Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1992

Vol. 133 No. 19

Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1992: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

SECTION 4.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1) (b), to delete lines 11 to 20.

—(Senator Norris.)

Mr. Norris

I was referring to a person under the age of 17 who can acquire condoms if he or she has obtained a prescription from a registered medical practitioner. This is not practicable in all circumstances. I disagree with Senator Dardis on the question of embarrassment. The embarrassment factor is extremely important. Not just people of my generation but younger people are embarrassed at the prospect of going to a doctor or talking to their parents about this matter and they may very well not acquire these contraceptives even when they need them.

Earlier I cited today's edition of the Evening Herald which published a survey of the sexual practices of young people. A young person is quoted as saying that he would use a condom but only if it was easily and freely available. Under no circumstances would he go to a chemist shop to get one because he would feel embarrassed. He said he would prefer to take the risk. I imagine the risk of which this person was talking was the risk of pregnancy to his girlfriend, but I imagine that he would also be aware of the considerable risk in not using the appropriate protection against disease.

I was extremely interested in what the Minister said and in the tone of his contribution. If one decoded it, he seemed to be saying that there has been a progression since 1979 when a Bill was introduced which was described as an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Then we moved to 1985 when there was a further degree of advance and liberalisation. In 1992 it is being pushed a little further and within a short space of time we may be able to deal with this matter in a more far-reaching manner. In 1979 we were dealing with a situation which was a result of a constitutional action. The climate was substantially different. Even I am saying things in 1992 which I would not have dreamt of saying in 1979. The context has changed very radically in this area because of the impact of disease. We must bear this in mind.

One would, of course, wish the Minister well in dealing with elements within Government who are not as yet able to take so progressive a view, perhaps because their minds are directed towards other areas which are critical to the Government of Ireland. If this Seanad can do anything to place at the Minister's disposal serious, cogent, well-argued cases for the Government to think again, then the Seanad will have performed its function. Some of us, including the Minister and I, have regrettably and tragically had direct access to the effect of this disease. I wish I had the eloquence of the man I visited on his death bed last Tuesday to present the evidence. I do not believe there is anybody inside or outside this House who is inhuman enough not to take every possible precaution to ensure that that unfortunate but wonderful man's death is not unnecessarily repeated in other cases.

Mrs. Doyle

I refer to the Minister's defence of his position on this amendment. I am firmly of the view that there should not be an age limit in this Bill. We are stuck with trying to make sense of the Minister's defence of his decision to impose an age limit of 17. If, because of parental concern, the Minister feels there has to be an age specified, why 17? Are parents not concerned that 16 is the age for consensual sex? Under this legislation 17 is the age at which young people can use condoms. Is that not a matter of concern to parents? What do people between the age of 16 and 17 use if they want to have consensual sex? It is totally illogical to introduce the age of 17. If there is any merit in introducing an age limit, it should be 16, not 17. The Minister's defence makes nonsense of what he is trying to achieve in this Bill.

The Minister says we must move forward in easy stages which the public at large can digest. He pointed to the legislation of 1985 as being a little more liberal than that of 1979 and to this Bill as being yet a little more liberal. There has been a major change between 1979 or 1985 and today. Even in 1985 AIDS was not the public health issue, the scourge, that it is today. That changes entirely the complexion of the debate on this issue. I would ask the Minister to address that point, as well as the illogicality of specifying the age of 17.

Minister for Health (Dr. O'Connell)

On the question of embarrassment, I will accept that sex is a topic which the public were loth to discuss. Perhaps these debates will help to bring discussion into the open. We would go a long way by having these contraceptives on display and encouraging people to buy them as they require them. Who would have thought five or seven years ago that this could have been discussed as it is being discussed now?

Senator Dardis said there was no embarrassment on the part of young people. Senator Norris spoke recently about going into a pharmacy to buy condoms. He in his own way bringing the matter into the open so that people can discuss it. We can overcome the problem of embarrassment.

Senator Doyle mentioned the age of 17 years. There is a problem in specifying any age. Why should 18 years be the age of criminal responsibility? Why should it not be seven or 12 years? The feeling was that parents would have some control over their offspring up to the age of 17. At the age of 17 they should be mature adults, capable of making their own decisions. This belief was widely held. Fianna Fáil have 53 per cent of the vote and they know the feelings of the grassroots. They know the way people think. The feeling is that the public were anxious that decisions, when they were made——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. O'Connell

I will say without digressing too much that we have come a long way from the 1979 to 1985 position.

