Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1992

Vol. 133 No. 19

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

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

Mr. Norris

I refer back to what I was saying earlier, that is, that Deputy O'Connell is a very genuine and caring Minister. I recall keenly that in the debate we managed to have here some years ago on the subject of AIDS the then Senator, now Minister, spoke with great passion, energy and conviction and with great adventurous spirit. He spoke about the possibility of the free needle exchange and even said that we had to consider legalising certain forms of drugs in order to cut down on the spread of the disease. However, by comparison this is a very timid performance in this Bill.

I remember when I was small we used to play a game called "Relievio" where there were various steps involved. There were scissors steps, which is what I would consider Deputy Haughey's Irish solution to be. We had baby steps, which is what the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, is at. We had what we actually need, namely, giant steps. This is a tragic situation we are facing. It is a potential cataclysm.

One of the speakers yesterday wondered about the costs and said that if what he called morality was not so directly involved we would have placed on the record the actual cost to the Exchequer. I can give him some information. The cost of sustaining one patient with full blown AIDS for one year is £25,000 to £30,000. Tht puts the matter into a particular context.

I would like to make a few remarks in response to the Minister's Second Stage speech. There are certain elements in it with which I agree, but I have to say I believe the Minister is deeply and profoundly embarrassed and ashamed of this Bill. He knows it is a rotten Bill. Everybody else knows it is a rotten Bill, because it is far too little and far too late. I speak with some vigour. This day last week I was visiting a friend of mine who died the next day. I have had many friends who have died of AIDS. This has been my experience because I work within the gay community and we were the first group of people to get it. This is not going to be the case for very much longer.

I would like to respond to what the Minister said in his speech regarding the mechanism by which the infection is spread. According to the latest WHO statistics, the mechansim of transmission for HIV on a global basis is now confirmed at 90 per cent heterosexual intercourse. The passage of the infection through drug addiction and through homosexual intercourse and blood products for haemophiliacs is only 10 per cent. Figures published today in the Irish Independent indicate a 100 per cent increase in heterosexual transmission over the last year in Ireland. The situation is clearly altering. We must take these facts on board.

The Minister talked about the Bill that was produced in July of last year. He said that it provided for condoms to be sold without prescription or authorisation, with certain provisions: one, the person was over the age of 17 years; two, the vendor was over the age of 18 years; three, the sale was not by way of vending machine; and four, the sale was either from one of the existing approved outlets selling all contraceptives, that is, pharmacies, family planning clinics, hospitals, and premises registered by a health board — all foolish, restricting and controlling mechanisms. If we are, as I say and the Minister recognised more than a year ago, facing a potential cataclysm, why are we fecking around in this pettifogging way in the middle——

An Cathaoirleach

That word, I suggest, is unparliamentary.

Mr. Norris

"Fecking", I said. I chose a syllable with great care. I do not want to waste time defining "fecking". I could be more abusive but I will not be.

An Cathaoirleach

I ask you not to be.

Mr. Norris

I will not be, because this is a very serious situation. We are fiddling while people are dying. I have been witnessing people dying and I wish to God that the people on various sides of the House, and they are by no means exclusively Fianna Fáil, who titilate their consciences would go with me to places like St. James's Hospital where talented young people in their thirties are dying. More people will die needlessly because of the gross inadequacies of this Bill. What is the point of any age restriction if people are going to die? Are we saying we will protect people over the age of 17? Do not people of a younger age need protection? Is there any point introducing an age restriction other than as a kind of moral figleaf? As I have said before on this subject, children are not sexually titilated by a limp piece of rubber unless they are extremely peculiar, but there are some young people who are sexually active and they require to be protected.

I was on a radio programme on a local radio station last weekend. A woman who sounded very nice rang in and asked about the rights of families under the Constitution; what about her authority? I understand that this a problem that is raised, but where does authority come from? Authority comes from the love and respect parents can command in instructing the children in this matter of private sexual morality, and if parents are not capable of extracting that kind of response from their own children, why should other children be penalised and why should other children possibly be sentenced to a very unpleasant form of death?

I do not want to maximise the unpleasantness but I must pay tribute to the extraordinary care and efficiency of the doctors in facilities such as St. James's Hospital, people who understand how to manage the inevitable death of people with the terminal disease of AIDS and who give them some degree of comfort and dignity towards the end of their lives.

I will be tabling an amendment to provide that the Minister, by ministerial order, may vary the regulations controlling the facilities through which condoms are made available. Everybody knows they should be available through vending machines — the Minister knows it; the Civil Service know it; every idiot in this country knows it. This evening's Evening Herald has an article in which a young man states:

Steven explains part of the problem about contraception. "I know I can legally buy condoms but there's just no way I'd go into a chemist and ask for them. I'd be too embarrassed. When you think about it, they're not really available, are they? They should have machines in public toilets and pubs where you can get them.

I know a lot of guys who'd expect the girl to have condoms or be on the Pill. I know myself I'd rather take the chance than have to ask for them in a shop."

Thank God for the ordinary, decent common sense of the Irish people who are openly flouting this law. I incite them to continue flouting it. I am glad that over 100 outlets, including public houses, have already put vending machines in their lavatories and I will personally assist them to break the law because it is an idiotic law, it is a dangerous law and it is a law that may cause the deaths of young people. I have no difficulty, no qualms whatsoever about that.

The whole approach of this Bill is less than radical. It is called the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, yet it has nothing to do with family planning. The Minister acknowledged that when he said it is a response to the serious health problem of HIV infection. However, he starts off by defining "contraceptive" as any "applicance or instrument, including contraceptive sheaths, prepared or intended to prevent pregnancy resulting from sexual intercourse between human beings;".

We have been told that the first target area of this virus was the gay community. The gay community are not using contraceptives in order to prevent pregnancy; they are using them in their most important manifestation that is to prevent infection, as a prophylactic, but we are still pretending that condoms can be made available only to prevent conception. For one of the principal target groups that is complete idiocy and nonsense. There is a paragraph in the Minister's speech with which I agree but it is so little that it fails signally to make any gesture to address the real problem:

I do not consider it appropriate that married couples should seek a precription for non-medical items which they need for contraceptive purposes. It is an unnecessary intrusion on their married life....

I agree but is that as important as saving people from a gruesome death? Why this extraordinary delicacy and sensitivity about the married life of young people? If there were an invasion of privacy it would be a serious civil liberty matter, but we are not talking about life and death, whereas in terms of making contraceptives available to young people we are talking about precisely that — life and death. I believe in civil liberties; I regret any intrusion into them.

Yesterday I was telephoned by a man who asked me to introduce amendments to protect the consciences of chemists in the West of Ireland. Confronted with this appalling situation, I could not care less about the consciences of chemists in the West of Ireland. Young people, at their most vulnerable, require to be protected against the possibility of acquiring an infection for which there is no known cure.

