing similar services.

There is no use talking about contraceptives in terms of family planning only. As we know, people use contraceptives for reasons other than for family planning and, consequently the debate should have been broadened. We should be talking about free testing and treatment and increasing and improving support systems, counselling and education. We need to take collective action to break the chain in the spread of AIDS. Whether we like it or not this is a growing problem. Even though there are many good drugs on the market, if we do not get our house in order we will have to deal with a widespread, serious, lethal problem in the not too distant future. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the problem worldwide could be as bad as the famine in Ethiopia. If this problem is not solved, malaria, dysentery, TB and other diseases will spread with the increase in the number of people who have the HIV virus, yet, we are not even discussing this subject.

We cannot legislate only for married couples or consenting adult couples. The AIDS problem requires unprecedented solutions. Unfortunately the Bill has not gone far enough in the area of proper family planning services or the need to minimise the risk of AIDS. As I said, we are still a long way from eliminating AIDS, but we should at least endeavour to reduce the risk of AIDS by introducing the services to which I referred and addressing the issue in a broader way.

I support this Bill which is timely, appropriate and necessary. However, it raises a number of questions. The previous speaker in his very forthright contribution suggested a more wide-ranging debate, I think it has ranged over a fairly wide area. Nevertheless, it raises very practical issues which Senator Harte emphasised. It also raises some philosophical and religious issues. This debate is part of the reassessment of the Ireland of today. Ireland today is different from the Ireland of a few years ago, and is very different from the Ireland described by Senator Harte.

In this debate so far the common theme seems to be why is this Bill being introduced and why are condoms being made more widely available. Some say the Bill is being introduced to give people more freedom while others say it is to prevent the spread of disease. As Senator Harte said, there are a number of other aspects which should be emphasised. Is the Bill being specifically introduced to deal with the appalling AIDS epidemic? Is it part of our new sense of being European? Is it right to legislate for morality or for freedom of choice? Is it right that we should be in any sense considering age limits? This in turn relates to that part of the Bill regarding the availability of condoms through slot machines. Clearly you cannot have an age limit and at the same time allow slot machines. Senator O'Keeffe has said there can be laws on age limits, yet in practice they are very widely disregarded. On the other hand one has the argument that we as legislators should be setting standards. One of the criticisms of us as politicians is that we do not set standards. Does that include setting standards of morality? If so, what right have we to stand up and say to our fellow citizens what their morals should or should not be?

If there are age limits regarding the availability of condoms, should we have age limits as regards marriage? Once people are of a sexually active age and capable of getting married, why should they not get married? Or should they? Can we really shrug off the responsibility of saying that a 12 year old or a 13 year old should be allowed to be married? It is very easy for us to express views with great conviction and sincerity, but if we are to be logical and rational, we must adopt the same sort of attitude right across the board.

Many other questions arise. Senators have commented that it is far worse for young children to be allowed go out and engage in cider parties and alcoholism and so on. On the other hand, if we attempt to bring in a form of prohibition — and we do here in an age sense or as they tried in the famous situation in the United States in a total sense—the effect may be the reverse of what well-meaning people intend. It is very easy for some of us to say that people under a certain age should not be permitted condoms. If we say that is ridiculous and that there should not be any limits, a number of other questions are brought up which are not quite so easy to answer. If we say that morality is no business of ours as legislators, as politicians, are we to say, for example, that marriage should be entirely a matter for the individual and that there should be total freedom as to whether there is monogamous marriage, whether divorce should be allowed or whether there should be bigamy or polygamy? A question which is coming up in other states is whether lesbians should be entitled, if they have got a stable relationship, to adopt children. These are various aspects for consideration.

It is easy for us to come into this House and say there should be no age limit and that we should not be legislating in moral terms. My feeling is that it is not for me or any of the rest of us to say to somebody else what their morals should or should not be. I do not think we can shrug off any sort of responsibility in this matter. We need to think it through perhaps a little bit more than maybe at times we are inclined to do.