Mrs. Doyle

There was no AIDS then.

Dr. O'Connell

I know that, but I would like to think that parents have some control over their children up to the age of 17 and I believe they have.

Mrs. Doyle

Sex is legal at 16.

Dr. O'Connell

If they feel that there is a danger, they can consult their doctor and get some advice, not necessarily just about condoms but about the dangers involved. If parents feel embarrassed even discussing it with their children they can refer them to the family doctor, who will give them the necessary medical advice and act as counsellor in a situation like that. I will rest my case on that. In a court of law maybe I would not win but luckily that is not the case here. I wish to highlight for Senator Norris that I have given £3 million towards the campaign against AIDS recently.

Question put: "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 15.

Tá

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

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Norris, David.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Ryan, John.
• Upton, Pat.

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

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. Norris

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, subsection (1), lines 37 to 43, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) The Minister, may now or at a future date, make an order extending the range and type of outlet through which the sale of condoms could be permitted, including vending machines."

This amendment would give the Minister the capacity that I believe he would probably like to have, that is, by ministerial order or regulation to introduce something that basically the entire House knows is necessary.

I know that the Government have to go into a certain degree of pretence in these matters. When they feel that they have to introduce legislation, they have to produce a justificiation for it. The language used is very interesting. The Minister of State, Deputy Flood, in responding to comments made about vending machines said:

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, conscious of AIDS, HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases, while taking into account the reasonable concern of parents

I am not going to reopen that argument, which we have dealt with. The reasons that people such as myself feel strongly about the subject of parental responsibility have already been placed extensively on the record, so I shall ignore that issue completely. The Minister also said:

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.

He subsequently talked about the issue of control. What is required is completely the reverse. It is not a question of seeking to have supervision or control. Supervision and control are required in circumstances in which the substance or the object being discussed is in itself intrinsically dangerous. The intrinsic purposes of these materials are to promote health. Instead of supervision, control and restriction, we should have the widest possible distribution.

I am sure the Minister is aware that in many European countries Government agencies are entering schools and actively promoting the sale of condoms. I think the exercise of supervision, control and restriction is completely the wrong way to deal with the matter, that what we should be doing is promoting the use of condoms for those who are already sexually active.

I shall come back to the question of embarrassment. The Minister may well know of the novels of Tom Sharpe, the English comic novelist. Some years ago I put one of those novels on the syllabus in the university, Porterhouse Blues, an acadmic satire which deals basically with life in an Oxbridge college. The mock hero dies tragically, partly as a result of the pursuit of condoms. In fact, in the 1980s, he, an English metropolitian figure in one of the Oxbridge colleges, is so embarrassed to ask for a condom that he has his hair cut about six times and is completely scalped. The events are slightly humorous, but even in this debate, dealing with a tragic situation, one is entitled to refer to works of comic fiction. The important point in this context is that we are told that even a postgraduate student in an Oxbridge college, who was writing a thesis on the rise of the pumpernickel in Westphalia in the 17th Century, was deeply embarrassed, and Sharpe regards his illustration as a representative experience.

I am quite certain that many young people would be embarrassed to go to chemist shops and so on and that the best way of dispensing condoms is through vending machines. In our society there is quite a heavy social emphasis on alcohol. People go out to pubs socially in the evenings and quite frequently they may meet somebody, which meeting leads to the kind of experience described by the young man called Stephen in the Evening Herald article that I read earlier. It may be that those people just would not be bothered going through the required contortions to get a condom and a condom would not be purchased unless there were availability through a vending machine.

I believe that the Minister is well aware that the people of Ireland, the "grassroots" to which the Minister referred, are moving to instal condom vending machines in places of public resort. I hope that the Minister does not worry too much about the oft referred to "grassroots". One can pay to much obeisance to the grassroots. I remember a cocktail party in North Great George's Street in which I referred to the grassroots in a way that I thought would——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind the Senator that he is drifting quite a distance from the amendment.

Mr. Norris

I know, but the Minister would appreciate this story. I made a reference that I thought would impress one of the other guests with my contact with the reality of political life. I said "One must consider the grassroots". The other guest said "If you will excuse me, could I tell you what a grassroot is? A grassroot is a hayseed surrounded by bullshit".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not have used that word; it is unparliamentary.