The Minister referred to two provisions in the Bill that I welcome very much. He spoke about a comprehensive family planning service. I give a strong welcome to this because previously we had a sectarian service which dealt only with what is known as natural family planning. If the Minister is moving towards a more general approach, I am certainly very happy to support that.

The Minister also talked about using regulations. I would question the extent to which the Minister will be capable of using regulations to vary the main content of this Bill. Perhaps he could reply to this — I hope that I am not blowing the whistle on a potential political Trojan horse — and tell me whether it is possible for the Minister to address the reality of Ireland today. The people of Ireland are so far ahead of the politicians that condom machines are already being installed all over the country. Will the Minister be able to use the regulations to vary the legal position in order to legalise what is actually happening on the ground or will we have to come back and once again deal with legislation on contraceptives?

The Minister knows my feelings, I would not wish it to be thought that I am in any sense antagonistic to the family unit; I respect it but I also expect from that family unit a certain moral standing. It is up to the family to produce in their children the moral standing they require. The Minister said on Second Stage:

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.... This is intended to ensure a certain element of control and supervision of supply. In a disaster, why are we worried about the control, supply and supervision? In France, Germany and Holland condoms are being handed out free of charge to children in schools because that is preferred to the notion that young people will die.

As an Irish citizen I was horrified to read in The Irish Times about a year ago a letter from a woman who considered herself a good Christian and who said that if it came to a choice between her son using a condom or dying of AIDS she would prefer that he died of AIDS. That woman repeated her statement during an excellent RTE radio programme. I am sure that woman considers herself to be a good mother and that she has some kind of convulated logic for her belief. God spare the children of Ireland from people who take that view. It makes me wonder whether heterosexuals are fit people to have children.

Mrs. Doyle

I am tempted to start my contribution with a question to Senator Norris, "Who would have the children?", but I shall not go down that road.

It is hard to know where to begin in a debate on this Bill. This is a missed opportunity and it is an awful tragedy that the Minister, who flattered himself by saying, for so many months, that he would produce a worthwhile Bill on this issue, has apparently fallen foul of Cabinet or other colleagues somewhere along the line so that we now have this legislative nonsense before us.

The Bill will provide for a marginally better position than obtains at present. The position will be marginally better in that condoms will be sold more generally, although not from vending machines; the supervisory role for the health boards — which was nonsense because it was inoperable — has effectively gone; and the nonsense concerning the declaration on a prescription as to the purpose of an inert contraceptive has been deleted. But having said that, and having given as much as I can to the Bill — which is very little — where do we go? The problem of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the past decade or so in relation to most social legislation has been that we were ahead of public demand, we forced the pace a little too quickly when it came to what the public were prepared to digest. Hence, any attempts at liberalising issues such as this fell foul of the public, and in this regard I think particularly of the two referenda of the mid-eighties. On this legislation the public are laughing at these Houses. They will do what they do regardless of what we in this House say about condoms or sheaths. The exercise this House is going through today, which the Dáil went through in the past week or two, is a total farce and it brings into disrepute what legislation should be all about. I urge the Government, through the Minister, to rethink this nonsense urgently.

My main objections to the Bill lie in two areas: the lack of vending machines, discretely but properly situated in our community generally, and the licence for casual sex we are now granting those over 17. All of us, and particularly those of us who have young people and teenagers in our families, know what peer pressure is. If our children are going through college or third level education of one kind or another they come across peer group pressure. For the Government to state in this legislation that legally one can now use condoms when one passes one's 17th birthday effectively gives people the licence to do so. Let us be honest. Back over the years throughout Ireland the Confirmation pledge was that one did not take a drink until one was 18. Perhaps the use of condoms will now be added to the Confirmation pledge and sex will be made the great forbidden fruit along with drink. I am not so sure that such a pledge would be any more effective than was the pledge not to drink. What nonsense. Even if a four or five year old came across a condom that would not cause any harm. For those too young to use condoms the greatest risk is that they might choke on them. For those who do know what to do with a condom, surely it is up to them to decide whether or not it is part of their ethos or part of their life at that time.

It is up to us all to try to rear our children as we think fit and with the best possible responsibility towards their sexuality. Some of us fail as parents and some of us succeed. Parenting is a very difficult job today, with children facing a huge range of outside influences apart from the home influence. Parents can only do their best in this area. For goodness sake, here we are legislating to make the improper use of a condom a criminal offence, either because one is too young, because one has purchased it in the wrong way, or because it has been sold in the wrong way. Even this late in the day could we not have a little sense?

The definition of "contraceptive" fascinates me, too, given that one of the reasons we are liberalising — or just about liberalising — the availability of condoms is the scourge of AIDS in our community. The Bill defines a contraceptive as a device to prevent pregnancy; I wonder how that relates to the whole AIDS issue. It is not only hetro-sexual beings who use condoms. The definition is much too narrow, again making further nonsense of the Bill before us.

Many women in their forties, and perhaps even younger, can no longer take oral hormonal-based contraceptives of one kind or another because of a potential danger to their health. The health of many women is already seriously at risk because of too many pregnancies or other medical complications. In the years from 40 to 50 contraception for women is often at its most critical and its most difficult. Particularly from the point of view of women's health, the availability of condoms and sheaths at that stage is extremely important. Most contributors to the debate have spoken about the legislation in relation to the young and have talked about the danger it might present to the young.

I wish to point out that there are very many women seriously at risk because of the lack of free availability of condoms, particularly in rural Ireland. In many rural towns there may be only one chemist shop, where a woman has dealt for 30 to 40 years. Perhaps her family dealt with the shop before her. One should imagine the great personal indignation, difficulty and embarrassment that would be caused if at the age of 45 a woman had to present herself to "Mrs. Murphy", the local pharmacist to ask for condoms. Vending machines, discreetly placed in areas that people frequent, are important not just for the young but also for the not-so-young who might find it very embarrassing to face that difficulty in middle age, when contraception is of critical importance for so many reasons.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the making available of vending machines. I should like him to at least assure us that it will not be necessary to bring further legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas if the Government have a change of heart on this issue and finally realise that there is a consumer demand for the discreet provision of vending machines. I am not saying that vending machines should be found in every GP's rooms and every classroom throughout the country; I do not want them at every crossroads. There are locations where vending machines could be discreetly situated so that consenting adults would be allowed to make up their own minds about their own method of contraception. The Government have no business at all behind the bedrom doors of consenting adults. The Government's business is to protect the vulnerable, either the very old or the very young, from unwarranted and unwanted interference by others. I reject any attempt, including this half-hearted attempt by the Government, to try to direct the lives of consenting adults.