I think condoms should be available in relation to AIDS. One is almost looking at it on a medical basis. There is a huge medical problem which we unfortunately in this country have not as yet encountered on a major scale, but which we are likely to encounter in the coming years. It is a very emotional problem because as it so happens one group of people with particular sexual inclinations are perhaps more likely to find themselves afflicted by that disease. We have to be very careful and think a little bit about what we are saying or what we are not saying. It is purely a matter of medical chance that AIDS is transmitted by blood and therefore certain groups of people are more likely to get it or develop it, such as haemophiliacs who are receiving blood or people who happen to be drug users or drug pushers. This is another moral question that we have to look at. In certain countries, for example, clean needles are made readily available for people. It is a difficult matter that needs to be considered. One of the ways in which AIDS is increasing is by the use of infected needles.

AIDS is a virus that happens to be transmitted through blood, primarily. The virus could equally be transmitted like flu through people coughing or sneezing. If it were, we would have a problem on our hands of greater enormity than that at present existing and sexual proclivities would not be relevant. There is no particular reason that we could not have a mutation which could totally transform the way in which AIDS is transmitted.

Senator Harte mentioned in a previous contribution that a very large part of the heterosexual population in Africa is afflicted with AIDS, for various reasons which we do not need to go into here. The soaring population of central and the immediate sub-Saharan Africa is going to be decimated by AIDS. We will not have a population problem there. It will be dealt with in one of the ways that populations were often dealt with when they became excessive in the past. There was a spread of some severe epidemic or pandemic which greatly reduced the population.

It is very nice and fine for us to have this sort of debate in the House about family planning and the use of condoms. That can look very different if one is in a Third World country and one is receiving lectures from people in the wealthier, comfortable societies, deciding what people in the Third World should do or should not do about their burgeoning populations. Family planning then seems almost like a weapon.

While I am on the population situation and the effects of AIDS and family planning and contraceptives and condoms in relation to AIDS, it ill becomes us even to think of giving lectures to Third World countries on family planning to restrict their populations when we are at the same time largely engaged in paying our farmers not to produce food although there are people elsewhere in the world starving. I find that morally very difficult to accept and in practical terms an extraordinary reflection on the inadequacy of our governmental institutions in the socalled developed countries.

We used to pride ourselves, or some people did, on this being a Christian country. Others would pride themselves on calling it a Catholic country. Others would perhaps take a somewhat different view and regard that as something to be criticised. One thing that is certainly coming through to me is that the effective influence in many ways of our Catholic religion on the vast majority of the southern population in legislative terms would seem to be very greatly diminished. This is something very largely of the past.

While we may be of the opinion that people should have complete freedom there are many people who feel differently, and I am thinking of those in the Muslim world. I find it very difficult to accept the attitude — the spreading attitude, the determined attitude, the fundamental attitude — whereby the Shariah law is being brought in. There is no segregation and various other teachings in their strict attempt to impose a morality. To me that seems almost medieval. The reality is that it is an attitude which is spreading very rapidly through a very large section of the world. Is it an indication of their belief in themselves? It is easy for us to condemn the Governments and the people in such countries but they would quickly answer back and criticise what they would class as the laxity of morals in our society. They would be appalled at such things as the way in which our older people — instead of being respected, looked after, revered and listened to — are reviled and put away as quickly as possible into nursing hospitals or other institutions, almost shoved out of sight. They would criticise the fact that the kind of houses we have do not allow for older people and that our society does not provide for them.

I find this Bill to some extent a temporising measure. It is a move that we have to accept, a very necessary move on medical grounds and a move with which I would agree on the grounds of the freedom of the individual to choose. However, I consider that there are many political and moral issues that as legislators we may be induced to think about by the introduction of this legislation.

I do not consider that it is possible to effectively legislate for morality. There is really not much point in having legislation on the Statute Book that is not respected and is not easily implemented. It is my belief that the younger generation — who have been mentioned many times in the context of this debate, both in this House and in the Dáil — have availed of well developed educational facilities. They are more than able to think for themselves and reason for themselves in all sectors and they have proved themselves to be people of great faith. I, for one, recognise their input.

