Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1993

Vol. 137 No. 2

Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

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

I am very glad to introduce this Bill to the Seanad. This House has taken considerable interest in preventive measures to contain the spread of AIDS since the recognition of the virus as a specific entity. There has been a number of motions on the topic the most recent of which was on 5 May this year when a motion put down by Senators Norris, Henry and O'Toole was debated. During that constructive and balanced debate the need for effective preventative programmes was stressed time and again. Speakers emphasised the necessity for a media campaign which would provide clear information for all sections of the community on how to avoid infection. They also expressed support for making condoms more easily available and for an expansion of the free needle exchange programme.

In the course of my colleague, the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy O'Dea's response to that debate, he outlined my commitment to developing an AIDS strategy which would be responsive to our needs. He set out the preventative programmes which were in place and outlined upcoming developments, including a multi-media campaign on HIV prevention which I have recently launched, and the developments in the risk reduction services in the drug abuse area. He also informed the House of the Government's decision to amend the Health (Family Planning) Acts to liberalise the availability of condoms and of my proposal to bring a new Bill in that regard before the Oireachtas.

The Senators are, of course, aware that all Stage of this Bill passed in the Dáil on 3 June following an incisive, interesting and constructive debate which was massively supportive of the proposed changes in the existing legislation. I am pleased, therefore, to commend this Bill to an Seanad and I am glad of the opportunity to remind the House of the reasons the Bill is before it today.

The two main elements for an effective programme to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus are proper and non-moralistic programmes of education directed at the various sections of the community and legislation to remove the restrictions on the purchase of condoms. On 24 May I launched the new AIDS media campaign which deals in a clear, unambiguous fashion with the role of the condom in preventing HIV. This campaign is directed at all sexually active people. It is complemented by other measures aimed at various groups within the community, such as drug abusers.

The Bill before the House is clear in its content and its intent. It provides for greater access to condoms at a time when there is clear evidence that they are an effective barrier against the spread of HIV. I am very pleased, therefore, to bring the legislation before the Seanad. It demonstrates both my commitment and that of the Government to rationalise family planning legislation initially in so far as this is required for public health reasons but ultimately in regard to all family planning issues. I propose to look at the broader issue of family planning as part of an overall strategy for health which is currently being developed in the Department of Health and which I hope to have completed before the end of this year.

As my Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, outlined on 5 May, the Bill is necessary for public health reasons as it is a means of tackling the problems of HIV/AIDS, and indeed, other diseases which are sexually transmitted. In Ireland, we have an increasing number of persons who are testing positive for HIV. To date, a total of 1,375 persons have tested positive and it is accepted that this figure understates the true situation.

We extended the HIV surveillance programme in October 1992 to include the analysis of blood, on an anonymous, unlinked basis, which is taken at antenatal clinics for routine clinical purposes and which is surplus to requirements. We propose to extend the programme, on a phased basis, to include blood taken at STD clinics and hospital in-patient and out-patient clinics in an effort to develop as comprehensive a picture as possible of the prevalence and spread of the infection in Ireland. I am not satisfied that the current data available gives me that comprehensive picture.

Our current data base indicates that the infection is largely present in certain groups of the population — intravenous drug users, homosexuals, haemophiliacs and, to a lesser extent, in heterosexuals. In the latter, there is a steady presence of new HIV positive cases. There is no cure for AIDS. We must make a concentrated effort, therefore, to ensure that those who are not infected remain so and to ensure that those who have contracted the virus do not transmit it to others.

People generally are now aware that the main routes of transmission are through sexual intercourse or through sharing needles while abusing intravenous drugs. Even though they are aware of these facts many, nonetheless, continue to put themselves at risk of exposure to the virus. We must encourage these people to behave in ways which will reduce or eliminate this risk. We know that the surest way of avoiding sexually transmitted HIV infection is by being faithful to one person who is also faithful to you, assuming that neither person has shared needles while injecting drugs. However, there are sexually active people who do not adhere to these guidelines for behaviour and they must be encouraged to behave responsibly. Our National AIDS Strategy places a strong emphasis on primary and secondary prevention.

Our primary prevention programmes are designed to prevent persons from becoming infected in the first place and education and information are key components in HIV/AIDS primary prevention programmes. So, too, is easy access to condoms.

Our secondary prevention programmes are aimed at preventing the transmission from an infected person to persons who are not infected and this is implemented through risk-reduction services, such as Outreach, methadone availability, needle exchange, condoms and counselling. In programmes to prevent HIV, and other sexually transmissible diseases, it is recognised and accepted that a good quality condom, properly used, is the most effective prophylactic against these diseases. It is essential, therefore, that people be aware of the role of condoms as an effective prophylactic and that sexually active persons are not discouraged from using them by restrictions placed on their availability.

The main purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to provide for improved access to condoms, as a necessary and practical response to the evolving HIV/AIDS problem here. The Bill implements the recommendations of the National AIDS Strategy Committee, which called for the supply of condoms through vending machines. It also bring us into line with public mores and thinking in Ireland and with the situation in other EC member states, where condoms are supplied through vending machines. I would point out to the Senators that the most recent survey of public opinion on this matter in the Sunday Press a fortnight ago showed a huge majority in favour of this legislation and this is heartening to note.

The Bill provides for the amendment of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979, which is the Principal Act, and for the amendment of the Health (Family Planning) Amendment Act, 1992, as follows: (i) the removal of controls over the supply of condoms; (ii) the exclusion of condoms from the definition of contraceptive; and (iii) the provision of enabling powers to the Minister for Health to regulate the location of vending machines for condoms and to prescribe standards for them. I am also taking the opportunity, in the Bill, to remove the licensing requirements to import and manufacture other contraceptives.

Section 1 of the Bill defines "contraceptive sheath" to include condoms for men and women. Senators will recall that the position under the legislation of the female condom was raised by me during the Oireachtas debates last year. I have included the female condom in the definition of "contraceptive sheath" under section 2 of this Bill to ensure that it is excluded from the legal controls. Section 2 amends the definition of "contraceptive" to exclude condoms, thereby removing the controls over their sale and supply altogether.

As a result of the exclusion of condoms from the definition of contraceptive under section 2, I am proposing, in section 8 of the Bill, to repeal sections 5 and 6 of the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1992. These are necessary and consequential on the proposed new definition. The effect of this will be to remove the controls in section 5 of the 1992 Act, which prohibited the sale or supply of condoms to persons aged under 17 years, or from certain outlets, such as vending machines, mobile outlets or street vendors. It will also remove the controls contained in section 6 of the Act relating to the age limit of 17 years of persons to whom condoms could be supplied for resale. I consider the amendment of the definition of "contraceptive" and the consequent removal of the control over condoms arising from this and the repeal of section 5 of the 1992 Act as being extremely important developments, not alone in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but also towards ensuring that the State is now retreating from unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of its citizens.

In the context of HIV/AIDS, these proposed amendments and repeals are fundamental and essential. The attempts in the 1992 Act to liberalise the availability of condoms has simply transferred their supply from one type of supervised sale to another. They did not result in a realistic, practical or effective approach to HIV prevention. It is reasonable to assume that the supply of condoms through vending machines will provide that degree of privacy to encourage sexually active persons who require the protection of condoms to avail of them and thus protect themselves and their partners from exposure to disease and infection.

The Government was mindful, however, of the possible adverse consequences of removing the controls contained in the 1992 Act and have decided to include in the Bill a provision in section 3, which would enable the Minister for Health, if it was deemed necessary, to prohibit by regulations, the sale of condoms in places which could be considered to be inappropriate and a provision in section 4, which would enable the Minister to prescribe, by regulations, standards for condoms.

Section 3 might be required in the event of a proliferation of vending machines in, for example, places where very young persons congregate or in certain locations in main streets. The expectation is, however, that the removal of the controls in section 5 of the 1992 Act, will lead to the location of such machines in appropriate internal locations, to the extent that inappropriate internal or external locations may not arise and I do not believe it will be necessary for me to utilise the powers to regulate locations. Section 3 (3) provides that a person who contravenes this section will be guilty of an offence.

Section 4 provides an enabling power to the Minister for Health to prescribe standards for condoms. This provision is necessary to safeguard against the supply here of condoms which do not meet a recognised standard.

CEN — the European Committee for Standardization — has drafted standards for latex rubber male condoms. It is expected that the draft standards will be finalised and adopted later this year as a European standard, which will then become our national standard. In the meantime, I propose to recognise, in regulations, a recognised standard of an EC member state or condoms of an equivalent standard as being suitable for sale here.

Subsection (2) of the section provides that a person may not sell or supply contraceptive sheaths which do not comply with the standards. Subsection (3) provides that a person who contravenes subsection (2) will be guilty of an offence.

Section 5 of the Bill provides for technical amendments to the 1992 Act. It provides for the deletion of the phrase "in accordance with section 3 (3) of the Principal Act" in section 4 (1) (b) (i) (iv) of the Act of 1992. This is necessary as section 3 of the 1979 Act was repealed by the Act of 1992. This section also provides for the amendment of paragraph (c) of section 4 (1) of the Act of 1992. This is consequential and will be self-evident, on the repeal of sections 5 and 6 of the principal Act under section 8 of the Bill. I will refer to section 8 later.

Section 4 of the Act of 1992 sets out the list of persons who may sell contraceptives. That section provides in general terms, that contraceptives may be sold by pharmacists, registered medical practitioners, employees of health boards, family planning services and employees of hospitals. It also provides for the sale of contraceptives by a licensed importer or manufacturer to the persons I have mentioned.