I wish to express my hope that the main Church in this country might reconsider their views on contraception. This matter is not directly related to this Bill but the present position of the Catholic Church on contraception is very important for many women and many men in this country. Very many men and women in this country have been made á la carte Catholics because of the Church's Humanae Vitae on this issue. Undue emphasis has also been given to this area, which, I think has made the Church lose credibility among younger generations and today's middle-aged generation. With respect, I urge the Churches, and Rome in particular, to have a new look and a rethink of their views about contraception. I do not have to bring the issue further than our country, where a population explosion is not an immediate issue, but if one extends the line of thinking around the globe and the Third World one realises that there are many reasons that those who wish it — it should not be forced on anyone — should have free availability to contraceptives with the blessing of the Catholic Church and, indeed, some of the other Churches who are lukewarm on the subject. I confine my comments to the Church I know most about, even though my knowledge is very little. I do not pretend to know a lot about it.

I ask the Minister in his response to Second Stage debate to address himself specifically to the issue of the age limit, which effectively gives those over 17 the licence for casual sex. I should like him also to explain why condoms will not be available from vending machines, not just for the young but also for the not so young who in an impersonal way want to avail themselves of a medically inert form of contraceptive during those very difficult years from 40 to 50 when woman perhaps cannot avail of other forms of medical contraception of one type or another.

Could the Minister of State please also indicate in his reply how the changes recently announced by his senior Minister in relation to our national AIDS programme are being implemented? Apparently a very good man who was head of the programme has been moved aside and a different system has been put in place. Perhaps we could have explained to us the thinking behind the change and whether this change is working and working for the benefit of the public at large. Perhaps he could give us up to date figures on the AIDS problem in our country.

It is a particularly difficult issue to know when to introduce young children to the whole problem of AIDS. It is very hard to explain to children the risks and the tragedy of AIDS without getting into the inter-personal relationship area. Perhaps we are leaving it too late to bring to the notice of many of our children the importance of responsible sexual relations. Perhaps overall sex education is not being taught within a context to which young people can relate. Judging from my time in college in the late sixties and early seventies, I find young people nowadays far more conservative in their approach to personal relationships than they were than. Perhaps because of recessionary times, they are more serious about their studies, their drive to get employment, perhaps the AIDS epidemic has at last brought home to them the need to greater responsibility in this whole area.

I will leave it at that. I am extremely disappointed with this Bill; it is really a little bit of nonsense before the House We are the laughing stock of the public. The public are way ahead of us in relation to the provisions they will make for themselves regarding internal medical contraception such as sheaths and condoms. They are not going to listen to us legislators. I wish we could at least keep pace with the public demand in this area and, while respecting the ethos of our country, respond to the demands of consenting adults while at the same time protecting the vulnerable, the very young and the old.

Professor Murphy

I recall the occasion when what was called the Principal Act in this Bill, namely, the Health (Family Planning) Bill, 1979, was debated in Seanad Éireann the then Minister for Health was one Deputy Charles J. Haughey. There was no time limit on the debate on that occasion; perhaps they were more leisurely days. But, of course, the issue was much more central, the terms of reference more substantial and somewhat wider. It is incredible that 13 years later we have not disposed of this unfinished business. It just is unbelievable that we are still prostituting the Houses of the Oireachtas by talking about the availability of bits of rubber.

Of course, there has been some progress; there is no denying that. This pathetic Bill purports to make a little more progress but overall I must say the sense of dé já vu is overwhelming. I was indulging myself in the library this morning reading my contribution on that occasion pausing a while to marvel at the dexterous turn of phrase and so on. But I was struck by the number of resemblances there still are to the Principal Act. For example, the hyprocrisy begins right with the title, which has been observed more than once. Of course, family planning is a euphemism — in 1979, as in 1992, the whole point about contraception is to avoid having any family at all. Really the hypocrisy begins there.

At that time we had a Minister who said he wanted to do much more than he was doing but felt he was constrained by circumstances, expediency perhaps, pressure. It was in that context that he coined the famous phrase "An Irish solution to an Irish problem", which, significantly, has gone on to become one of the great cynical phrases of Irish politics and has been adopted by the public as such. It is significant that it is in the context of debating contraceptives that that piece of cynicism was produced, though Deputy Haughey did not mean it as cynicism at the time. He was then a Minister who protested he was doing as much as he could but felt that that was the most he could do. He had no intention of resigning, by the way, in protest against the pressures being brought to bear on him. Another similarity is that he repeatedly said in this and the other House: "But can you not be reasonable? Do you not see that this is the best we can do at this particular time? This is progress, please accept it." It seems to me that in these past few weeks we have heard that same note of desperation on the part of this Minister.

In 1979 also there were politicians on the Government side, who believed that the Bill did not go far enough, who believed that the State had no business whatsoever interfering in private morality, who spoke with contempt of the Bill as a petty piece of compromise, but who still voted for it. There were people who pointed out that the availability of contraceptives does not add up to compulsion. That simple message does not yet seem to have hit home in this country, among legislators and among those who pressurise them. The fact that contraceptives are available does not compel people to use them, but those who will not use them themselves, who deny their availability to others, are interfering with the principles of civil and religious liberty. None of that has changed.

Another thing that has not changed over those years is the selective conditioning of conscience, the peculiarity of Irish morality whereby politicians claim exemption on issues of sexual morality; but their conscience is not at all as tender when it comes to other areas of morality in public life, such as, bending planning permission, dodging taxes and so on. Again, that has not changed. What has not changed is what I said on that occasion in 1979.

Mr. Cassidy

It is hard to be humble.

Professor Murphy

I will persist with scholarly meticulousness. The reference is volume 92, column 706, of the Official Report of 4 July 1979. I described the Bill as "probably unworkable in many respects, pusillanimous in approach and, most deplorable of all, denominational in inspiration". That last one has to be modified somewhat. I am glad to observe a section of this Bill which tried to get away from the denominational inspiration, the section where comprehensive family planning is mentioned. But "unworkable in many respects and pusillanimous in approach", that is certainly true.

I really feel it is a waste of time repeating this, but I must go on the record again. Everything has now been said in this debate, said very ably by my colleagues. What has been well pointed out by both Senators Norris and Doyle, of course, is that the immaturity rests in ourselves and not in the public at large. It is the immaturity of politicians giving in to pressures — who knows what kinds of pressures? — while the public at large find the debate more and more irrelevant to their needs. One difference from 1979 is that society has changed radically since then in respect of the openness of frontiers and the ease of communications. The notion of trying to prohibit the supply and sale of condoms in certain circumstances is totally ludicrous and nonsensical from that point of view alone, paticularly from the point of view of the traffic between Ireland and Great Britain or between the North and ourselves.