It seems to me that many speakers are being rather glib. They seem to attribute the necessity for this kind of legislation — which could more effectively be called a "Sex Bill", because so far as I can tell it has little to do with family planning — for the young generation. In 1974 the first legislation of this kind came before the Oireachtas. At that time I had the honour of being a member of the European Parliament. When that legislation hit the headlines overseas our European colleagues rather embarrassed their Irish number in that they did not mind questioning this Parliament's offer of priorities. In passing, I might say that the views expressed by Fianna Fáil speakers in both Houses of the Oireachtas throughout the debates are greatly different from the views so hypocritically and strongly expressed in 1974. I should like to think that the Irish population — the young people in particular, if it is those whom we are talking about — are sufficiently well educated to be able to form and to control their own consciences and to be very much aware of what they are doing.

If we were to consider the issue from a religious point of view, there would surely be a very strong balance, having regard to the desirability, in terms of the prevention of the spread of the AIDS virus, of having available whatever facilities can possibly be provided to reduce the spread of that disease. No great progress appears to have been made in curing the disease or in caring for those who suffer from it. While I do not consider that this kind of legislation should be brought before the Oireachtas at all, I still think the Bill is an improvement on previous legislation, given the unfortunate situation in this country of a preponderance of double-think and double-talk.

Is there something wrong with a society such as ours that each year forces thousands of young girls out of this country to have an abortion? In this regard I am not making a criticism of the young people, about whom most people seem to concentrate their comments. Society does not accept illegitimacy to a great extent and therefore in rural areas especially girls who find themselves pregnant are often forced out by the views of the older generation. There is nothing Christian in that. Certainly the position has improved in the past 20 or 30 years but we, of all age groups, should ask ourselves where is our Christian tolerance when people find themselves in trouble or away from the norm. I sometimes feel quite taken aback by my own church. Again, when talking about what I would call the modern generation, the people who cannot conform, those who live in irregular relationships — cohabitation or whatever one might like to call it — the Church would appear to write those people off. I do not think that that is the way Christ would have treated the situation. For my part, I worship the God of humanity and love and I try not to be judgmental. Leaving aside all the hypocrisy that goes with this kind of legislation, I would say to people who strongly object to such legislation that just because there is legislation on the Statute Book that provides for the availability of contraceptives people do not have to avail of the contraceptives. There is freedom for everyone to make up his or her own mind. We must learn to respect the rights of the individual.

The availability of condoms has not been particularly widespread up to now. In some countries the number of places in which they were available for purchase was quite small. Certainly quite a number of pharmacists did not stock them and I imagine that anyone who asked for them got rather a sharp rebuke. That is up to the individuals themselves, but rather an unhappy situation has prevailed. I would prefer if there was no need for a Bill of this kind.

Section 4 deals with the reduced age limit. Of course, I would prefer if there were no need for such a provision. Peer pressure has to be taken into consideration. I am sure there would be some young people who, being aware of this legislation, would ask themselves if contraceptives were available to people from the age of 17 was there not something wrong with them if they did not have a use for them at the age of 18? This Bill is sending out the wrong vibes to those people. Worries about morality, about the way we conduct our lives take us back to the traditional family unit. If parents are unable in their children's formative years, when their responsibility is greatest, to educate them in the tradition to which themselves have adhered then they are the families who are falling down. They should not be looking to the State to enforce morality since clearly the responsibility lies elsewhere, principally within the family unit.

I should have preferred to see the Minister introduce a much more comprehensive Bill because this one scratches the source only. He has not specified exactly where condoms will be available or whether the health boards will be responsible for implementing the provisions of the legislation.