Section 8 of the Bill is designed also to remove the licensing requirements to import and manufacture contraceptives, other than condoms, by repealing section 5 and 6 of the 1979 Act. As a result, paragraph (c) of section 4 (1) of the 1992 Act requires to be amended, to delete the references to sections 5 and 6 of the 1979 Act, but at the same time ensure that importers, distributors or manufacturers of contraceptives can sell contraceptives to the persons listed in section 4 (1) of the 1992 Act, and whom I mentioned earlier.

Section 6 provides for the making of regulations in relation to any matter referred to as being specified or prescribed by regulations. This is a standard provision in legislation. The sections of this Bill which refer to regulations are: section 3, regarding controls on the location of vending machines; and section 4, which concern the standards for condoms. Section 7 specifies the penalties for offences committed under the Bill when enacted. The sections to which it applies are: section 3, penalties for contravening regulations on the location of vending machines; and section 4, penalties for contravening regulations on the standards for contraceptive sheaths.

As I mentioned earlier, section 8 will repeal the current requirements that importers and manufacturers of contraceptives — other than condoms — should be licensed, through the repeal of sections 5 and 6 of the 1979 Act. The EC Commission has expressed its unhappiness at the existence of these controls in the context of the completion of the EC Internal Market and I have taken the opportunity to repeal them. I also mentioned earlier that section 8 of the Bill proposes the repeal of section 5 and 6 of the 1992 Act.

Section 9 (1) gives the short title of the Act and is a standard provision. Section 9 (2) provides that the Health (Family Planning) Acts, 1979 and 1992, and this Act may be cited together and will be construed together.

I am happy that the enactment of this Bill will bring to a conclusion the long running saga of legislation relating to the control of condoms. As I mentioned during the Dáil debate, we have long left behind us the era of "Irish solutions to Irish problems" and the debate on the Bill in the Dáil reflected a new maturity in Irish politics in the area of family planning.

I look forward with relish, therefore, to contributions of Members of this House to the debate on the Bill and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

I welcome the Bill. The Minister will recall that we were on the same side when the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1992, was debated in the Dáil. That legislation was inadequate because it failed to solve the existing problem. The former Minister for Health permitted the sale of condoms in retail outlets and other places, with the exception of vending machines. The Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, correctly pointed out that there was no privacy for people purchasing condoms. I am glad he has availed of the opportunity to amend that legislation.

When I was young I remember that my contemporaries across the Border were able to purchase condoms from vending machines and they did not suffer from sexual depravity but those of us living south of the Border could not do that and we thought there were problems with our sexual prowess.

It is important that this legislation is passed to prevent the spread of AIDS. The AIDS virus will have horrific consequences for society if it continues to spread at an alarming rate. It must be controlled and measures which help control this virus must be supported. If the sale of one million condoms prevents one person from contracting AIDS or one woman from going to England for an abortion, it will be worthwhile. We must allow people purchase condoms from vending machines, thus affording people privacy.

The exclusion of condoms from the definition of contraception is ironic. The Minister said that the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1992, was an "Irish solution to an Irish problem". However, there is an element of that in this legislation. A condom is a contraceptive. Perhaps people in the Department of Health have more creative imaginations than I have.

I doubt it.

Although sex education is not entirely within the Minister for Health's remit, sex education in primary and post-primary schools is essential so that people are well informed about contraceptives. Members will recall the story about the invisible condoms in County Mayo. People put money into a vending machine only to discover that it did not contain condoms. Although it was illegal, the man who owned the vending machine obtained £40 because people were too embarrassed to complain. Proper sex education programmes must be introduced in primary and post-primary schools. Although I am not young, I do not consider myself one of the older Members of this august establishment. However, ten or 15 years ago I received little sex education at school. Perhaps the Minister for Health could consult with the Minister for Education in this regard. Regarding section 4, the Minister should outline what he considers to be "inappropriate locations".

This legislation is progressive. My colleague, Deputy Flanagan, stated in the Dáil that the State has no role in matters of private morality. As legislators we have been interfering with private morality, something which should not concern us.

I hope this legislation will end the shabby legislation brought before the Oireachtas in recent years to deal with this matter. There are many other important issues to be dealt with. My party and I welcome and support this Bill.

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on this legislation. From my point of view, this is a good time to be a Member of the Oireachtas. Given the debate in the Dáil last night and the tone of the debate in this House today, it appears that compassion and understanding have taken over from suspicion and hostility. It is a worthwhile time to support this legislation.

It is amazing to think that over 20 years ago President Mary Robinson was unsuccessful in having family planning legislation passed in the Seanad. We have come a long way since then and since the Irish women's liberation movement travelled to Belfast on the so-called "contraceptive train". I welcome the change in Irish society and an end to "Irish solutions to Irish problems". This was evident in last night's Dáil debate on another piece of social legislation.

While I welcome this enlightened approach, perhaps we are becoming liberal and compassionate in our outlook because a life threatening disease has highlighted the need to make condoms freely available. The Minister and a previous speaker mentioned that this is a health Bill. However, it would be foolish to presume that condoms are not being used as contraceptives. This Bill should encourage the use of condoms as a contraceptive.

Up to now the onus for contraception has been on women. The use of the contraceptive pill and IUDs are not in the best interests of women. They placed a burden of responsibility on them when it came to deciding and regulating the size of the family. Senator Henry may either confirm or deny these suspicions but many of the contraceptives being used by women will probably have negative side effects for womens' health. As the Minister said, this legislation is predominantly a health matter and relates to the ongoing legislation dealing with the containment of the HIV and AIDS virus.

The Bill responds to a new maturity and openness in Irish people and reflects an Ireland where important matters of health, sexuality and ethics can be debated in an open and clear-sighted manner. I believe the majority of Irish people see the practical significance of this legislation. I mentioned that I feel it is not right to pretend that this legislation does not also make condoms more widely available as contraceptives.

The Minister referred to the outlets for providing condoms. If we are to take this matter seriously I suggest to Senator Quinn that he and other shopkeepers make condoms available in their supermarket outlets. It is nonsensical to have women's sanitary products available in supermarkets and then baulk at the suggestion that condoms should be available in vending machines in toilets; this is not a balanced situation. Condoms must be as acceptable as sanitary products in supermarkets.

The Minister expanded very much on the Government's plan and hopes in relation to the containment of the AIDS problem. I know he is not suggesting that condoms are the total focus of this Government's programme; the Minister also referred to the need for an education programme. I also urge that not only would this be a HIV and AIDS programme but also a comprehensive sex education programme.

I received correspondence in relation to this legislation and the legislation which we will be discussing in the House next week from a lobby group opposed to the Bill which asked if I favoured giving contraceptives to 17 year olds. It is not my intention that this should be done but I have three children, aged 15, 16 and 11 and I intend that my children will know what they need to know before they head out into the world. My daughters should know that women who have unprotected sex run the risk of an unplanned pregnancy and my son should know that by such sex he could be responsible for such an occurrence. There are also the associated risks of sexually transmitted disease. When I was growing up such disease was very nasty but was not life threatening; AIDS puts the matter in a completely different light.

The condom has been removed from the class of contraceptive for technical reasons. This is the only focus of the legislation to which I object. We now have an ideal opportunity to start a good, sensible and balanced programme of sex education. This in itself would result in young children knowing they have to be responsible. Making condoms available will not mean they will rush out madly to buy and use condoms. This will not happen. People who want to have sex will do so regardless of the availability of condoms. If they are available those who are considering sex may consider being responsible or staying with a single partner as the Minister mentioned in his speech.

A case which remains clear in my mind is that of a 14-year-old mother with her first child who came to my clinic. She was lucky in that her parents were totally supportive and she had a job. They insisted that she continue to work and they would support her. It was funny and a little enlightening that they felt their daughter would be stigmatised if she claimed the lone parent's allowance. This was the source of a possible stigma rather than the fact of being a single parent. They did not want her to become stuck in a particular category; they wanted to see her progress and I admire the support they gave her.

It has to be said to those who send the letters we received suggesting that we turn a blind eye and ignore our responsibilities as legislators that I do not intend to do so. I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation to us so soon.

The Minister mentioned the National AIDS Strategy Committee which is part of the Government's comprehensive programme of family planning legislation. The committee's report proposed a wide series of measures designed to combat the spread of AIDS and to help people with HIV and AIDS problems. I regret to say that many of the report's excellent proposals have not yet been acted upon, particularly the recommendation to combat discrimination against people infected by the HIV virus. An exception is the proposal to decriminalise homosexuality and I welcome this. It is deeply regrettable that we have not acted on the other areas. Ignorance and fear only serve to increase prejudice regarding AIDS. The last thing people living with the disease need is to be treated like pariahs and denied basic rights. I urge the Minister to deal urgently with this issue as I am sure he will. I would appreciate if he would provide the House with a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the National AIDS Strategy Committee.

One aspect of the Minister's speech which startled me a little was that he said the data which is being collected on the actual incidence of AIDS and the HIV virus is being compiled from the testing of samples in pre-natal and antenatal clinics. Could the Minister expand on this? I am a little worried that this would happen without the people involved knowing it is being done. The Minister mentioned that people being tested are not to be identified. What is the benefit of finding that people have AIDS if they are not to be identified? If we are to carry out this procedure fully there may be a need for consent. If it is decided that we do not need consent because it is such a serious issue, those who are found to be carriers should be identified and informed. To collect data, information and statistics and to know there are people with the virus who are unaware of it means we have done nothing but compile data. I am worried about this and look forward to hearing the Minister expand on his proposals in this matter.