Of course, what has changed is that at every handsturn we are reminded that we are Europeans and that we must behave as mature Europeans. In this respect we are behaving as retarded, insular infants. It is totally unacceptable, then as now, to have the State acting in a censorious or paternalistic manner. As Senator Doyle said, everyone knows that we all think differently from what we are stipulating in this Bill. We all know that the whole nonsense should be repealed from the very beginning, that there should be a Bill introduced allowing free availability of condoms with, of course, proper concern for their effectiveness; and their reference to, let us say, industrial research and standards is the only area in which the State should be concerned.

The attempt to legislate in age terms is unenforceable. The prohibition on vending machines is also unenforceable. I would like to think that the Minister does have power to amend the relevant section by subsequent regulation but it seems to me as a layman that the Bill clearly prohibits vending machines and that, therefore, amending legislation would be necessary if any progress is to be made in this area.

The whole Bill flies in the face of facts. In The Cork Examiner today there was the report that three more public houses in Cork have now installed vending machines, bringing to a total of 20 the number of such machines in Cork city and suburbs. The Garda Síochána are well aware of this. In fact the promoter, a Mr. Arthur Leahy, of the campaign for the promotion of sexual help has informed the Garda that he is installing these machines. Is the Minister going to tell me that there will be any prosecution on foot of that action and, if not, does it not bring the law into disrepute?

Senator Norris said that he would willingly instigate people to break the law. I am enough of a conservative to say that I do not wish to condone the violation of the law. There is nothing so ridiculous as legislation which is ignored by the people at large, but when the law is a total ass and when people take their own shortcuts, surely it is then time for the State, ignominiously and sheepishly, to follow suit?

I approve of two sections of the Bill, one which at last gets away from the denominational approach and speaks about comprehensive family planning services, and another, section 4(3), where the Minister prescribes standards for contraceptives and which says: "a person shall not supply contraceptives which do not comply with the regulations". That is the real business of the State where condoms are concerned, to make sure they conform to technical standards, that people are not buying defective products and so on.

On a previous occasion in this House perhaps I was somewhat too flippant when I suggested that the State should get into this industry itself or, at least encourage entrepreneurs to do so. As I understand it, it is a huge industry. Why should our economy not profit from the manufacture and sale of contraceptives with a distinctive Irish flavour, as it were?

Dr. Upton

Bacon and cabbage.

Professor Murphy

One could think of Ireland at the most critical moments. However, I will not develop that flippant tone because the matter is perhaps too serious. It seems to me that the opposition to progressive legislation in this area falls into three groups. First, parents and guardians who have a difficult time and whose views I do respect. However, they seem to fail to understand that mechanisms, in themselves, do not create a permissive society. For example, the kind of contraception which should be available in this country has been available in Northern Ireland for decades past. Is anyone in their right mind going to tell me that Northern Ireland is a permissive or degenerate society? Second, parents might reflect that it is a poor tribute to their character formation of their children, a poor tribute to the Church's formation of their character, that they have to depend on the State for the availability or non-availability of pieces of rubber to sustain their children in moral behaviour. I have respect for parents who have such scruples, but for politicians who pretend that they have a conscience in these matters, who simply act out of political expediency, I have nothing but contempt.

Third, there are people who worry about small children mistaking these devices for balloons as Senator Doyle said. We would hope that someone would be at hand to prevent them choking, but if they want to play with balloons, that is something else, In any case, I have nothing but pity for the kind of person who is really worried about that. When people say: "Oh we could not really have them in public places," what they really mean is "they would embarrass me", or "they would embarrass my age group"; in other words, they confuse morality with primness and guilt. For those people, I have nothing but pity.

I have a regard for the Minister, for both Ministers, of course, but I am speaking for the moment about the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Connell. I believe he became increasingly desperate when he was pushed to the wall on this Bill. That explains his rather absurd approach in the Dáil last week when he asked: why should people not go to the counter and ask for a packet of condoms with their pint? After all, if there is no sin in sex, why should they not do so? The mistake the Minister is making there is to confuse morality with privacy. People might well believe there is no sin in whatever they are doing but they want to be private about it. I contend that was a mistaken approach for the Minister to take.

I hope the Minister will remain in Government to make this Bill more progressive, that he will be able to bring in amending legislation so that we can move on to the next business, as it were. Once we grow up and adopt the European norm, then we can move on to the next business.

I would like to support the Bill, because I recognise that it is an attempt to make progress, but it is such silly legislation I could not possibly lend my support to it.

Dr. Upton

This will have been the third attempt in the past 13 or 14 years to introduce this type of legislation. We began with the Haughey Bill which, as Senator Murphy has said, was an Irish solution to an Irish problem. There were very few Irish politicians who knew more about Irish solutions to Irish problems than Deputy Haughey. Indeed he was the master practitioner of that art. Then we had the Barry Desmond Bill at which time we were told this country could descend into some dreadful, unbearable moral quagmire if that Bill was passed. The Bill was duly passed with my distinguished colleague, former Deputy Barry Desmond, cast in the role of a political battlecat fighting off all the forces of restriction, old-fashioned ideas and so on. Deputy Desmond fought them off and lived to tell the tale.

We have the present Bill, and, as Senator Murphy might have said, I have a feeling that quite large numbers of the public now find the whole issue something of a bore. In many ways public opinion has moved on, away from it. I have a feeling they regard some of the political shenanigans on this issue somewhat irrelevant, not having any place whatever in the present world.

The Bill itself does mark some progress, although, it does not go far enough. One feels that the constraints in the Bill were gestures in the direction of the country's moral police force. Obviously those elements are becoming less powerful and less important than they used be. However I believe the present restrictions contained in the Bill are there at the behest of those people. I can understand why they have been included at the behest of such people. Were I in the Minister's position, were there as many of those people in my party as there are in the Minister's party, I am not sure I would have the stomach to resist their wishes because, of course, they do commend quite an amount of clout and power in this country, even if it is diminishing.

This time the debate by no means has been as difficult or as rancorous as the last time, indeed the first occasion. That is to be welcomed. In many ways we are improving, but we have quite a way to go before we become fully mature in these matters. It might be no harm to remind ourselves that the restrictions on the sale of condoms only came into law in this country some time in the thirties. My distinguished colleague, Sentor Harte, told the House last night that in his younger days in the city of Dublin when he was working as a delivery boy for a firm of chemists he used to have the job of delivering these devices to the clients of his employer. It was only from the thirties onwards that we began to worry about the availability of contraceptives.

It is a pity that the Minister has not gone the whole way or has not had the capacity to make condoms fully and freely available to those who want them. It is no harm to remind ourselves that there is no obligation on anybody to purchase or use condoms. All that is really being asked is that they should be readily available to people who want to use them. It is simply a matter of personal choice as to whether one wants to use them.