Mr. O'Reilly

On Second Stage I put forward and in both the Dáil and the Seanad my party put forward support for the concept of condom vending machines for one or two reasons.

First, we feel that the people who are most at risk from the infection of the AIDS disease, those who are most likely to contract and spread AIDS, would be more likely to have access to and use contraception if they had access to a vending machine. The likelihood of people using condoms is greater when there is availability of a vending machine, given that at the particular time that they decide to have sexual intercourse — whether they be in a nightclub, a bar or some other social meeting place — it is unlikely that they would go to purchase condoms from a legitimate outlet. To maximise the likelihood that potential AIDS victims or AIDS carriers would use condoms, we felt that the best solution would be to make vending machines available.

I accept the thesis that on the part of our youth there is now a lesser inhibition in relation to sexual activity and in relation to contraception. I should like to speak about an older age group as well. In this regard I think very much of women in the 35 to 50 years age group, people who have come from a different set of youth experiences and who may perhaps have very real inhibitions when it came to purchasing condoms from the proposed outlets. Unfortunately, it is often left to women to organise contraception and family planning. I can understand that a person in their early forties might have a real inhibition about going to the local chemist or newsagent, with whom they have dealt for many years, to ask for a packet of condoms.

It is the view of my party, and it is very much my own personal view as a teacher and as a person concerned about young people, that the ideal is to have a responsible attitude to sex, to have good sex education, to eliminate promiscuous activities to the greatest possible degree and to encourage proper life relationships. That is what we all aspire to and work for, whether we come from the profession from which the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, comes or from the education field, as does Senator Mullooly opposite me, or from any other sector. All of us here as fulltime politicians are concerned with the achievement of that ideal situation. However, we also have to legislate for that which is not the ideal, for the reality. The reality is that we have a large number of young, sexually active people who are greatly at risk from the disease of AIDS and among whom there is also a real chance of potentially destructive and tragic teenage pregnancies. We have to provide condoms at the centre that is most likely to get to the vulnerable group and the potentially at risk group. It is obvious that the way to do that is to provide vending machines in discreet locations at the traditionally used night spots of young people.

When I worked in the emigrant communities in England and in New York, which I did for two and a half years in all, it was my experience that the Irish community and a large number of other communities there lived responsible personal lives and excellent family lives and they did that in the midst of the complete availability of contraception. That is the experience I gained from working for a number of summers in bars over there, which I found a wonderfully enjoyable experience as a young person. It is a fallacy to suggest that vending machines would cause promiscuity — the promiscuity comes first. The argument that some people have been putting up in that regard is not logical.

Dr. Upton

I agree with what has been said by Senator Norris and Senator O'Reilly. I cannot understand why there should be a problem in relation to making condoms available from vending machines. I consider that to be a sensible, practical approach to the way that the world now is. The availability of condoms from vending machines would increase the access of young people to condoms, especially when one considers that there would be vending machines in the places at which young people congregate in a social setting that might lead on to sexual intercourse later in the evening. I am disappointed that the Minister has seen fit to exclude availability from vending machines and I think that that will inhibit his campaign against AIDS.

I am also very interested in the emphasis that seems to be placed on the availability of condoms from public houses and so on. In many ways that is perhaps curious. I am reminded of the Shakespearean quotation in which it is stated in relation to alcohol "Lechery, Sir, it provokes and unprovokes. It provokes the desire and it inhibits the performance."

Mr. B. Ryan

Let us get a couple of things straight. Contraception is not a necessary evil. Contraception is a good thing. It is something that has liberated women from a male-imposed burden of childbirth. It has liberated couples from the fear of pregnancy in circumstances that pregnancy is not wanted. There is a certain "prissiness" running through this debate that somehow contraception is a necessary evil that has to be tolerated a little more now because of the horrible threat of AIDS. The devices we are talking about here are things that in the vast majority's of people's lives and at most times in history have been good things for those who have used them. They have made lives better, more fulfilled, less threatened and less unhealthy. They are not some kind of evil on the margins of society that must be tolerated to a limited extent. These devices were not invented because of AIDS — in the case of condoms they happened fortuitously to be extremely useful in the fight against the spread of AIDS. Condoms are useful devices in themselves in preventing unwanted pregnancy and in enabling people to have a much more healthy and much less troubled relationship than they would otherwise have. As everyone else seems to be putting quotations on the record, I should like to state my disagreement with Philip Larkin. In the way that we in the House are talking one would think that Philip Larkin was right when he said that sexual intercourse began in 1963.