I am aware that there are very many voluntary groups doing invaluable work in caring for people with AIDS and this should be put on the record of the House. The Dublin AIDS Alliance and Body Positive are two such groups that spring to mind. These organisations are at the coal face of AIDS care. However, the level of funding they receive for this work is wholly inadequate. Their funding could be considered in the context of the programme.

In the public imagination condoms have been closely linked to the AIDS epidemic. In my previous contribution I said we should not concentrate on this, because the object of this legislation is for people to feel relaxed when buying condoms over the counter, from vending machines or in their local supermarket. We must de-stigmatise those who buy condoms. The point was made earlier that people can buy condoms across the Border. If one walks into a chemist stop here one will find men buying toothpaste and mouthwash instead of condoms. Many women, particularly married women, buy condoms as the contraceptive to be used in their house. We must put an end to the perception that somebody buying condoms from a chemist, a vending machine or in Senator Quinn's supermarket chain is a carrier or a potential carrier of AIDS. Condoms must be seen as items which are bought by people who are responsible and not as items which are linked to the AIDS epidemic and used by people who are very sexually active and have more than one partner. A different impression must be given.

I welcome this legislation and I commend the Minister. It is sometimes easier to avoid legislation of this kind and of the kind introduced in Dáil Éireann last night. Now more than ever people expect politicians to be courageous in making decisions; indeed, the constant criticism is that politicians avoid hard decisions and fail to grasp the nettle. This brings our profession into disrepute. If we show courage and are willing to take criticism for doing what is right the public will respect us more. I commend the Bill to the House.

May I share ten minutes of my time with Senator Sherlock?

I must inform the Senator there is no sharing arrangement on Second Stage debates.

I will be brief so the Senator may have a chance to contribute. I welcome the Bill. While I was listening to the debate I remembered a story my brother told me years ago which will show the House that not everyone will welcome it. A friend of his had a chain of butcher shops mainly located in housing estates in Cork. One day one of his butchers was sick so he served at the counter himself. A child came in with a note saying: "A pound and a half of round steak and six of the others". It was only then he discovered his assistant had a lucrative business selling contraceptives. He decided to take no action since he thought it a perfectly reasonable commercial transaction.

That is probably not the sort of outlet the Minister had in mind.

The assistant is probably a millionaire now.

Like Senator McGennis I regret the contraceptive element has not been stressed in the Bill but I take the Minister's word that he is dealing with the issue. The Senator was right to say the pill is not suitable for all women. Condoms are regarded as effective contraceptives and for many years they have been used all over the world for family planning. It would be a pity if they were not regarded in the same way here. It is difficult to see how they could be made available on the GMS, with people perhaps looking for 40 to 60 each month from their doctor. However, I am sure this problem will be overcome. I hope sterilisation is also made available, particularly for women with serious medical problems.

The Minister is right to stress the AIDS issue. I have a certain sympathy with those who say they do not want safe sex programmes to be solely about condoms. Senator Dardis thinks I have given up on the youth of Ireland but I feel sorry for them. When one sees the emphasis on sex and sexuality, particularly in the case of young women, it is no wonder young people think teenage sexual activity is obligatory. Girls are often pictured sitting on cars and in many cases they are not old enough to have a driving licence let alone the money to buy a car. As Senator Reynolds said, sex should be included in general education. Teenagers must be told sexual activity is not obligatory, that there can be reasons for saying "no" and it does not imply one is prim or not macho.

The AIDS problem is extremely serious and cannot be over-stressed. Today in the Irish Medical Times Dr. Joe Barry has written an article entitled, “Ireland is Sitting on an AIDS Time Bomb”, which is true. It does not happen in Irish newspapers but the British press has been asserting the AIDS crisis is not as bad as was thought. Thankfully, the original projections have not materialised because the consequences would have been appalling. Nonetheless the position is worrying.

I cannot understand why anyone would try to disabuse people of the fact that heterosexual sex can lead to the transmission of AIDS. It is more easily transmitted through homosexual sex but Dr. James Walsh, the Minister's adviser, in whom I have great confidence has repeatedly stressed the danger to heterosexuals. Dr. Barry is right to stress the spread of AIDS by drug addicts because this is one way it reaches the heterosexual community.

It is a remarkable coincidence that the Bill concerning homosexuality and prostitution is being discussed in the other House while this Bill is being discussed here. I live in Dublin's inner city which has a large number of prostitutes. They have no organisation but since they know of my interest in women's health they come to see me. Three women recently told me while most prostitutes are extremely careful about making clients use condoms, a large number of women drug addicts have become prostitutes. I do not know if the same applies to male drug addicts. A drug addict who is not trying to get off drugs or enter a programme must beg, steal or become involved in prostitution. Many addicts are prepared to have sex with clients without using condoms. The Minister may find it difficult to cover that issue in his advertising campaign.

Even worse, much younger girls are becoming involved in prostitution because clients believe the risk of HIV infection is lower. One thinks one has solved one problem when another arises. I do not know how to tackle that because there is a considerable amount of prostitution in the city. I was interested to hear Deputy Harney suggest the legalisation of prostitution. We may have to do that; I do not know the position in other EC countries. Most of the women I know take extremely good care of their health and attend doctors but the difficulty is with people on the fringe of society who have severe medical conditions. The problem seems to be even deeper than that; it is a difficult one to tackle.

I also am sorry to hear people say condoms do not provide protection because the virus goes through the pores. To hear members of the medical profession say this is dreadful. It would be better if they said people would not become HIV positive if they did not indulge in casual sex. Also, as the Minister said, being faithful to a faithful partner is vital.

Apart from those issues the Minister has done an extremely good job. The importance of sensible behaviour must be stressed and I accept the Minister's word that he will deal with contraception. It is essential that he should do so. Since contraception was introduced in Ireland the average family size has dropped from 3.8 children about 20 years ago to two children now which is roughly the European average.

The drop in our maternal mortality figures in one generation is staggering. I did a study of the figures about 20 years ago and I found a large number of those who died were older women with large families. I presented a paper on this subject in the college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, and I was very sorry I included a woman of 47 who was on her 19th pregnancy and who was also an epileptic, because I know they thought I was making it up. Between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of women had more than nine pregnancies.

That was in the 1960s. The great improvement we have experienced in this area since then is not just due to the medical profession, though humility is a great problem with us. To a great extent it has been due to measures the general population have taken themselves to improve their own health care, and also to better improvements in socio-economic conditions. This will be another important step in a general health policy which must apply to everybody.

I welcome the Minister to the Seanad, and I congratulate him on the Bill he has introduced, which is very welcome. I also congratulate the Members of the Lower House on their maturity recently in relation to the Bill when it was being debated there. Their attitude has helped to improve attitudes in this country and we can only go from strength to strength in this regard.

From February 1993 to April 1993 there were 18 new cases of HIV infection reported in this country with three deaths in that time. Since the beginning of 1993 there has been an 8 per cent increase in AIDS. To date there has been 146 AIDS-related deaths and this is why I welcome this Bill.

The Bill is a useful step to try and curtail the spread of the disease and if it can save lives it is to be welcomed. Nobody has ever died from using a condom. National AIDS day was a dramatic success because it opened the eyes of many people in this country to the real problem. It also helped to change the attitudes of people. It brought home to the population generally that there is a problem there which we must address.

I congratulate the Minister on his outstanding education campaign on television and radio. The reaction to it was not as extreme as I expected. Perhaps years ago there would have been an outcry but not now. We have educated ourselves as a society to accept these matters. Senator Reynolds comes from a Border county like myself and we know that in our area there was never a problem regarding availability of condoms; people did not have far to travel to Derry or Strabane to buy them. I am sure the rest of the country found it somewhat more difficult, but the attitude of people in Donegal is more mature anyway.

Young people today are more sexually active, and they are sexually active from an earlier age. When we used to go to dances, we waltzed or danced a fox-trot, but that day is gone. In dance halls or discos nowadays, when it comes to a slow dance, the temperature in the place rises sharply. We live in different times and we must deal with that. Young people are introduced to drink at a much earlier age these days. People get drunk, situations get out of hand, and it is better to have some help in the form of a condom to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

The fact that vending machines may now be installed in clubs and possibly pubs is most welcome. Up to now, chemist shops had a monopoly on the sale of condoms, and there are massive profits to be made. I welcome the fact that they will be sold in other places now. Condoms should also be sold in shops generally. Shops in my own county are selling them at present. Possibly they are breaking the law and I know some of them have been warned. There is no doubt there is a great demand for condoms to be made available generally. As the Minister said in his statement, we have had enough Irish solutions to Irish problems. I welcome the reaction of the churches as well. They did not intervene to the same extent as they have in the past and it is good to see that.

As Senator Henry said, we are living in troubles times and we are experiencing high levels of unemployment and poverty. Many people do not have easy access to condoms, especially those who live in rural communities. People find it hard to go into a shop in their village to buy a packet of condoms because they feel the whole village will know they are using contraceptives and perhaps the fact that it will be possible to buy condoms in shops other than the local pharmacy will ease matters. There may be a drop in the rural birth rate as a result.

Access to contraceptives is important, and the fact that the Minister has widened the areas of access is to be commended. Vending machines are essential. I congratulate the Minister for the work he has done up to now, and I commend the Bill to the House.

I stand a little like a voice in the wilderness. I stand to express a concern, which I hope the Minister will take into account, about a general direction, of which this Bill is just one indication. For 2,000 years, people have valued the family, and this has been a stabilising influence. I question whether the steps we have undertaken in recent times, and those we will undertake in the immediate future, take into account the benefits we have received from the value we placed on families over those years.