There is, apparently, a clear consensus that the availability of condoms has an important role to play in the control and prevention of AIDS. This has been the basic argument advanced by the Minister in support of the legislation. This, as it were, is his main defence as he comes under attack from the various moral police forces who will berate him and put him under pressure because of the introduction of this legislation. It is a pity in that sense that he has not been at least consistent in regard to the definition of condoms in the Bill. Of course the definition which is given in relation to condoms is that they should have a role in the prevention of pregnancy. One of the major reasons they are being introduced is to prevent the spread of AIDS, which is not consistent and not the same thing as preventing the development of pregnancy.

It is a pity that the Minister did not have the political courage to allow condoms to be made available from vending machines. It also seems as if he is behind the times in relation to the practice in this country. There was a report in yesterday's Irish Independent which stated that about 100 vending machines for the sale of condoms have already been installed. The same report mentioned that another 40 or so condom vending machines will be installed within the next fortnight. Senator Murphy has given a rate of condom machine installation in Cork as being in the order of two per day. If condom vending machines prevent one case of AIDS they will be well worth while. I cannot for the life of me see what the problem is in relation to making condoms available from those outlets.

It is also very difficult to understand why there is a need for restiction at 17 years of age. The reality is that people in this age bracket who are sexually active will probably be the most irresponsible in relation to the way they behave sexually. If the basic objective is the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, or if that is the primary excuse which the Minister seeks to use for the introduction of this Bill, I cannot see how he can impose that restriction in relation to the age at which these devices will be made available unless he is under continuing, recurring pressure from those elements which I believe are primarily, although not exclusively centred in his own party. I cannot see how this age restriction will be enforced. It cannot be enforced in relation to the illicit use of alcohol by people under the age of 17 or 18 years. You have only to walk the streets of Dublin any night to see youngsters emerging from off-license premises carrying large bags of cans of alcoholic drink. The Minister is validly concerned about the role of condoms in the control and prevention of AIDS and in the control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

I understand that there has been a 45-50 per cent increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases over the last few years. In St. James's Hospital, I gather that in 1988 9,755 people were treated for sexually transmitted diseases. In 1991 that number had increased to 13,758, so there is obviously a very serious problem in relation to sexually transmitted diseases which were a very serious problem in this country until about 1950 when the development and widespread availability of antibiotics helped to control them. In many ways between 1950 and 1980 the problem was basically contained.

Since the advent of AIDS — the first paper on AIDS was published in 1983 — the problem has become much more serious. There are now something like 276 cases of full blown AIDS and over 100 people have died from it. Senator Norris made the point that while AIDS is a very serious problem, its spread is not exclusively related to sexual activity. Some of it is, but other AIDS cases arise from the totally irresponsible use of needles and so on. We must keep in mind that when we talk about the control of the spread of AIDS arising from the greater availability of condoms there is a limit to the degree which greater availability of condoms will help to control the disease, but we should reach that limit. In other words, we should make them available so that at least that source of the spread of AIDS can be controlled as far as possible. However, we must live with the fact that people will continue to get AIDS through the irresponsible use of needles and so on, but that is a separate matter.

One of the things which has often struck me in relation to the growth in the incidence of AIDS is the fact that, as I understand it, the disease develops in much the same way as the growth of bacteria. You can expect, as it were, that growth curb to go through an expansionist phase. That point is sometimes lost on the public when we talk about or when we observe very large percentage increases in the spread of AIDS from year to year. While that is very regrettable it simply arises to some degree because of the phenomenon through which that disease grows. In many ways, while it is very disturbing, to some extent the public may be excessively alarmed by the figures because they may be not as informed as they should be in relation to the way in which these disorders grow when there are no proper or effective drugs to control them.

Many of the restrictions in this Bill are irrelevant today. It is a pity that the Minister could not bring himself to be fully in accord with the concerns of most people in this country. It is a pity that he has bowed to the pressures to which I have no doubt he has been subjected. It is also a pity that he was not able to go the whole way in relation to making condoms available reasonably and sensibly in the fight to try to control AIDS, a terrible disease regarding which we would all benefit from knowing more about it. However, that is a long and complex matter and indeed somewhat outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

It is as much out of a sense of duty as anything else that I speak on this because, quite honestly, like many of my colleagues, I am bored stiff with the issue. The only thing which sustained my interest is the persistent prissiness of Governments and indeed other people who talk about the issue. I do not understand what sort of perception of the rest of humanity guides those who believe the restrictions in this Bill have any meaning in terms of private, not to mention public, morality. The idea that you will do some good by these restrictions is such a profound indication of a disorientated vision of our society and of the people who live here that it might alleviate my boredom.

I believe that we have moved so far that the sale of peculiarly constructed pieces of rubber is the sort of thing that should be confined, as Senator Murphy quite rightly said, to a ministerial order about quality and standards. Beyond that, let us go on and deal with things that matter to people far more than the degree of accessibility to condoms.

I recall the first time I saw a slot machine containing contraceptives in a public house in London in 1966. It was in an Irish area of London and an uninformed or perceptive Irish male had written that it was the worst chewing gum he had ever purchased. Remarks such as that remind one of the triviality of the issue but the apparent determination of the Irish State to turn a trivial issue, which took 12 months to progress from the first publication of a ridiculously restrictive Bill, to this debate was obvious.

A friend of mine, who has no connection with subversives, had her home raided during a fairly extensive period of house raids some years ago. The Special Branch had a warrant to search for arms. She happened to be involved in a contraception action campaign, so the only objects they came across were large supplies of contraceptives. Eventually, after the usual routine, when she went to collect what had been taken from her home, the gardaí showed a far greater interest in the condoms than would have been healthy, given that they were supposed to be concerned about arms in the first place. The confiscation of condoms as the consequence of a raid on a house in pursuit of something as serious as arms is a commentary, not just on the Garda, but on all of us. It is also a commentary on the pessimistic view of sex, which for a brief period of our history, in this part of the country at least, has taken hold of us.

We are not a people with a long history of repression in the area of sexuality, in fact, quite the opposite is the case. A considerable lack of inhibition was one of our characteristics up to the Famine when a certain view of sex which controlled the Roman Catholic Church at the time took root in the minds of many people. It has taken us a little over 100 years to get rid of it but we have moved from that and now have a much healthier attitude, based on the fact that people are mature and sensible most of the time and that nothing coercive will make irresponsible people behave responsibly in this area. The only way one can influence people is to persuade them that certain courses of action are in their own self-interest.

I am amused at the continuing prissiness of Irish society—not at ourselves, because I am perpetually amused at politicians — but at the Irish media who have drawn some extraordinary significance from a statement by a Fianna Fáil Deputy in the Dáil that he was a young, sexually active, Irish male. This was supposed to represent some significant step forward in Irish life although the man in question is married and has three children. If he was not sexually active I would be far more concerned about him. If he admitted to not being sexually active, there would be some significance in the statement. When the Irish media see some significance in a young, married, Irishman admitting to being sexually active, perhaps people, apart from politicians, need to look at the assumptions, perceptions, prissiness and underlying puritanism that still bedevils us.