Dr. Upton

At the time of Twiggy and before the Beatles' first LP.

Mr. B. Ryan

No, between the ban on Lady Chatterley's Lover and the Beatles first LP. Sex was not invented then. It was never invented, it has been part of us since humanity evolved. Perhaps the whole history of the peculiarities of our attitudes to sex has as much to do with primeval fears about the propagation of the species as with morality. It is time we acknowledged that sex and procreation, necessarily and rightly, should be divorced from each other. I cannot understand how it is morally superior not to have vending machines but hopefully to have condoms freely available on the shelves of every supermarket in the State. One would hope that would be the prevailing position. I hope that is what the Minister has in mind. The whole issue is really beyond me at this stage. I begin to feel a stranger in my own land.

Like most people in this House I am a parent. I know many parents and I do not know any parents who have these worries. The parents I know believe that the only way their children will develop healthy and responsible attitudes to something as vital as sexuality in their lives is by persuasion, example and good, solid education based on good solid values. Most of those parents long ago concluded that if their children decide to act promiscuously legislature changes of the kind we are talking about will not make a damn bit of differences to their lifestyles, but persuasion will.

It appears to me that Senator Norris's amendment is an enabling one. All these restrictions should be eliminated. They are all meaningless and cannot work. I do not think anybody is going to start selling contraceptives in schools just because the Minister does not make it illegal. I know sufficient about the ethos of most Irish schools to believe it will be a long time before that sort of thing happens. In the case of a minority of schools where parents and boards of management hold different views who are we to tell them that we know better?

Mr. Costello

The amendments the Labour Party propose effectively have the same purpose as the deletion proposed by Senator Norris. We are proposing in a different way, to delete certain sections and to allow, under regulation, to delete the section if the Minister so wishes in the future. If the Minister is intransigent about not amending this Bill in regard to the outlets that are specified in it, it is important that he should have authority to do so at a later stage. The Minister should be ready to do so within a week or two of the Bill being passed.

As in the case of the definition of "contraceptive" and as in the case of the cutoff age, we are presenting obstacles to their location, sale and distribution contrary to the intention of the Bill, as stated by the Minister. In other words, we are contending that the Bill's purpose is to ensure that disease does not spread, that precautions are taken and that condoms have a major role to play in that exercise. At the same time we are taking certain discretionary steps rendering that task more difficult to achieve. We are anxious to tackle the problem but, because of some psychological barrier, we are unable to enshrine in legislation proper and thorough methods to do this. Therefore, we have inserted certain limitations . Senators should note where those limitations are imposed — precisely where young people are likely to congregate in sports clubs, or dance halls, where vending machines would likely to be located. We are limiting the likely success of the Bill by imposing these limitations.

How will the Minister define, say secondary schools, which have specialised in post-leaving certificate courses in his constituency, let us say, in Ballyfermot, or in Clogher Road, and have provided courses that are not third level in a sense are not quite second level, but in which the students will be 17, 18 and perhaps 19? There are up to 20,000 such courses being provided in secondary schools in the country. Let us take the example of the vocational school in Cabra which began as a secondary school and has Junior and Senior cycles. It is now specialising in post-leaving certificate courses. Certainly under the terms of the Green Paper on Education all second level schools will be defined as secondary schools. I note that the terminology used in the Bill is "secondary school." Here is an example of an institution that began as a secondary school, remains a secondary school but became a school that caters for 17 and 18 years olds. What will the Minister do there?

The norm, once puberty is reached, is that youngsters are likely to become sexually active. Abstinance may have been the preferred norm in the past but sexuality is a healthy aspect of human nature which must be recognised. If we are to ensure that human sexuality is normalised and became part of our educational system, then we must ensure that our youngsters are healthily aware of the sexual aspect of their lives, something which will be part and parcel of their livestyles. Obviously then, we must take into consideration the manner in which we make condoms and contraceptives available to them.

Dr. O'Connell

On the issue of vending machines, I had to take into account the feelings and reasonable concerns of parents that their children would not be exposed unduly to circumstances which their parents would consider to be unsuitable or inappropriate for them. The main concern was accessibility to condoms, which it was feared would arouse curiousity, older children showing them to younger children, thereby orientating their minds to sex.

