Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jul 1992

Vol. 422 No. 5

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3.

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of "`family planning service" means a service for the provision of information, instruction, advice or consultation in relation to any one or more of the following;' and by the substitution therefor of the following:

"`family planning services" means a service for (i) the provision of information, instruction, advice or consultation, or (ii) the supply of devices or drugs, in relation to any one or more of the following:'.".

—(Deputy De Rossa.)

Proinsias De Rossa

The purpose of my amendment is to define family planning service so as to include the supply of devices or drugs, in other words, to extend the definition beyond the provision of information, consultation and advice. I appreciate this will have implications for the health boards because of their obligations to medical card holders. If we are serious about tackling the problem of AIDS and of dealing with the matter of contraception — and condoms are primarily intended for use as contraceptives — the Minister should give serious consideration to accepting my amendment.

If we are to deal with the wider issue of abortion and the question of family size, the health boards should take this provision on board.

Minister for Health (Dr. O'Connell)

As I said, I am providing for this for selected groups under regulation. This does not preclude me — if circumstances so permit — from providing this free of charge for those in the lower income group. The regulations will enable me to provide them as a preventive measure for those at greatest risk of transmitting the AIDS infection.

I can understand Deputy De Rossa's point that some lower income groups would not have the means to avail of contraceptive devices or drugs. I am conscious of that but that could be provided for in regulations.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to deal with amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy De Rossa. Amendment No. 8 is related and it is proposed therefore for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 4 and 8 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of `(c) contraceptives;' and the substitution therefor of the following:

`(c) contraceptives,

(d) tubal ligation or vasectomy'.".

I referred to this amendment when we were discussing developing the definition of a family planning service. I had already raised the question of vasectomy and tubal ligation with the Minister, who rather quaintly referred to vasectomies as the "snip" and I accept his superior knowledge of that matter.

Some people who are in the best of health have decided they have completed their families and for a variety of social reasons the condom does not suit, and perhaps for medical reasons the contraceptive pill does not suit. In the circumstances either a vasectomy for the man or a tubal ligation for the woman would be the most appropriate way of ensuring there would be no further pregnancies.

I want to add one further point to what I said. In recent months there has been a great deal of talk about abortion and the need to permit abortion in Ireland in certain circumstances. Indeed, the Supreme Court has defined certain circumstances in which a woman is entitled to an abortion. There is the further controversy about the right to information and to travel for abortions. It was difficult to get statistics on this issue. It is clear from the figures available — and they are not all that reliable — that the number is understated, but one group in the Dublin area who provide information and counselling on abortion have indicated that of the 900 women who approached them seeking information on abortion, 300 already had children and 100 of those women had three or more children.

It is clear that there are women who have, as far as they are concerned, completed their family. It seems to me that sterilisation would be a much more effective and humane method of dealing with this problem. I am quite certain that if sterilisation were available for women for the purpose of avoiding further pregnancies rather than simply on the basis of some related illness, there would be a reduction in the number of women travelling to Britain for an abortion or seeking an abortion in Ireland. My other statistic is again not easily verifiable in that it is based on declarations made by women who have already travelled to Britain for an abortion. The figures are provided by the clinics themselves and it is believed that the figures are grossly understated, perhaps by 100 per cent. The available statistics seem to indicate that at least 20 per cent of the women who have travelled to Britain for an abortion are married. Although this information is not available through the statistics, one must assume that a significant proportion of them would already have children. It seems to me that we could certainly avoid the use — even the unintentional use — of abortion as a contraceptive method if our health boards were able to provide female sterilisation and also vasectomies as means of contraceptives.

Yesterday one of my colleagues jokingly said that if the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare were to get together on this issue they could perhaps save the State considerable sums of money in children's allowance payments by providing vasectomies. That comment was offered purely in a jocular fashion but in any event there is a need to emphasise the responsibility of men in the area of contraception and the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies. If our health boards were able to advertise and provide such a service, emphasis would be placed on the fact that contraception is a dual responsibility and is not a so-called women's issue. Contraception is the responsibility of all of us.