On the serious issue of the transmission of AIDS the quibble one should always have is in pretending that there is a simple solution to its sexual transmission. Condoms, as everyone knows, provide considerable protection but they are not a guaranteed from of protection. They are a guaranteed powerful agent for reducing the spread of AIDS. Words like "responsibility" are still important. Even with something as joyful and liberating as sex, there is still an obligation on people to behave responsibly.

The tragedy is that the more irresponsible people are in the use of their sexuality, all the evidence is the less likely they are to use any form of protection. That does not get away from the fact that the first step would be to make contraceptives and condoms available to everybody who might conceivably use them in order to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Some prissy restrictions are inexplicable.

I am fascinated by the prohibition on the sale of condoms in sports centres catering for persons under the age of 17. Does that mean that shops which cater for persons under the age of 17 can sell contraceptives but that sports centres cannot? Why are people at more sexual risk in sports centres than they are in shops or in other retail outlets? I am intrigued by this. It is as if somebody asked what would be the areas in which somebody could catch us, sports centres were mentioned and included. Even the local sweet shop can sell condoms but, apparently, there is no moral hazard there. Is it that people think there are some hidden sexual undertones in sporting activities?

Condoms are one of the classic items which should be sold where the market exists. Where they are sold should be determined by the market and not by intrusive, meaningless regulations. If there is a demand for condoms in sports centres, which happen to be used by young people under 17, then condoms should be on sale there. These regulations assume the traditional position of the old moral guardians that these "things", as they would call them, are a source of encouragement to a form of behaviour. They are not. Anybody who has the sense of responsibility to avoid sexual activity, except when condom protection is available, has reached a level of sensible maturity which will mean that the availability of condoms will not be a determinant in their moral choices. That is what makes me wonder who is responsible for thinking up these regulations. Why should they not be sold from a mobile outlet? What is so risky about a mobile outlet? The only risk I can think of is the possibility of not enforcing standards but if that is the problem it should be stated explicity. Somebody also felt, presumably, that there would be these slightly dirty men outside pubs at night, slipping these things to people, perhaps at a reduced rate, in the interests of corrupting our youth.

It is difficult to see logic behind these restrictions, other than the inclusion of restrictions to satisfy people who might otherwise start complaining. Where is the logic in saying that there is something sensible about selling them in public houses, where the poor, unfortunate publican is overworked and under pressure late at night? As well as having to deal with drunken customers wanting more drink because of the approach of closing time, he will have to make sure that the people to whom he sells them are not under 17. People can be in public houses if they are under 17 years but they cannot drink. The mind boggles at this.

We should be grateful that something as vital to the protection of life as these can be dispensed safely and helpfully through a dispensing machine. Are we trying to impose yet another moral barrier that one might have to confront somebody known to one? Senator Murphy made a very valid point when he said that one should not confuse morality with privacy. People may be quite happy with their moral choices but may not feel that is the same as advertising them in the crowded conditions of their local public house late on a Saturday night.

I do not often feel out of place in my own country, I am very comfortable in Ireland. I do not share many of the views of the liberal wing of Irish society about its nature but this issue increasingly makes me feel that I am entirely out of touch, because I do not understand the logic behind legislation like this, the logic behind the age, access and outlet restrictions. I do not understand the logic behind prohibiting vending machines as if somebody had created a new totem of the image of Irish life, before which we must genuflect, stating, "no vending machines for condoms". This is the image we were going to preserve. This is the little relic of ourselves as we used to be that we are going to hang on to for another ten, 15 or 20 years. The image of ourselves as we used to be is that of a healthy people with a healthy attitude to sexuality, an attitude which was taken from us briefly for about 130 or 140 years but which we are now rediscovering. The little episode of the last 40 years of extreme puritanism is an even smaller episode in our history and now we are moving beyond it. Maybe in this legislation there is a hint of nostalgia, not for an Ireland that never really existed anyway but for the way we would have liked things to have been. This legislation would have been right and necessary even if the AIDS threat did not exist, because access to proper contraception is a necessary part of the healthy sexual development of any adult. Access to contraceptives should be a normal part of peoples' maturing. The choice should be part of that.

At some other stage I would like to have a serious discussion in this House about AIDS and about moral responses, personal responses, societal responses and responses in terms of medical care, etc. It is an enormous issue. I am not sure it is one to which our society has yet faced up to completely or adequately. It is an issue that deserves far more than legislation making condoms available, important though they be. This small piece of legislation is a statement of the fact that we no longer believe that these things are somehow inherently lethal and need to be handled with as much care as explosives. We have at least moved beyond that. As far as that goes, it is welcome. It is a pity that the Dáil is in recess because there are amendments that will be discussed which would simplify and make far more sense of this legislation.

The Bill, all the way through, refers to persons selling condoms. Both the 1979 Act and the 1985 Act, either by deliberate choice or by accident, are written in language that prohibits a limited company from selling condoms. For instance, pharmacies that are limited companies cannot sell condoms. This was confirmed for us at about 2 a.m. on the morning the 1985 Family Planning Bill went through this House by the then junior Minister at the Department of Health. At that time we had the spectacle of the then Senator Mark Killilea attempting to amend the legislation to let all limited companies sell contraceptives. I do not think that was his intent, but the effect of his amendment would have been to do so. I have not seen anything in this legislation which changes that. Maybe the interpretation has changed, or maybe the law has changed and I missed it, but it would be a great pity if even the limited liberalisation that is here were to be inhibited by such a technical omission.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Flood)

I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate over the past two days. I will briefly record, for the benefit of the House, the reasons for bringing forward the legislation we are discussing here as a matter of urgency at this time.

The Bill is primarily a response to public health issues. It is intended to reduce the spread of sexually transmissable diseases, notably HIV/AIDS. AIDS was identified as a clinical entity in 1981 and diagnosed cases have been reported to the Department of Health since 1982.

The epidemiological development of AIDS and HIV in Ireland is similar to that experienced in other Western European countries. From 1982 to 1985 cases were reported in homosexuals and haemophiliacs and the condition was seen as a largely imported disease. When seroprevalence monitoring became possible in 1985 it was apparent that the HIV virus was indigenous in the country and that a particular problem existed in relation to the spread of HIV infection in IV drug abusers.

To date we have 276 cases of AIDS reported, which meet the CDC/WHO definition. Some 1,223 people have tested HIV positive. The percentage of IV drug related cases is now 39.5 per cent of all cases as compared to 10.5 per cent in 1986. This movement of the epidemic towards the drug abuser has been accompanied by a steady increase in the number of heterosexual cases. Nine per cent of Irish cases are heterosexual. In 1986 we had no heterosexual cases in Ireland.