Senators must admit that this Bill constitutes a major step forward in ensuring the much wider availability of condoms in almost all retail outlets. It will be clearly seen that I have endeavoured in no small way to meet the needs of those who require them. In case the Labour Party are not aware, their deputy leader did acknowledge that fact, that the Bill constituted a major step forward. We must consider it in that light.

Senators have proposed the insertion of a provision enabling the Minister to prohibit the sale of condoms in certain places. This would be against the rationale of the provisions of the Bill and I do not intend to accept such a proposal.

I was interested in what Senator Norris sought. Senator Norris wishes to oppose section 5. If we deleted that section we would be reverting to the position that obtains at present, that is that condoms would be available for sale only from the same outlets as other contraceptives, that is from pharmacies, health boards, family planning clinics, general practitioners and hospitals. Their sale could not be affected through any other outlet if Senator Norris's amendment were to be accepted. I am sure that is not what the Senator had in mind in opposing section 5. Nonetheless, that would be the position. We would be reverting to the provisions of the 1979 Act, which none of us would want. Senator Norris's amendment No. 5 would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill which is to extend the range of outlets. I think everyone will agree on that. It represents an appropriate response to the circumstances prevailing and in that way serves an important need.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Norris

Yes.

Question put: "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• 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

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Norris, David.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

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

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, before section 6, to insert the following new section:

"6.—Section 7 of the Principal Act (which restricts the advertising of contraceptives) is hereby repealed.".

This amendment repeals the advertising restrictions in the Principal Act, in other words, it seeks to control the advertising of condoms in the same way as other forms of advertising are controlled. If I remember correctly, there is a provision that advertisements should be honest and decent and have other attributes along those lines. We believe that the advertising of condoms should be treated in the same way as every other form of merchandise. The consumer legislation in regard to advertising should also apply to condoms. We are seeking to demystify these devices and to treat them as part of everyday life. They should not be in a category which requires special restrictions and controls. They should not have a special aura and advertising them should be controlled and restricted in the same way as everything else.

Mr. B. Ryan

This amendment is long overdue and I congratulate the Labour Party for introducing it. This amendment would not allow a deluge of advertising contraceptives. The Advertising Standards Authority have extraordinarily strict rules as evidenced by the very restrictive, recently introduced permission to advertise something as normal as sanitary towels which could not be advertised on television or radio until recently because someone thought it would give offence. In that sort of moral climate of adjudication of what is tasteful or offensive, the likelihood of any extensive advertising at times — or in locations — which would make it offensive to anyone is, to say the least, limited.

There is also an underlying assumption about the severe restriction on advertising of contraceptives and puts them in the category of things like tobacco which is inherently dangerous, which contains nothing good and which harms everyone with whom it comes in contact. Alcohol can be very pleasurable but it can also do great damage. The use of contraceptives will not harm anyone apart from a metaphysical, moral judgment about the appropriateness of using such devices. However, not even the strongest moralist could advocate that the use of contraceptives, particularly those available without a doctor's prescription which, after the passage of this Bill, will be condoms only, will do any physical harm.

It is peculiar that something which nobody believes can do any harm physically should be restricted in advertising. A condom will not harm anyone but it might do good to a person and his or her sexual partner if it is used responsibly. It is extraordinary that there are more restrictive prohibitions and constraints on advertising something which at best is physically neutral and in many cases positively good physically than things like tobacco which harms thousands of people every year. That suggests that our priorities are based on a moral order of what is appropriate.

A youngster is far more likely to do himself harm smoking cigarettes from the age of 12 than from limited sexual experimentation protected by the use of a condom. I would prefer young people to be a bit less wary about sex and a lot more wary about tobacco. The lives of many people would be much less at risk if they had safe, protected contraceptive sex than if they all started smoking at 12 years, doing themselves perhaps irreparable damage. Therefore, it seems nonsensical to have restrictions on the advertising of contraceptives when other things which are far more life-threatening are left relatively uninhibited. I appreciate that there are restrictions on tobacco advertising, but we do not yet have a prohibition on tobacco advertising and it is still possible to advertise it in many ways.

Mr. O'Reilly

I agree that alcohol and nicotine are life-threatening and very much in need of control in their advertising. I made the point on Second Stage that I believed if this Bill had included the aspects we appealed to the Minister to include, it would have been the final word on contraception. In this area we hope it will be almost the final word. I hope that when this Bill is enacted we will be able to get away from the contraception and condom debate which has gone on for the last 20 years and which has sapped the intellectual, moral and social energies of so many people. It has been absolutely bizarre.