Today's legislation is one of a number of measures that will come before us. Other Bills we may find ourselves discussing in the future will deal with divorce, with homosexuality and, I suggest, with abortion. Senator McGennis said that people who are going to have sex will have sex. My concern is not specifically with the detail of this Bill but with the general direction we are going in. The sort of thinking that allows people to say that people who are going to have sex will have sex is exactly the danger that we are not considering in all this legislation. Here I am bound to sound anti-progressive. I am bound to sound like a backwoodsman who does not want change. Yet, each Bill is a step which damages the value we have placed on family life over many years.

It is hard to argue against this Bill and say it is the State's duty to interfere in what anybody does in the privacy of their own home. However, my concern is the point Senator Henry expressed, that is, that sexual activity is not obligatory but the steps we are taking almost suggest to our youth and to coming generations that it is. That is why I am concerned about this Bill despite understanding the need for it on health grounds.

When a divorce Bill comes before the House it makes sense to say that if a marriage has broken up we should recognise that fact and enable people to remarry. It would be cruel, hard hearted and unrealistic to do otherwise. The same is true of criminal law reform on homosexuality and of the sad cases requiring an abortion Bill. However, each step not only legalises these measures, but gives the right to promote the sort of thinking that says sexual activity is almost obligatory.

I do not know how to protect those minorities, or majorities, who require this legislation. However, I believe we have to protect people against the promotion of enforced sexuality. I recognise and welcome the fact that in section 3 the Minister has the right to control where these machines will be placed but I am not sure whether this legislation will be enacted in a manner which will protect us almost from the promotion of the belief that a person, especially a young person, is expected to be sexually active. If you see a condom machine at the tennis club dance or at the teenage disco, the assumption is that sex is expected of the young lady who has a date that night.

I am concerned about the culture which promotes this and I do not believe this nation has thought this measure through. The Minister has taken just one step in this Bill. Each Bill, viewed on its own, will be recognised as a worthy response to a problem but let us stand back and look at the wider picture of the dangers now threatening society. Are we thinking of each Bill as part of a general trend to which there may be an alternative?

I voice this concern at the promotion of a culture which says family life is not important and that sex outside marriage is the way of the future. I see the Minister shaking his head and I understand that is not his intention, but each Bill is a step in that direction. The most I can do is voice that concern because I have not heard it voiced strongly enough in the Oireachtas in the debates on these Bills. I hope that in legislating for worthy objectives we will also take account of another very worthy asset, the family.

I share the concern expressed by Senator Quinn. That is the context in which I want to look at this Bill, the reasoning behind it and its stated purpose as introduced by the Minister.

The reasoning behind this Bill is as flawed as the content is contradictory. The title the Minister has selected for the Bill is "Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Bill, 1993". However, in his statement introducing the Bill the Minister stated:

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for improved access to condoms as a necessary and practical response to the evolving HIV-AIDS problem here. It is nothing whatsoever to do with family planning, natural or otherwise.

The manufacturers of contraceptive sheaths, who must otherwise be enthusiastic about the terms of this Bill which will make their approved products freely available without restriction, must be surprised to find that in Ireland, at least, they are no longer defined as "contraceptives" within the meaning of the law.

The public relations exercise and propaganda which preceded this Bill is a subtle but serious attack on the well being of our young people in particular. The Minister stated: "Recognising that people are sexually active from an early age they should have reasonable access to condoms." This is a blatant capitulation to the promotion of irresponsible and uncaring behaviour among young people who this legislation is allegedly supposed to protect.

The State does have a primary and fundamental responsibility to protect the young and to advance their well being in every sphere of activity. The abuse of terms such as "sexually active"— and we have heard a lot of this abuse recently — as a conditioning process for this legislation implies that healthy and vigorous young people who do not engage in promiscuous or irresponsible behaviour are seen as sexually passive if not inert. The social pressure this puts on young people is intolerable and unacceptable, particularly at a time when we see the consequences of immature and irresponsible behaviour in so much unhappiness and suffering.

The Minister also said: "We should have a Bill that is in keeping with the times and does not seek to be a throwback to a time long forgotten." The conditioning is again obvious; only those who support such legislation are enlightened and tolerant. Those who question, or oppose, it are accused of being repressive or intolerant.

Under our Constitution the State guarantees to protect and vindicate the family by its laws. Yet, the Minister charged with that responsibility in the area of health, where sexual relationship is an essential and enhancing element in the creation of that family, is no longer actively and positively promoting his constitutional responsibility by the introduction of legislation such as this for the reasons he stated.

The Minister would have us encourage young people to behave, and I quote, "responsibly" in the fight against AIDS by using condoms. To equate that with responsible behaviour gives a misleading message from a Minister to our young people. Perhaps there is a consistency in that the television advertisement campaign, which is being paid for out of public funds by the parents and taxpayers of Ireland, also promotes the use of condoms by "sexually active" young people as responsible sexual behaviour.

I advise Senators to look at some of these advertisements. They make no attempt to advise young people that the only guaranteed protection against the spread of AIDS in the area of sexual relationship is through truly responsible and caring behaviour from which the security and happiness of families in Ireland has been derived, and must be derived, in the future.

We are constantly advised through elements in the media that we must be "courageous" and "enlightened". This has been reflected in some of the contributions made by Senators to this debate today. Senators will differ with my views on this and on much else I have to say on this issue. By confining courage and enlightenment to a selective and spurious distortion of those terms, those who oppose such views are, ipso facto, represented as backward and uncaring if not troglodytes.

It was suggested by these elements that the Government had prudently limited the time for discussion on the Bill decriminalising homosexual conduct between adults, which will shortly come before this House, to avoid what one commentator referred to as an outbreak of moral flatulence. What this suggests is that the responsibilities of legislators are to be directed, limited and restricted by individuals in the media or elsewhere who are not answerable to any elector and who can determine what is or what is not moral flatulence.

As legislators we have a responsibility to legislate for the greater good and stability in society. We must not be deterred by any preconditioning on the part of any individuals who set themselves up as judge and jury on what is enlightened and appropriate action on the part of legislators. Unlike such individuals, legislators are elected by the people and are answerable to them. Whatever views we have on these issues, each of us must decide, having regard to our obligations as legislators, that we will not be deterred, cowed or intimidated by any self appointed individuals who happen to make their living by writing or communicating in the media.

I completely reject any right on the part of individuals to predetermine the role or courage of legislators. Those legislators who question and reject such rights may require courage to counter the view that if one accepts this type of "enlightened" thinking then one will be acknowledged as courageous and enlightened.

Terms such as "promiscuous", "irresponsible" and "uncaring behaviour" are being substituted in a subtle and constant campaign by words such as "sexually active". In many instances there is a lack of care, especially for young girls and young women.

The AIDS virus is a major and critical problem of our times. Those who suffer from it, for whatever reason, deserve and must receive total support in every way. They must not be made feel isolated and ignored and their families and partners must be supported through programmes and action by the State. However, when we witness the suffering and the condition of those members of our society, we must also be determined that in the area of sexual relationships we will, to the maximum extent possible, highlight that the only truly effective guarantee against the spread of AIDS to others as yet unaffected is responsible and caring single partnership relationships in marriage, which is the bedrock of the family which is guaranteed protection by the State under the Constitution.

The Minister states: "The primary purpose of the Bill ... is to provide for improved access to condoms, as a necessary and practical response to the evolving HIV/AIDS problem here." I believe this is a counsel of confusion and despair. The Minister goes on to state: "It brings us into line with public mores and thinking in Ireland and with the situation in other EC member states, where condoms are supplied through vending machines." The incidence of AIDS is lower in Ireland than in the other EC member states, with the possible exception of Greece. I am aware that there are other causative factors, such as the unfortunate cases of blood transfusions, the use of drugs and needles that have not been properly sterilised.

Despite this, and I am not suggesting that it is his deliberate intention, the Minister wants to bring this country into line with this situation in the EC. I have lived in Europe and I know a little about the social and marital conditions pertaining. Many people look at us and acknowledge that, despite all its faults, Ireland at least adheres to standards that protect public order and morality, especially in young people. Many of these people would find it strange to note that Ireland is now endeavouring to catch up with Europe in this area.

Is a new era emerging where moralistic programmes of education are to be rejected as the standard in our community? I ask this in view of what the Minister states, where he is at least being consistent:

The two main elements of an effective programme to prevent the spread of the AIDS virus are: proper and non-moralistic programmes of education directed at the various sections of the community and legislation to remove restrictions on the purchase of condoms.

What is wrong with moralistic programmes of education? Enlightened jurisprudents have always recognised that all laws must reflect and respect standards of public morality and not only in the area of sexual morality.

There is a notion that our legislation should no longer be based on standards of public morality which creates stability and happiness throughout our society, be it in respect for the person, property and well being of our fellow citizens. That notion is a new thesis which, if pursued, would mean that "private morality" take precedence over public order and morality which are guaranteed under the Constitution.

This notion is not based on any religious precept, which often influence many laws and customs. Distinguished jurisprudents, such as the late Lord Chief Justice Devlin, the most distinguished judge of the British courts, who was, to the best of my knowledge, an agnostic for most of his life, have established that laws will always reflect public mores. Such mores arise from a complex of influences, such as historical inheritance, cultural inheritance, and he also mentioned the prevailing religious ethos.