Positive tests are reported by the virus reference laboratory to the Department of Health each year. Of these, the number of heterosexual cases which have tested positive is increasing steadily. In 1986, 21 HIV positive heterosexual cases were reported. Since then the numbers have increased to 148 cases to date. Interestingly, the number of tests carried out on heterosexuals has trebled between 1987 and 1992, increasing from 7,638 to 20,850. It is not unreasonable to conclude from these figures that there is a movement of the disease away from the groups traditionally considered to be most at risk of contracting the infection to the wider community. In addition, using the heterosexual figures as an indicator, it would appear from the statistics regarding the numbers tested that an increasing number of heterosexuals are considering themselves to have been at risk of contacting the infection.

The number of cases of STDs notified to the Department of Health under the Infectious Diseases Regulations, 1981, show an increase also from 2,891 new cases in 1986 to 4,189 in 1990.

Clearly, the framework for the availability of condoms provided under the 1979 and 1985 Acts needed to be updated to respond to the situation which I have described.

The use of condoms in the fight against AIDS/HIV in particular has been endorsed by international fora, such as the WHO, and was addressed recently by the National AIDS Strategy Committee in their comprehensive review of our national AIDS strategy. The strategy committee highlighted the role of the condom as a primary measure in preventing the infection.

The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to update some of the provisions of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 and 1985. The 1979 Act was designed to deal in an acceptable and responsible way with a problem which had already been a matter of debate for some years and had culminated in a Supreme Court decision which involved a fundamental change in the law relating to the availability of contraceptives.

The Government in 1979 decided to avail of the opportunity, when introducing legislation made necessary by the Supreme Court decision, to legislate also for a full family planning service. It made provisions, inter alia, for; the orderly organisation of family planning services and the provision of a comprehensive natural family planning service; the making available by health boards of a family planning service, which was defined as a service for the provision of information, instruction, advice and consultation in relation to any one or more of the following: family planning, contraception and contraceptives.

Provision was also made for the sale of contraceptives in certain chemists shops to persons named in a prescription of authorisation given by a registered medical practitioner. The doctor had to be of the opinon in giving the prescription that the contraceptives were being sought for the purpose, bona fide, of family planning or for adequate medical reasons and in appropiate circumstances. The doctor had to indicate this on the prescription. The Act also made provisions with regard to the licensing of importers and manufacturers of contraceptives; the advertising and dispaly of contraceptives; and the funding of research into certain methods of contraception.

The 1979 Act was seen at that time as an appropriate legislative initiative, given that it set out a structure for the organisation of family planning services and introduced controls, considered necessary at the time, with regard to the sale of contraceptives.

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

The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act was introduced in 1985. It amended the 1979 Act by extending the right to sell contraceptives to doctors, employees of health boards, licensed family planning clinics, maternity hospitals and hospitals providing services for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. The Act provided that condoms and spermicides could be sold without prescription to persons over 18 years of age from the specified outlets.

The Minister, in his opening address outlined the main provisions of the Bill introduced last year by the Government. One of the main priorities of my Department is the fight against AIDS. My colleague, the Minister for Health, has overseen the completion of a set of recommendations from the National AIDS Strategy committee and funds have been provided for a number of responses to the issues raised.

The Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1991, has been examined in detail to ensure that it dealt adequately with public health problems and with a view to bringing the provisions of the 1979 Act more into line with current thinking and practice in so far as family planning issues are concerned.

I appreciate the concerns which the Government had last year in bringing forward the 1991 Bill and many features of it have been retained in the present Bill. I have always felt, however, from my own experience, and in the light of views which have been expressed since it was published, that a number of changes in this Bill were necessary. The Government have accorded priority attention because of the major public health issue at stake and the Government's concern that all action be taken to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The main change which has been introduced to the 1991 Bill are, first, the removal of the provisions with regard to spermicides. In the 1991 Bill it was intended that condoms and certain spermicides would be widely available without prescription. This provision had followed on from the 1985 Act which had allowed condoms and spermicides to be sold to persons over 18 years of age. The decision in 1985, was taken in the context of the desirability of using spermicides with certain condoms for contraceptive purposes. Spermicides however, have no prophylactic effect other than as contraceptives. They do not prevent the spread of sexually transmissable diseases. In fact, I would be concerned that were they to be used mistakenly for such purposes, they could lead to the transmission of such diseases, including AIDS. The Bill provides therefore that spermicides will in future come within the definition of a medical preparation to be governed by the provisions of the Health Act, 1947.

Second, in Section 4 of the Bill, the requirement that doctors must indicate on a prescription that a contraceptive is for the purposes, bona fide, of family planning is dropped. this provision originated in the 1979 Act when entirely different considerations prevailed. It is no longer considered appropriate to retain this requirement.

Third, the Bill lowers the age limit for the purchase of all contraceptives to 17 years and eliminates the requirement that married couples should have to obtain a prescription to buy contraceptives. Provision is made, therefore, in section 4 of the Bill, to exempt them from the prescription requirement.

Fourth, the role proposed for the Health boards is dropped from the Bill. There is no need for a registration system, as it will be clear from the outset, where condoms may be sold. A further change which has been made to the 1991 Bill involves the requirement that importers and manufacturers of condoms should hold a licence from the Minister for Health. The Minister does not see this as necessary. Instead of requiring that importers and manufacturers of condoms hold ministerial licences there is provision in section 4 of the Bill which enables the Minister to prescribe standards for contraceptives. It will be illegal to supply contraceptives which do not comply with these standards.

In the light of the debate in the Dáil last week, my colleague, the Minister for Health, moved a number of amendments to the 1992 Bill. I have already outlined these to the House, the main amendments being an amendment to enable the Minister to grant aid all types of family planning research and an amendment enabling the Minister to oversee the provision of a comprehensive family planning service by health boards and other bodies.

I would now like to refer back to some comments made by Senators in the course of this Second Stage debate. Senators referred to the exclusion of vending machines from the provisions of the Bill.

I consider that the Bill represents a balanced, appropriate and pragmatic response to the evolving public health situation in the context of AIDS/HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases——

Mr. Norris

Rubbish, indefensible rubbish, and the Minister knows it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzgerald)

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Flood

——while taking account of the reasonable concern of parents that their children would be exposed unduly to a situation which they consider to be unsuitable.

Mr. Norris

The Minister is more concerned about the parents then the children.

Mr. Flood

In this context, it would be impossible to have an adequate and necessary level of supervision over the availability of condoms if these were to be available freely from vending machines, street vendors or mobile outlets.

When developing this Bill, the Government did not consider it necessary to provide the total deregulation of condoms as being fundamental in the fight against AIDS/HIV.