The cost of treating any other disease would be quantified. We would be told probably that there were insufficient funds to provide the necessary service. It has been my experience that, in areas touching on morality, there is a total double-think in every sector of our society which is a nonsense. I abhor the idea of an Irish solution to what is not necessarily an Irish problem. We spend sufficient on education and our health services. These problems should be tackled. People should be given every assistance possible so we have a healthy society, not only from a medical point of view but a good healthy approach to all aspects of life. We have failed miserably to provide a health educational service. For some years there was a body — the Health Education Bureau — in existence that tried to tackle this and other problems. They were abolished because of tremendous pressure when they endeavoured to introduce various educationaltype pamphlets to bring the difficulties in this area to the people's attention. Therefore, I contend that we, as a society, have ourselves to blame for many of our present-day problems. I do not think the public can look to the Oireachtas to solve them. There is no problem in having legislative measures passed once the Government have a majority, but we must ask ourselves: are those legislative provisions being implemented? Are the regulations being put into force? Usually if it is not a plea advanced that funds or resources are not readily available there is the double-think. For example, if one examines the Act this Bill seeks to amend one must ask oneself: how many of the eight health boards made an honest attempt even to provide a service or meet whatever demand existed?

I appeal to the Minister to be more open and forthcoming. Having listened to his introductory remarks this afternoon I do not think he has been forthright with this House in the points he made in support of the changes he has introduced. We must be in favour of a healthy society, not merely from a medical point of view but healthy in both mind and body. Through public consensus, we must change many of our outdated attitudes that perhaps the Catholic Church, in advocating greater adherence to the precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, has fostered over the year. I look forward to church leadership in the need to be responsible in our approach to the AIDS virus.

It is not just good enough for people who have very strong views against the introduction or implementation of this Bill to point statistics from whatever source, contending that, because condoms are available there is a higher or lower incidence of abortion. That is irrelevant. There is need to examine the overall attitude of our population to all these issues whether they be health-orientated or social; traditionally these questions have been taboo.

I would prefer that no age limit be inserted mainly because I contend the very mention of an age would prompt some people, through peer pressure, into feeling they should be part of this system. Nevertheless, if the provisions of this Bill offer people more protection against contacting the AIDS virus they may do some good. I ask people not to be judgmental, to try to bear witness to the charity of Christ in their dealings with people less fortunate than themselves.

I sat here and listened to a number of Senators' contributions, particularly Senator Ross who spoke about the Government being out of touch, not being pragmatic about older men who make laws for younger men. I suggest to Senator Ross a reading of de senectute might improve his attitude to older people.

Senator Ross also made a personal attack on me which I dismiss; I am not worried about that. One thing I cannot tolerate is the way he attacked and blamed the Roman Catholic Church. What a wonderful catch-all phrase for everything that goes wrong in this country. I am surprised at Senator Ross. I want to say clearly to him that if he thinks this is the way to secure the Wicklow vote he knows very little about the Church of Ireland people who vote in that area. That is all I want to say. I want to put on the record that I was disgusted at his sectarian, bigoted attack this evening.

I welcome the fact that we are addressing this subject but in a rather pathetic way. This is one occasion in which the old cliché "too little, too late" is very appropriate. I am sorry about this because the Minister for Health is a very good, caring Minister, somebody who has experience in this area. Nonetheless he is not applying that experience. He refers continually to his great predecessor Dr. Noel Browne. He is on record as saying that he would like to be the Noel Browne of the nineties. He is not being the Noel Browne of the nineties. That is an insult to people who are dying, many of whom are my friends. That is why I speak with passion on this subject.

When I say that many of the people dying are my friends, I do not mean there is a greater incidence in the gay community than there is anywhere else if taken on a global scale. It is a question of the sequence in which the infection makes its presence known. May I put the following statistic on the record of the House? According to the World Health Organisation, 90 per cent of transmission, on a global scale, is now through heterosexual intercourse. The remaining 10 per cent is divided between haemophiliacs, drug addicts and homosexuals. It certainly needs to be looked at on a global scale and that is the problem if we are addressing it on a global scale. It certainly needs to be looked at in a global scale and in a particular context, one in which the Minister is in a position to place it but unfortunately, he has signally failed to do so.

The definition of the principal instrument which the Bill seeks to control says nothing about health. It says nothing about AIDS. It says: "‘a contraceptive' means any appliance or instrument, including contraceptive sheaths, prepared or intended to prevent pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse between human beings". In that context where do the gay population fit? They are unlikely to get pregnant.

Debate adjourned.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 July 1992.

Top
Share