What would be good law in an Islamic society which, for instance, tolerates if not promotes polygamy, would give rise to chaos in a Christian society where the norm is monogamy. So let us not run away with the notion that public order and morality are not part of our responsibilities and that this new notion of private morality means each of us has the right to set ourselves up in the closet and say "I establish my total exclusive code of morality. I will behave as I will, totally and utterly without regard to my responsibility as a social being." All our laws negate that simple fact, and if they do so in other areas there is no reason they should ignore it in this Bill.

It is the role of the State to regulate our relationships as individual citizens with each other, subject to public order and morality as our Constitution lays down. We can never abrogate our responsibility under the Constitution to legislate to give effect to that. Individual freedom of action is guaranteed under our Constitution but that does not give us the right to exercise our free will in a manner that does not take account of our responsibility as social beings.

No man is an island, said John Donne, and it follows that our private behaviour does not entitle each or any of use to set up a code of "private morality" which would take no account of the effect our behaviour would have on our fellow citizens, have no due regard for the well being of society generally and not have sufficient regard for the well being of our young people. They are being targeted in a whole range of conditioning these days with regard to the use of terms such as "sexually active", which implies that those who are sexually responsible are somehow sexually inert if not paralysed.

I listened with great interest to the eloquent speech of Senator O'Kennedy and it came as a considerable relief to me that he could spell. He demonstrated that adequately to the House, but unfortunately his understanding does not go much beyond spelling in certain areas because he clearly did not understand the difference between moral and moralistic. "Moralistic" contains a whole series of adverse value judgments which are imported into matter to which they are quite extraneous. That is what moralistic is, and that is why the Minister is right in saying that the importation of moralistic values into this kind of situation is disastrous, dangerous, wrong and inimical to the health and well being of young people. I am sure Senator O'Kennedy, for whom I have the greatest respect, would not wish to complicate matters by introducing the dangerous notion of moralism into this issue.

The Minister kindly referred to the debate that I and Senator Henry and Senator O'Toole had on a similar issue some time ago, and it would be futile for me to rehash the arguments, but there are one or two things it is important to say.

There is an extremely dangerous campaign of lying being engaged in by certain groups in this country. I propose to call it a lie inside and outside this House, and I will name the persons outside the House because it would be unfair to do so here. If they or the organisations seek legal remedy then I will meet them in the courts. I am speaking about the people who dishonestly maintain that the prophylactic, latex sheath is not a defence against AIDS because they maintain the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than sperm and can make its way through naturally occurring flaws in the latex sheath. This is not true. It has been demonstrated not to be true; the medical information has been placed on the record, and still these people persist. I can only conclude that they are seeking further victims and that they will be satisfied when more young people are sentenced to a lingering and pretty grisly death. I condemn them out of hand for this.

The facts are simple. Whatever the size of the virus as compared to the sperm, no virus is capable of travelling independently or nakedly; it is always accompanied by a mantle of H2O, ordinary water. In addition it has an electrical charge and it has been demonstrated in laboratory and clinical tests time and time again that the AIDS virus is incapable of travelling through a latex sheath. I wish these people would stop peddling their lies. It is a vitally serious point; I think it is a matter of life and death. It is desperately important that this message goes out from this House.

I asked Senator Henry, distinguished medical practitioner, whether she had mentioned this point and she had. I hope it will be reported particularly in the Independent Newspaper Group, I have the highest regard for that group which produces reputable, decent and balanced newspapers, but lately they have persistently peddled this lie and it is time they stopped doing it.

The Sunday World, I have to say, did not exactly peddle this lie; it was contained as a question in a column by somebody for whom I have the highest regard as a humane, decent person, and that is Fr. Brian D'Arcy. He had the decency to ask a question because the same American right-wing reactionary people sent him the same rubbish and he said, “I wonder if it is true.” The Sunday World had the responsibility last Sunday to publish an article by a woman doctor which directly contradicted this.

The latest EC tests involving 540 heterosexual couples — in each of which one partner was infected with the AIDS virus — have shown that, as a result of the consistent use of contraceptive latex sheaths, there was not one instance of the AIDS virus being transferred. I think that is pretty conclusive evidence.

People say that the condom is not 100 per cent perfect; they quote a figure of 82 per cent effectiveness. In fact, if it is properly used it is very nearly 99 per cent safe. However, even if it was 80 per cent or 75 per cent effective, are any of the people who are campaigning against the use of condoms going to go out and campaign against crash helmets, safety belts, lifebelts, or lifeguards? Should we abandon 80 or 90 per cent of insurance because there is a 10 per cent possibility? What kind of idiocy is this?

It might suggest that you would drive carefully.

I welcome this Bill. I said on an earlier occasion that, confronted with this dangerous situation, we needed somebody of the calibre of Dr. Noel Browne who, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, attacked tubercular infection in this country with a ruthless efficiency, an ability to cut through bureaucratic red tape and establish what was needed in terms of facilities. Having listened to the Minister in the Dáil and in this House, I believe that in Deputy Howlin we have somebody who is demonstrating that he is of that stature. I thank God for it because this is precisely what we need.

We cannot muck about with this problem any more. We have done so for far too long and it makes me angry. I have known a number of people who have, tragically, become infected with the HIV virus, by no means all of them gay. I have come into contact with them because of the altruism and generosity of people in the gay community who have reached out to people who have contracted this infection from other means.

I would like the Minister to reconsider the position of national AIDS co-ordinator. I am sure he will agree that Dr. James Walsh is one of the unsung heroes of the medical service in this country. He has done a remarkable job. I am not minimising the work of officials in the Department of Health. I know some of those present in the House today and I have had useful discussions with a number of people in the Department. However, by their nature, departmental officials are anonymous. It is important, particularly when people are deliberately telling untruths and deliberately peddling death, that we have a person in a national position who is able to counter this campaign of dangerous misinformation. I appeal to the Minister to think about the possibility of re-establishing this important office of national AIDS co-ordinator.

I welcome this Bill. One could be cynical about it. The Minister is correct when he spoke about Irish solutions to Irish problems. If one wanted to be amusing and witty one could spend some time playing with the notion of the exclusion of condoms from the definition of "contraceptive". This is a nonsense.

It is a necessary nonsense.

Maybe it is a necessary nonsense but if it saves lives, I do not mind being complicit in this degree of nonsense. What matters at the end of the day is that young people should be protected and saved.

I must be living in a sexual igloo because I have never experienced the slightest twitch of the giblets at the prospect of a little piece of limp rubber and anyone who is capable of sexual excitement when a condom is waved under their nose, more power to them. I have never understood the notion that because there are condoms in a machine the entire country will be in a state of extreme titillation. Perhaps I am totally out of step on this issue. In some ways the children of this country have more sense than the adults. No sensible child will become sexually inflamed by the prospect of a condom machine.

On the other hand due to a variety of factors, such as access to television programmes, sex education, etc. — perhaps diet is a factor — sexual maturity is occurring earlier and young people are sexually active earlier. Young people who are sexually active are entitled to protection — and it is our moral obligation to protect them — against serious infection and disease and there is no doubt that condoms can do this.

Some of these pestilential American figures are quoted in relation to incidence of venereal infection. The latest controlled programme in the United States showed that there was a 30 per cent decrease in the incidence of gonorrhoea as a result of the use of condoms. I do not hear the moral majority — or as I call them the immoral minority after a button badge I saw in San Francisco — peddling this information. They are highly selective when it comes to dealing with these issues.

I welcome the detail, the sentiments, the directness, the courage, the integrity and the forthrightness of the Minister's approach in this Bill. I welcome his comment that the State is now retreating from unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. All I can say to that is hurrah.

I welcome section 4 of this Bill. A matter to which we referred in the previous debate concerns the quality control of condoms, particularly with the completion of the Internal Market. There is always the danger that substandard material might be imported into this country. There is no point wearing a useless condom or one that will easily burst.

It is important that clear and explicit information is given about the simple mechanics of a condom. The principal reason for the 10 or 20 per cent reported failure rate is user failure, in other words, people do not know how to use condoms properly. It is important that people are given this information.

I welcome the Bill. Various people have mentioned Lord Devlin. I do not share the admiration for this scion of the British judiciary. The reason I travelled to Northern Ireland, where I was often made welcome, was that I wanted to ascertain if my memory was correct and that Lord Devlin had been involved in an unsavoury way in matters in Northern Ireland. I wonder if this House shares the unqualified admiration that was expressed. Perhaps I am doing Lord Devlin an injustice; perhaps he is dead and beyond my barbs.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased to welcome this legislation. This is a further episode in a long and tedious process concerning female reproduction and contraception, although today we are defining condoms as no longer being a contraceptive. This is hypocritical. This is an area which is important to women and it is extraordinary that we are defining condoms in this way. I have no doubt that this measure would never have come before the House if it had not been for the threat of HIV and AIDS. I wonder if we would be dealing with this matter if men could not contract the AIDS virus.

I am delighted the Minister is introducing this legislation. There are many challenges facing him in this area and he is meeting each of them. I hope this will continue. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this country about these matters. For example, it was farcical that the contraceptive pill could not be prescribed as a contraceptive under the GMS. However, the Minister dealt with this matter recently. All forms of legal contraceptives should be freely available under the GMS.

I wish to refer briefly to tubal ligation for women which Senator Henry mentioned. The Commission on the Status of Women recommended that it should be a condition of funding to public hospitals that this operation should be available to women, and I do not believe it should be the subject for ethics committees, as it is at present. The decision to have this operation should be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor. The Minister promised that he will look at all issues concerning family planning and that this matter will be considered in relation to his overall health strategy which is being developed in his department. I would like him to consider these matters which affect women. I believe they have not been dealt with because they affect only women.