It is essential in developing legislation that we act proportionately to the difficulties which we are addressing and it can be seen that the provision of section 5 of the Bill in particular are proportionate and appropriate towards addressing, in a balanced way, all of the complex issues surrounding the availability of condoms here.

Concomitantly, section 5 liberalises significantly the areas through which condoms may be sold. The effect of the section is that condoms may now be sold freely in almost all retail outlets to persons subject to the provisions of section 5 (1) (a).

A number of Senators raised the issue of age limits. The Bill provides that condoms may be supplied from a wide range of outlets and that the age at which persons could obtain condoms should be reduced from 18 years to 17 years. Senators are aware that parents have expressed reservations in regard to the Bill which related in the main to a reduction in the age limit below 17 years. We must take cognisance of the views and reservations of parents in implementing legislation which provides for the wider availability of condoms. We must strike the correct balance between the concerns of parents and the requirements to take measures to protect public health. The establishment of this age limit is, the result of many representations made by individual parents and not as a result of concerns expressed by any organisations.

The Bill, in the context of an age limit of 17, is consistent with the development of the preventative elements of the national aids strategy and the dictates imposed by the continuing high prevalence of other STDS and, I would stress, does not interfere with the right of married couples under the age of 17 years to obtain contraceptives freely. It also contains a provision which enables contraceptives to be sold to a person under the age of 17 years in respect of whom a prescription has been issued by a registered medical practitioner. The Bill, therefore, represents a major improvement on the 1979 and 1985 Acts and, rightly so, in the light of the public health requirements at the present time.

Senator Costello spoke of the need to refer specifically to the prophylactic effect of condoms and Senator Norris also referred to this issue. The accepted medical definition of a condom includes reference to "preventing infection". I am satisfied that the definition of contraceptive sheath in the Bill deals adequately with concerns in regard to their prophylactic effect.

Mr. Norris

It does not mention it.

Mr. Flood

Senator Costello also referred to the treatment of persons in prison who are HIV positive. The Minister for Justice has established a group to advise him on this and related issues. The National Aids Strategy Committee has also dealt with the matter in the recommendations they made to the Minister for Health recently. Their recommendations were forwarded to the Minister for Justice. I have no doubt that he is giving his full attention to the reports of both these groups.

Senator Cullen referred to the pluralist society in which we live. I am conscious that criticisms have been made of the 1979 Act in so far as it has been constructed, by certain groups, as sectarian. This is a matter of interpretation and there are several views on the matter. Last week, however, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, moved two amendments in the Dáil which were outlined for the House yesterday. They remove any doubts as to the possibility of a sectarian approach being adopted to the interpretation of the legislation by deleting references in the 1979 Act to "natural" methods of family planning.

Senator Ross made a very general speech about the Bill. He referred to an ethos which he considers to be inherent in the provision regarding the age limits in section 4 (1) (b) (ii) of the Bill and to the fact that persons under 17 years of age and who are married may obtain contraceptives freely. This matter, I had hoped, was clearly explained in the Minister's opening address.

I do not consider it appropriate that married couples should seek a prescription for non-medical contraceptives. This would be an unnecessary intrusion on their married lives. This is a sensible, pragmatic provision which is not underpinned by any particular ethos.

Senator O'Reilly raised the need for a sex education programme in schools. As the Senator will be aware, the Departments of Health and Education are currently implementing an aids education programme in secondary schools and as was mentioned in the Dáil last week, there will be a meeting with the Minister for Education shortly, to discuss the question of the education in schools.

Senator Harte, quite rightly, highlighted the role of a proper framework to deal with: treatment, care and management of persons with HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases; contact tracing; HIV testing and counselling; and support systems. Those services are not appropriate in a Bill which deals primarily with the wider availability of condoms in the context of the prevention of these infections.

The provision of services is implemented under the health Acts and I am glad to inform the Senator that all of the services which he has mentioned are being provided throughout the country.

In addition, over £3 million was recently allocated to the health services, including the voluntary sector, to implement the recommendations of the National AIDS Strategy Committee, towards delivering programmes and services relating to: prevention through education and information; care and management of infected persons; and support for infected persons and their families.

I regret that Senator Hederman feels that yesterday we were not taking the views of this House seriously. Reference was made to the enlightened and constructive views of Senators and I can assure the Senator that in the exercise of the considerable powers given to the Minister under the Act we will bear in mind the opinons expressed here during the course of this excellent debate.

Senators Dardis and O'Reilly mentioned the need for more rigid controls over cigarettes. While not relevant to this debate, I would like to put on the record of the House that the Department of Health have the most stringent and comprehensive anti-tobacco legislation in Europe. We are regarded as pioneers in this area, so much so that our legislation has been used as the basis for similar legislation by the EC and Canada. We have been successful through our legislation and information programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking in the adult population from 45 per cent in the mid seventies to 32 per cent at present.

Senator Ó Cuív mentioned the desirability of a monogamous relationship as the one sure way of avoiding HIV infection. This is, in fact, reflected in the Department's information programme on AIDS. For instance, the booklet entitled AIDS — The Facts in the section on “How to Avoid Infection” states: “Remain faithful to one sexual partner who is also faithful to you.” It is accepted, however, that this advice will not be heeded by everyone, so the Bill is designed primarily to ensure that condoms are as widely available and accessible to meet the problems being posed by HIV and AIDS.

Senator Doyle, in addition to addressing the points raised by other Senators about the age limit and the vending machines to which I have already responded, questioned the structures through which our AIDS strategy is being implemented. In view of the many facets of the AIDS problem and the responses required from various State and voluntary agencies, the National AIDS Strategy Committee was established to ensure that a co-ordinated and integrated inter-sectoral approach was adopted. The committee consists of experts from the voluntary sector, the health boards, the Government Departments of Health, Education and Justice and from virology and genito-urinary medicine and drug treatment. The Minister for Health, Deputy O'Donnell, is chairman of this committee and is in the position to provide leadership and drive to the delivery of the AIDS strategy. I am pleased to let Senator Doyle know that Dr. James Walsh, the former National AIDS Co-ordinator, whom she referred to, is a member of the committee. Dr. Walsh is also retained as a consultant to the Department of Health on AIDS issues.

Mr. Norris

Why is he still not National AIDS Co-ordinator?

Mr. Flood

Senator Norris also raised the question of employing regulations to introduce changes in the types of outlets which might supply condoms. These will be dealt with later on in the context of the amendments which will be discussed in detail on Committee Stage.

In conclusion, may I compliment all the Senators who contributed to this very wide-ranging debate. This Bill is a pragmatic and carefully considered response to a public health concern. I commend it to the House.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Costello, Joe.
• Harte, John.
• Murphy, John A.
• Norris, David.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Ryan, John.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Murphy and Norris.

Question declared carried.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.