It would be wonderful if we could extend — I am in the licensed trade and proud of it — our views to other areas of morality for a change. Take, for instance, the morality of a situation where a spouse spends 60 per cent of the family income on alcohol, or the morality of cigarettes bring readily available to very young children who have absolutely no sense in regard to their use. That is the kind of debate we would like to see replacing the contraceptive debate.

If we are to be consistent with the stated position of the Minister at the outset that the objective of this Bill is essentially part of a drive against AIDS, which is also the viewpoint of the World Health Organisation, then the logical corollary is to allow advertising. It is not logical to use condoms as part of the fight against AIDS without altering our laws on advertising. That would appear to be a sine qua non for a fight against AIDS. It would not be fruitful to elaborate further on the matter except to say that we are talking about simple logic.

Mr. Norris

I should like the Minister to clarify a question for me. I have just borrowed the bound volume of the Principal Act from my colleague, Senator O'Reilly. From my reading of it, what we are talking about appears to have already been enacted. I am not sure if this is the case, but section 12 (4) states:

Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended by the deletion in paragraph (b) of "the unnatural prevention of conception or", and "prevention or", and the said section 9 (1), as so amended, is set out in the Table to this subsection.

Perhaps the Minister and his advisers could confirm whether, by the operations of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979, the prohibition on advertisements has already been removed, which would suggest that it might have been more sensible to have moved amendment No. 11. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that amendment, which also dealt with advertising. Some years ago, when I became aware of the situation regarding AIDS, I was involved in a group through the Hirschfeld Centre and we printed 250,000 leaflets on safe sex. I wrote to the then Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, pointing out that the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, was continued by the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, and that the precise things referred to in Senator O'Reilly's amendment — the fixing of public notices about any disease affecting the generative organs of either sex, or any complaint of infirmity arising from or relating to sexual intercourse or the prevention and removal of irregularities in menstruation — were in fact prohibited, but that we were going to go ahead and advertise. It seems to me that that is something which may still need to be looked at.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Finneran)

The Senator is referring to amendment No. 11, which was not moved.

Mr. Norris

That is known as parliamentary sleight of hand and I know it is something which the Minister greatly appreciates. Perhaps he could tell me whether the question of advertising contraceptives was dealt with and is now free of restriction. I urge that the advertising of contraceptives be made part of the programme. I believe that we could seriously look to the Swedish and general Scandinavian model, where they dealt with this in a way that had an impact directly on young people by including a certain degree of visual stimulants and humour on television.

Mr. Costello

I should like the same clarification as was requested by Senator Norris. The focus of the amendment is to ensure that the stated purpose of the Bill would be implemented — in other words, that there would be no restrictions on advertising. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that contraceptives are available at certain outlets for a purpose, to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of infectious diseases.

As part of the process of normalisation and to ensure that contraceptives become an acceptable normal item of merchandise, their purchase should not be controlled by restrictions on advertising that would put them in the class of a controlled drug which had certain dangerous implications or effects. That is the thrust of this amendment, although we can rely on the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that that is done with discretion, proper sensitivity and so on. The other side of the coin is that, even if there is a certain truth in what Senator Norris said in relation to the matter being covered to an extent already under the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979, nevertheless we must ensure that advertising is part of the promotional, educational and awareness activity in relation to dealing with the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. It should be an inherent part of the AIDS material being presented to the targeted population; it is all part and parcel of the issue. Advertising should not be restricted, but should be an inherent and useful element of the process of education, the dissemination of information and the accessibility of contraceptives.

Dr. O'Connell

I do not intend to repeal section 7 of the Principal Act, but the 1980 regulations will be replaced by new regulations which will take into account exactly what the Senators have been saying, and these will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I agree with Senators as regards the availability of contraceptives and condoms.

Dr. Upton

For a while I thought we might have attacked a windmill, or indeed that we might have launched into a white elephant. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the amendment is coherent, and that he plans to change the regulations which control advertising and to liberalise them in accordance with our objectives. That is a step forward and is very much to be welcomed. I am pleased that the capacity exists in the present law to permit that.