I applaud the Minister for the way he is dealing with this matter. The growing problem of HIV and AIDS needs strong and effective action. The wider availability of condoms is only part of the comprehensive approach which is needed in the fight against the spread of AIDS. Another important area which needs careful consideration is education. The Minister is directing his response to the public. However, we must concentrate our efforts on high risk areas and we must educate our young people about the dangers of AIDS and HIV because education is important. If we had not been hypocritical about this issue, we could have looked at education sooner.

I know the Department has an AIDS strategy in place which includes education, prevention, monitoring the treatment and care of patients and research into the condition of AIDS. This strategy is in line with recommendations from the World Health Organisation and other international agencies and the education and prevention programme has elements aimed at the general public, high risk groups and second and third level students. All these areas are important but the Minister tends to concentrate on the general public at present. I hope he will look at the high risk groups and see what can be done to educate our young people.

One of the problems relating to education about AIDS, particularly for young people, is that in some schools there is little or no sex education. Sexual activity should not only be discussed in the context of life threatening illnesses, such as AIDS or HIV. If we discussed these issues and dangers openly and freely with our children and if there were proper sex education programmes, it would be easier to deal with the education process to cover AIDS and HIV.

Senator Quinn and Senator O'Kennedy spoke about their concerns for the family and for young people, but because of our attitude to sex, because we do not speak openly about it, many myths have grown up around it. We do not talk about the responsibilities of young people and, in particular young boys. One of the issues we must address, which is not directly related but which affects women, is the huge growth of teenage pregnancies. If one looks at first time births the statistics are frightening. Many of these girls are condemning themselves to a life of poverty, and their children will inevitably be condemned to disadvantage. Many of these girls come from areas where they are already disadvantaged. This issue must also be examined in the context of education.

Sex education should be developed to deal with sexuality in the wider context. We must talk about relationships and responsibilities. Responsibility is a word we do not dwell on. Everybody has responsibilities and people should be made aware of that. I would like to see an emphasis in sex education programmes that would educate girls to the cost, in terms of missed opportunities, of early, unplanned pregnancies. It is also important to develop an awareness among boys of accountability for the consequences of their sexual activities. A realistic approach to the AIDS threat also requires a realistic approach to sex education. This is an area which we seem reluctant to talk about but when we are discussing AIDS we must consider the area of sex education.

I would like to highlight the risk to women of AIDS. It is accepted, and we should be concerned about it, that proportionate to the same exposure women are at a greater risk of becoming HIV positive than men. Statistics show that male to female transmission of the HIV virus is twice as likely as female to male transmission. The risk of transmission of the virus from women to their babies should they become pregnant is another specifically female aspect of HIV transmission, and this should be examined. It should be highlighted that older women are at a heightened risk from the virus.

It is essential for women to realise that safer sex should be as big an issue as contraception in a relationship. They should be made aware that they need, for their own sake, to take safe sex precautions as well as using contraceptives in any but an established, mutually exclusive relationship. This is a difficult message to convey particularly as many women who are at a high risk of exposure to AIDS may have partners who do not use condoms, and a targeted health promotion programme in this area is vital. We do not know exactly how many women are HIV positive nor how they contracted the virus. We tend to know more about the instance of HIV infection among drug users and other high risk categories, such as homosexuals. We should have figures establishing the number of women who are HIV positive and also how they contracted the virus, not only because of the risk to the women themselves but also to their children if they become pregnant. We must be aware that when women are pregnant their immune system is not as strong as when they are not pregnant and that the rate of transmission of the disease to their children when they breastfeed is high.

These are important issues which should feature in any information campaign. We do not tend to accord the same urgency to issues where women are at risk. We must consider the children of women who are HIV positive or those who are orphaned when their mothers develop full blown AIDS. We must take account of these issues in any long term planning in relation to AIDS. Furthermore, when women who develop AIDS are hospitalised their children have to be looked after. All these issues are specific to women. I am sure the Minister is aware of them and I urge him to consider them all.

I would also pay tribute to the many organisations, particularly the voluntary ones, that have been involved in work relating to education and awareness about AIDS, such as Aidswide, the Aids Alliance, the Merchant's Quay project, Condomsense and also the individual GPs, consultants and doctors who are involved in this area. We have not tended to give large amounts of public funding to these organisations and I wish to pay tribute to them.

I welcome and fully support the Bill. There are many other issues I would like to see the Minister tackle. I know he is favourably disposed towards them and I am sure he will deal with them.

I am pleased to be a Member of the Oireachtas taking part in the enactment of this legislation since we have finally reached a stage where we are acting responsibly and with realism in dealing with these issues which for so long have been dealt with in a hypocritical manner by the Irish public in general. This Bill is a serious approach to a serious health problem and deals with the greater availability of contraceptives and, in particular condoms. Although I realise that this Bill specifically defines a condom as no longer being a contraceptive, I understand that is purely for technical reasons and I accept it in that regard.

I appreciate that there are genuine concerns as expressed by Senator Quinn and many others with regard to the wider issue of public morality. There are a lot of lies and rubbish peddled with regard to sexuality by the people referred to by Senator Norris and Senator McGennis. While we are sometimes accused of labelling some people as being antediluvian and we are labelled as being anti-family, it is not helpful to label people on either side. There are many genuinely concerned people on both sides of the argument. I reject being labelled anti-family because I support legislation such as this. It is out of genuine concern that we face the realities that makes us want to deal in a direct way with the issues of contraception, AIDS and HIV. The primary concern of this legislation is the prevention of the spread of AIDS and HIV. It is a serious health and life issue and must be taken seriously and this can only be done by this kind of direct approach. We cannot hide behind euphemisms. We must be honest about what we are doing.

I live in the real world where people are sexually active. The term "sexually active" might be objected to in this House but I cannot think of any other way that it can be described. This is the reality of the world in which we live. It is represented on television every day of the week and children and young people are aware of the kind of life that is lived in the modern world. We must face this. We cannot pretend it does not exist. The Minister was careful to point out that obviously the safest way to protect oneself from HIV and AIDS is to be faithful to one faithful partner, and that is obvious. However, the reality is that not many people behave in that way and we must face this fact.

I regret that condoms are being taken out of the definition of contraception but I realise that must be done in order to make them more widely available. I believe condoms should be more widely available from a contraception point of view as well as from the point of view of the prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS. I support having condoms made more widely available for contraception. I have been a member of the family planning clinic in Limerick city for a long time. I fully support the wider availability of contraceptives.

I also support what Senator Norris and the Minister said about the section which deals with standards of condoms. It is very important that proper standards are set so that ineffective condoms will not be on the market. Obviously the condoms that are on the market must be totally effective.

I also support the point made by Senator Henry and Senator Honan in relation to the availability of tubal ligation in public hospitals. I am not too sure what the present position is and I would welcome the Minister's response. It is not right that hospital ethics committees can refuse women access to such an operation. The Minister should take whatever action he can to eliminate that practice if it still exists in some of our public hospitals or in any of our hospitals.

I support the views expressed about the State not intruding on citizens' private lives in as much as is practical. The State should not intrude, although it has done so in the past. I realise that there must be public morality but the State must also take a responsible attitude because people's private morality is their own business. As long as it is not interfering with the public or private rights of others the area of sexuality is a private matter for adults. This general point should be made, and this Bill takes it into account. The advertising campaign on television at the moment also acknowledges the personal nature of private morality.

I am speaking as a mother of teenage children and I understand the pressures parents are under trying to guide their children in a world where there is access to all sorts of information, particularly through the medium of television, and we debated that and the inability to restrict what is on our television screens previously in this House. In my view the most responsible way we can deal with this — and I am speaking as a parent as well as a public representative — is by trying to educate our children to the realities of life and take responsibility for themselves and how they behave as individuals. Sex education is very important. I fully support the kind of programmes that are being initiated now in the education system to deal with a real and honest way with the kind of sexual problems young people will encounter as they grow up.

I welcome this Bill and what it does from the point of view of the spread of the HIV and AIDS viruses and also from the point of view that it is, in effect, making condoms more widely available as a contraceptive.

I had not intended to contribute to this debate because I think hypocrisy has been redolent in this debate over the last while. There is unfortunately in this country a tyranny of political correctness and an appalling fascistic attitude to speaking one's mind. Senator O'Kennedy came in here today and gave what I felt was a thoughtful contribution, although not a contribution with which I would agree. This is the 30th anniversary of the visit to this country of John F. Kennedy and I am conscious of the book Profiles in Courage. The interesting thing is that everybody who was elevated in that book had the courage to speak out about the tyranny of political correctness of the day.

The Minister is a friend of mine; we go back a long way. He will not be insulted if I say that I am dismayed at the smugness of the penultimate paragraph in his speech where it stated that we are leaving behind the "era of Irish solutions to Irish problems". Why are we so fearful of Irish solutions for problems which exist in this country? Why have we become so fearful, so terrified, so paranoid at thinking for ourselves? What is wrong with coming up with solutions based on whatever our ethos, morals or general principles are for the problems which face this country?

There are two major debates ongoing at the moment — this debate and the debate that has just finished in the other House. What really annoys me about the debates is that there has been a concerted effort to avoid really discussing the issues. I will deal with the other debate next week, but I wish to deal with the humbug in this debate today. We are actually going to describe the contraceptive sheath, the condom, as being not a contraceptive. That strikes me as infantile. The reality is — and just in case anybody has any doubts — when the first of these Bills on condoms was going through the other House I argued that there should be sales through vending machines and that the idea of age limits was simply unworkable in any event. I am not coming from a conservative point of view, and God forbid that I should allow myself to be labelled as such——

Who would?

There is much to be said for conservatism in its own place. There is a lot that is good and that is worth conserving in Ireland in its own place. The problem with conservatism is that it has a got bad reputation because it has become one of those convenient labels that we, in our intolerance of other people's attitudes, hang on them. I was amazed and I laughed when the former Soviet Union was collapsing and the most extreme members of the Communist Party, whom I used to regard in my own simplistic way as the ultra-left, were described as conservatives. I thought "God bless, Mrs. Thatcher, what would she think of her new bedfellows"?

My point is that we continuously avoid addressing the issues in this country. Anything that is below the belt, physically, causes us to go into paroxysms of embarrassment.

Senator Roche should speak for himself.

As a nation we go into paroxysms and it is an extraordinarily immature attitude. In my belief, what the Minister is doing now is what should have been done previously, that is, the law relating to one element of contraception is being brought up to date. The reality is that the use of condoms could have a side effect in that it could help in the fight against the horrific diseases of HIV and AIDS. We should not avoid these issues but rather we should face them courageously.

It was the contributions of Senator Quinn and Senator O'Kennedy which prompted me to speak. Ireland is at a cross-roads in the way we deal with issues, such as family planning and human sexuality and in the way we recognise the fact that young people are now more sexually active. We are going to deal with the homosexuality issue next week. Why can we not have the moral fortitude and courage to come out and deal with these issues straight up? Why should we deal with legislation bringing the law on contraceptives up to date, which is basically in line with the views of most people in this country, by disguising it as something which it is not? Fundamentally, that is the only quibble I would have with the Minister's address.

Coming back to the point made by Senator Quinn, there is a need for a wider debate here and I hope that next week we would have more courage than they had in the other House. I hope we will be able to sit here and listen to the diversity of views dealing with one element of human sexuality. I hope there will be more than 15 minutes left at the end of all the first speakers for people to deal with these matters.

The reality is that we continuously try to fudge the issue of sexuality in all debates in both Houses. I accept the point was made by Senator Quinn; I have four children and I would be derelict as a parent if I was not concerned about the direction Ireland is taking. I also know from my own dealings with young people that they are sexually active and that one of the horrific problems is unwanted pregnancies which arise because of that activity by young people who frequently have not reached the maturity to control their own fertility. We need to look at that directly; we need to discuss and debate it and we need to consider where this country is going on this matter.

I have no problem supporting this Bill. I already called for all the measures in this Bill when in the other House and within my own parliamentary party. Senator O'Kennedy may not agree with my views and I may not agree with his, but there is a tyranny abroad in this land in that we are not prepared to listen to each other particularly in these matters.

Senator Norris rightly touched on the objectionable nature of material which is coming through the post at the moment. I received a document yesterday and I cannot begin to comprehend the mentality of the people who put it into our letterboxes. They were dealing with abnormalities and aberrations and they were suggesting that if we enact legislation and take steps in the direction we are heading, the sky is going to fall on us and we will be wiped out by fire and brimstone. What sort of an attitude is that in a Christian society? The hallmark of a civilised society and the hallmark of a Christian society is one and the same; we are prepared to deal with compassion and to listen to the other person's point of view.

I support and commend the Bill and I have no problem in doing so but when we are dealing with these issues we should deal with them in a more — to use the young person's term — upright and forthright manner. This Bill is welcome because it is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. It is welcome because there has been a change in attitude in society and the law is following that change in attitude. I cannot understand some of the fears and trepidation which are being expressed but I do accept that they are genuine.

As I said I had not meant to contribute to this debate but I hope that henceforth in our discussions on sexuality we can have a little more maturity, frankness and, above all, a greater willingness to listen. It is time we had a full and honest discussion as to the direction in which this country is going. I am not sure that any of us can solve the problem but if we all have the honesty to say exactly where we feel we are going, what the challenges are and how we respond to those challenges, we would deal with the issues that face this nation. They are not the major issues which face this nation but we would be dealing with them in perhaps a more constructive, forthright and honest way than we have in the past.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing the legislation. I am glad it was done by a primary teacher. It has brought some sense into a mess which has been there for a long time. I would just like to make one brief comment on the Bill.

I was discussing this legislation with some of my family recently. My daughter said she had been discussing the fact that this legislation was being introduced with some of her friends who are in third level institutions. The majority of the people in her group could not visualise how a day in the time of the Dáil and a day in the time of the Seanad could be wasted dealing with this matter. They felt it fell between the height of hilarity and a total lack of contact with the real world. It brings to light the importance of politics being in contact with young people. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the legislation. It would be easy to nit pick but I feel it is a step forward which needed to be taken. It is not really our business but apparently somebody made it our business and I support it.

I am grateful for the wide-ranging contributions and I will try to respond to as many of the points as I can.

It is good that there was not a unanimous view in relation to the Bill. The variety of opinion is welcome and I listened to all contributions with great care. It would be odd if there was a bland uniformity of opinion in this House because there certainly is not a bland uniformity of opinion outside the House. It has taken 20 years for the present situation to evolve. It would be remarkable if issues contained in a Bill which went through both Houses a few months ago with some difficulty and divided Houses would be resolved in a uniform manner a few months later.

It has been said that I have overemphasised the prophylactic use of condoms in this debate rather than stressing the traditional use of condoms as the oldest contraceptive. I do not mean to do that; I mean to stress their use for family planning and their contraceptive value. I hope I have used this occasion to stress a new and important use, a use that is literally a matter of life and death, and that is, the preventive, prophylactic nature of a condom as one of the most valuable devices in the battle against AIDS. That is not only my view. It is the view of my colleagues in the World Health Organisation that there is an important prophylactic use for condoms, that they are an important part of the international campaign against AIDS. We are not immune from that. So while I laid emphasis on that, I hope it in no way diminished the focus on the traditional use as well.

I would have brought this Bill before the House had there been no AIDS scourge facing us. I honestly say that because I have never changed my view on this issue in the ten years since I first came into this House. I have been consistent in all I said, publicly and privately, in relation to this matter. We have grown as a community in understanding needs such as this.

The first point which I want to address is the redefining of condoms as contraceptives. I said to my officials that I wanted to deregulate condoms and I asked them what was the legislative measure for doing that. Quite bluntly, we have put such tortuous, convoluted legislation in place — Bills amending Bills amending Bills — that when I gave my opening address, I was referring to amending legislation which amended legislation, subsections repealing sections and subsections. Senators should read my opening speech.

I had two choices. I could simply deregulate condoms; by defining them not as a contraceptive they are not subject to this painful morass, or I could have gone seriatim through every clause and subclause of every existing piece of legislation and remove every barrier — if Senators will pardon the phrase — which was imposed on the distribution of condoms across the community.

I chose the simpler course which I thought was less painful for this House and for the community. However, the intent was simple — to deregulate condoms so that they are seen for what they are: a simple piece of latex available for people who want to use them while having sex to prevent the spread of the HIV virus, other sexually transmitted diseases and to prevent conception. That is the road I decided to travel and I did not mean it to be an Irish solution to an Irish problem. It was a clear, definite solution. I wanted them deregulated.

I only sought to keep two controls in force in this Bill. First, on balance I thought it was important to have residual powers to determine the siting of vending machines because it is possible they would be sited in a place which most of us would find unacceptable. I wanted the residual power to forbid that should it arise. I think there would be a consensus that such an objective would be desirable. The other power left to me in the Bill is the power to define standards for condoms. It would be worse than useless, it would be positively dangerous, if there was a proliferation of condoms which were of inferior quality and had no prophylactic value. Those are the only two powers which I have retained. I hope that explains in some measure what I tried to do in relation to the redefinition.

I hope I have explained the definition Senator Reynolds raised. He asked me to define what is meant by inappropriate locations. I do not wish to start listing places where they should not be, rattling my brains and getting my officials to rattle their brains collectively to compile a list. If there are inappropriate places they will present themselves and I will then deal with them. I want the power to forbid rather than list all possible locations. I hope that power will not be needed. I do not envisage that such powers will be needed because most inappropriate places are controlled by people who would not tolerate that. Commercial entities will not put machines where they will be offensive. There are people in the commercial world present who would understand that logic.

Senator McGennis spoke about family planning legislation in general. This Bill is dealing with condoms and I wanted it out of the way, to be clear and a final solution. There is a broader question of family planning which will be addressed in full. I am concerned about the ad hoc way in which health services have developed, responding to need and pressure points across the country. We do not have a uniform standard quality care in any provision across the country.

To that end I have a strategy committee in my Department putting together a national health strategy which I will bring to this House before the end of the year and which will map out the direction in which health policy is going in every area between now and the next three or four years. We will then have measurable objectives and can have an inclusive debate. There will be, as I have found, huge pressure points within the health services demanding resources.

There must be an open, democratic debate on where money is expended because there is a common pool of money and where one area wins, another area loses. That cannot be decided by me or people in Hawkins House but, ultimately, by the democratic process itself. Family planning and women's health will be an intrinsic part of that strategy. I hope to have an opportunity to return and talk to the House specifically about that in due course.

Senator McGennis commented on the AIDS and HIV programmes and sex education. I agree there is a need for a better sex education programme. It is something I have already discussed with my colleague, the Minister for Education, and I know that she is working on that. In relation to discrimination, I will respond in more detail about the specifics of the recommendation of the National AIDS Strategy Committee.