Mr. O'Reilly

As somebody who supported the amendment I also would like to be associated with Senator Upton's remarks in relation to what is a satisfactory solution. Since it is coming close to the end of the debate, I want to put on record my party's appreciation of the very thorough response we have been getting on the Bill and the worthwhile discussion which took place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. B. Ryan

On that question there are two points. I do not want to be too contentious late in the night, but I have never seen a Minister so weakly supported by the members of his own party, as this Minister has been for the last two and a half to three hours today. I do not know whether it is a sign of a conversion to liberalism, or a conversion to silence, either of what would be uncharacteristic of Fianna Fáil, or whether it was just that they were a little bit wary of it. The Minister was left largely on his own, and I have never seen it happen before. Secondly, I wish that the other party in Government who were so good on the liberal rhetoric had actually been here to vote on some of the amendments, which would have tested their liberal rhetoric and would have made them decide which side they were on, instead of going missing.

Dr. Upton

To follow what Senator Ryan said, I suppose it is difficult for any of us in politics to even be conspicuous by our presence. The Progressive Democrats have achieved what is the antithesis of that; they have become conspicuous by their absence, it is to be noted.

I thank the Minister for the way he handled the debate. He remained courteous and pleasant throughout the debate, but unfortunately he was not in a position to accept any of our amendments. I also thank the Minister for the attitude he has adopted towards this issue over the years. It is a pity that he was not able to go a bit further. I fully accept that his heart is in the right place. The Minister has been courteous over the many years that I have know him in politics both inside these buildings and indeed outside them.

Mr. Fitzgerald

We on the Fianna Fáil side of the House certainly support the Minister and the Bill, as well as the efforts the Minister is making in trying to get rid of AIDS with the help of this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the way that he has dealt with the various amendments and questions on this Bill.

Mr. Norris

I join with what my colleagues have said and I also thank the Minister and his advisers for their courtesy and the very well informed way in which they dealt with the material of the Bill. I hope that by our discussions here this evening we have armed the Minister with strong and very deeply felt reasons with which he can go back to Cabinet and urge further extensions of legislation like this in the interest of the Irish people.

Mr. O'Reilly

I will not detain the House. When I was summing up on the last amendment I put on record my appreciation of the role of the Minister in this matter. As I said on Second Stage, I hope we can abandon this kind of discussion now. I would like to see the Minister back in the House in the autumn for a very comprehensive debate on the health services. I am very serious about this. In the context of that debate, I hope we would look at the way we are spending——

Acting Chairman

Senator, may I remind you now that your comments are supposed to be on the content of the Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

It is pertinent. We should abandon this type of focus and consider how we can get the money which goes into health to the patients in the wards. That is not happening. I would like to have the Minister back in the autumn for a discussion on how we look after our teenage children who become pregnant. That is a far more relevant debate than the nonsense which is going on.

Mr. Costello

In response to Senator Fitzgerald's claim that Fianna Fáil members were not their vocal selves in this legislation, as they have been on other legislation, may I say that the junior partners were very vocal in their protestations that this was not their type of legislation at all, but that it was the senior partners' legislation.

The Bill is not all bad and we welcome certain aspects of it. There is no doubt that it is a step forward. The purpose of the exercise here, because the Dáil has risen, was to tease out some of the absurdities in the Bill, and highlight the fact that the Bill is already out of date. We know that to an extent the Minister is prisoner of circumstances, but we can see that progress will be made in relation to a number of the matters that we teased out.

I thank the Minister very much for the way he handled the debate, for his courtesy and for the good work that was done by the advisers. I was glad to be here on this occasion discussing this legislation.

Mr. McKenna

I compliment the Minister on the way he has brought this legislation through the House and indeed congratulate him and compliment him on his performance as Minister for Health since he assumed that very important portfolio.

Briefly, in reply to Senators Ryan and Costello, they should not make assumptions on the basis that we relied on the expertise and undoubted ability of the Minister to answer any questions which he did without any help or assistance from anybody. There is a lot of rhetoric and hot air in this House; but when it comes to going through the lobbies, that is when one really finds where the support is. I assure the Minister that if at any time during the debate, he needed any assistance, he would certainly have got it from this side of the House.

Minister for Health (Dr. O'Connell)

I thank all the Senators for their very constructive criticism, for the courtesy shown towards me and for their forbearance. I am afraid that in a court of law I would have lost the case but luckily I am not in a court. Thank you all very much.

Question put and agreed to.