I think it is indicative of the approach of this Government that we have, for the first time, a Minister for Equality whose raison d'être is to examine the whole area of discrimination in our society and to legislate to ensure that discrimination is eliminated as far as practicable. That will affect the disabled, the mentally handicapped, travellers, women — all communities in society who are marginalised. This is a commitment of the Government and I know that my colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, is actively addressing those issues, and I think Senators will find the legislative framework will improve dramatically in the course of his tenure in that important new Ministry.

I will give some details in relation to the recommendations of the National AIDS Strategy Committee, of which I am chairman. The recommendations fall broadly into a number of categories: prevention, care and management, HIV surveillance and anti-discrimination. In all, there are 54 recommendations and of these, 37 have been, or are in the course of being, implemented right now.

All the recommendations have been referred to the appropriate agencies responsible for funding, and moneys from my Department have been made available to ensure that the momentum of the struggle against HIV and AIDS is maintained. I have provided an additional £4.4 million this year. Senators have spoken about specific voluntary agencies working in the HIV and AIDS area and I have allocated an additional £400,000 to such bodies to help them in their activities this year, and I know will be welcomed by Senators across the House.

Senator Henry spoke about family planning legislation, I have dealt with it now, and, I will be dealing with it in the national health strategy. I understand the point made by several Senators in relation to teenage pressure. It is hard to see how that balance can be struck. Part of the solution is proper education so that there is neither embarrassment nor intimidation in relation to the development of one's sexuality. It should be equally acceptable and appropriate to be celibate. Such pressures should not be placed on people. I believe fundamentally that will not be achieved by a closed society.

The Minister said equally, for young people, unmarried people.

It would not be appropriate to return to a society which is so rigid and oppressive of nature, that it resulted in the dreadful suffering which most of us who run clinics and have contact with the public have seen. I agree strongly with Senator Henry's view that we should try by education and a new maturity and openness to ensure that such pressures are not on teenagers. I genuinely think that the best way to do that is by allowing teenagers to speak, and to answer their concerns. The solution will not be found by being moralistic — to use that word which has caused umbrage to some — but by listening, being caring and understanding.

Senator Henry also spoke about Dr. Joe Barry and his work in relation to HIV and drug abusers in Dublin city in particular. Tremendous work is being undertaken by the Eastern Health Board. The needle exchange and the methadone programmes are impacting and great work is being done. I have had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Barry and many of the people involved, and I visited one centre on the quays, which is very impressive and is doing tremendous work.

There is a real problem out there. We can put our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist but I know the priests and friars who work in the inner city, are dealing with this in a most realistic and non-judgmental fashion. It is a real social problem which needs to be addressed. I am also interested in the mortality figures given by Senator Henry which are worth noting.

Senator Henry talked about reaching out to prostitutes to educate them about the risks of unprotected sex. Part of the special funding allocated to the Eastern Health Board for HIV/AIDS has been used to develop a clinic for female sex workers — the new phrase for prostitutes. A total of 70 prostitutes currently attend this clinic where HIV testing and counselling is provided together with advice and information on reducing the risk of HIV virus. A fundamental element in that programme is the provision of condoms and advice on their use. The Outreach programme for prostitutes at the AIDS Resource Centre in Baggot Street offers condoms, and that is an important aspect of the programme.

I welcome Senator Maloney's kind comments about the multi-media campaign and this Bill. Senator Quinn, in his thought provoking contribution, talked about the direction society is taking. That subject is worthy of reflection. The Senator had a gut reaction to general developments in society as opposed to reacting to the specific content of this legislation. He talked in a holistic way about likely Bills that were coming before this House. We must address issues that are real. We can either ignore reality and legislate as if an ideal society existed or we can deal with reality, warts and all. Addressing painful issues is part of the healing process that produces a better society.

I share Senator O'Sullivan's view that it is too easy to label people. A person is considered a reactionary troglodyte if he is not in step with the latest thinking or he is considered anti-life or anti-family if he seeks change. My postbag during the last number of months has not been edifying. Some of it is disturbing in that it demonstrates that there are disturbed people who need counselling and help. Some of the mail, from people who are concerned about the direction society is taking, is well motivated and thought provoking.

Although I am not as long in public life as many of the Members here, I have held long clinics every week-end for ten years. Some of the family values people praise so highly here worry me. A woman came to my clinic and told me she had been married for 40 years, 40 years of torture. To the outside world she kept up the pretence of having the perfect family with the perfect family values. However, the woman, who was in her sixties, told me she had suffered 40 years of torture and had nowhere to go because she had no financial independence. That is not an isolated case. I do not believe that addressing existing family values need necessarily worsen the situation. There is much hidden hurt and frustration in Irish morality that has never been confronted. If we allow shafts of light to penetrate that darkness we can only do good.

I am not as widely travelled in Europe as some Members of this House but I know from talking to European colleagues that their societies are not universally bad. I do not think Northern Ireland, where condoms have been available for generations, is any less moral or any less religious as a result; I do not believe the Nordic countries, with their compassion and fairness, are savage societies because they are tolerant of others; I do not believe our EC partners have societies that are more depraved than our own, and all have long permitted freedom of conscience in the use of contraception.

I was involved in the preparation of the inquiry into the Kilkenny incest case and I read the report. Those events occurred in a family, an Irish family. Unfortunately there are many such cases around our country within the safety of Irish family values. We cannot be complacent or self-righteous about the high standard of family values in this country alone. That is not to say that we should diminish real Irish family values which are important and must be upheld. However, we should allow in light where it is necessary and not have a closed mind to reasoned, balanced change. I hope that this Bill facilitates that level of change.

Senator O'Kennedy talked about the title of the Bill. The Senator will know from his extensive period in Government that, as the Bill is an amendment of existing legislation, the Title derives from that legislation. There is no subterfuge or sleight of hand; it is not my style and will not be.

I share the concerns expressed about the social pressures on young people and will talk to my colleague, the Minister for Education, about how such pressures can be avoided. However, there are many pressures in society, some of which we cannot control, and often we will be required to sacrifice the best for the general good.

This Bill is not exclusively my legislation. It is Government legislation agreed unanimously at Cabinet and supported by the partners in Government. My constitutional responsibility is to enact the legislation decided by Government in my area of responsibility and I will execute that responsibility honourably, I hope.

Senator O'Kennedy said that the only effective means to prevent the spread of this virus is through being faithful to a faithful partner. I have said that already. Assuming that neither partner uses intravenous drugs and is sharing needles that is the ideal and we should encourage it.

In television advertisements as well.

That is on my list to address in the campaign.

It is not there at present.

The non-moralistic programmes mentioned in my speech were criticised. If one is of the opinion that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong one cannot initiate a programme to educate gay men about the prevention of HIV and its transmission. A colleague in the other House said yesterday that homosexuals had his pity but not his tolerance. We must have more than tolerance; we must have understanding for everybody in our society.

A number of campaigns will be targeted at specific vulnerable groups. Already, these have been targeted at the homosexual community. Specifically detailed campaigns have been devised for intravenous drug abusers, who are still statistically the most vulnerable group. They have been going on for many years and will continue — I will try to devise new campaigns to reach out to them — but this campaign had a different function. It was to tell the public at large that no one is immune from HIV/AIDS and there are some who believe they are, regardless of their behaviour. That is the impact, I hope, of the campaign.

Senator Norris referred to the efficacy of condoms. I do not want to go into that argument again because I have made that case so often. I have reports from the World Health Organisation, and I have asked my Department to trawl every report, from the Paracentre for CoOrdinating the Campaign on AIDS, from the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta which co-ordinates the American campaigns, and other reports. I have reports running into the tens on the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS transmission. I have not a single report to the contrary; if someone has such a report please send it to me and I will have it examined and validated. If no such report exists, then please stop talking about it.

Senator Norris also referred to the role of the national AIDS co-ordinator. The previous AIDS co-ordinator, Dr. James Walsh, did a Trojan job. I commend his tremendous work and will bear in mind what the Senator has said.

Senator Honan referred to the national health strategy on contraceptives; I hope that has been explained already. She said that strong and effective action is needed to deal with AIDS; I hope I will act in that manner to combat this dreadful scourge. I appreciate the Senator's comments about specific difficulties for women and I have taken careful note of them.

Senator O'Sullivan referred to the availability of tubal ligation. I support what she said in relation to availability and it may be of interest to her to hear which public hospitals provide tube ligation. They are: St. James Hospital; the Adelaide; the Meath; the Coombe Hospital; Holles Street; Portlaoise General Hospital; Mullingar General Hospital; St. John's Hospital, Limerick; Limerick Regional Hospital; Monaghan General Hospital; Cavan General Hospital; Letterkenny General Hospital; Sligo General Hospital; South Victoria Cork; Cork Regional Hospital; Erinville Maternity Hospital, Cork; Tralee General Hospital; Portiuncula Hospital, Ballinasloe and University College Hospital, Galway. There is a broad range of hospitals where that procedure is deemed to be appropriate by clinicians and patients.

I can understand what Senator Roche was talking about when he referred to the tyranny of political correctness. Perhaps in the context of the matter we are discussing people feel now that to be in the majority is a surprise — it takes some adjusting — because there were many difficulties about this matter for so long. I hope my words did not intimate any smugness — they were not meant to — but I do not accept that this is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. It is a solution to a problem that needs to be addressed. That phrase has become a synonym for fudging and I hope that whatever I bring to this House will not be described as such. I have been consistent in my dealings on this issue and I do not want this Bill to disguise the intent, which I hope I clearly explained to the House. I thank Senator O'Toole for his clear and brief support for the Bill.

I hope I have answered all of the points raised. I thank all Senators and respect all the views expressed and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and declared carried.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share