The Minister's acceptance of the amendment I propose would first help to broaden the understanding of who is responsible for the whole question of contraception and would also help to alleviate the stress on many thousands of women who become pregnant not through choice. For many of those women it is not that they do not want to have children but that they are perhaps in a relationship, whether or not it be a married relationship, in which the man refuses to have a vasectomy or refuses to use condoms and her own health does not permit her to take the pill. I do believe that we have to grow up.

I recognise that there may be religious problems among the staff of some hospitals, but I think that may have been overcome to a significant extent in recent years and I hope that that is not a significant difficulty. Nevertheless, as legislators we have a responsibility to ensure that the widest forms of contraception are made available. It would be a mistake to move on from this Bill without having addressed that issue.

Mr. Howlin

I support the amendment tabled by Deputy De Rossa. It is important that every citizen should have available to him or her the total range of contraceptive options. One of the factors that has circumscribed the availability of contraception in the past has been ability to pay. It is clear that for those who have money in this country the option of tubal ligation or vasectomy has existed. There are private clinics who carry out those operations happily. For those who do not have the wherewithal to either travel to those clinics or pay private fees the operations are not generally available. I should welcome the broadening of the definitions section of the Principal Act to encompass those areas. This is an important issue and the case made by Deputy De Rossa is very fair. I hope that the Minister will act upon it.

I wish also to address myself specifically to amendment No. 8, in my own name, which is being taken with that of Deputy De Rossa. The object of my amendment is to broaden the definition of the term "contraceptive sheath" to include a condom intended for use by either a man or a woman. In my second stage contribution yesterday I mentioned that there is a condom for women, femadom, currently available on the market in the United Kingdom and in the United States. It is likely that the product will become available in this country shortly. The female condom has to be at least defined in legislative terms because it is not covered by any definition, either as a contraceptive or as a condom, under the current legislation. We should prepare ourselves for the availability of that device by including it in the definitions of this Bill so that it would be available without any difficulty.

I urge the Minister to accept both the broadening of definition of the Principal Act suggested by Deputy De Rossa and the inclusion of female condoms as required by my amendment No. 8.

Mr. R. Bruton

When Deputy De Rossa spoke on amendment No. 3 the Minister's response seemed to indicate that his view was that there should be a right to tubal ligation or vasectomy only when it was established that such an operation was medically necessary and when a consultant could be found to state that either a tubal ligation or a vasectomy was medically necessary. It would seem to me that this is a matter of personal choice and a person should not be obliged to find a consultant who would deem such procedure medically necessary. In that context Deputy De Rossa has a valid point in pressing his amendment. The amendment emphasises that under family planning legislation people have a right to make personal choices in the area of contraception and that should be recognised as part of the Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

I shall first provide Deputy De Rossa with some figures on Irish women who travelled to Britain for an abortion. In 1991, 69.3 per cent of those women were between the ages of 20 and 34, 13.9 per cent were over 34 and 16.8 per cent were 19 or under. Those figures do not bear out Deputy De Rossa's statement.

Tubal ligation is an operative procedure and is not without its own risk. I do not wish to start laying down the law as a doctor, but there is a distinct risk attached to tubal ligation. It could not be a device made available freely, as would condoms. The issue would have to be one for a patient-doctor relationship within a hospital. It would have to be discussed and perhaps presented as an option, but there are simpler options. I would like to take this away from this field into the field of hospital procedure, like any other medical procedure which a patient would consider. We cannot just say they want it. It is not necessarily what they want, it is their best interests that matter. It is a laparoscopic surgery but there is an operative risk and I would like the public to know that. There are simpler methods available where it is medically jusified and in the best interests of the patient. I believe the consultant will recommend it and, as I said, it is available and becoming more so. The Coombe Hospital declared recently that that would be available for patients there as an option. That was a very good decision on their part. It must be considered within the hospital setting and nothing else for the time being.

In reply to Deputy Howlin regarding the female condom, as a doctor I would look at the anatomical structure and say it is a cap. It is available, has been so for a long time and there is nothing new about it. It is a sheath like the contraceptive sheath, so it cannot be defined separately. The diaphram is provided for under a separate heading, so we need not include it here.

Deputy De Rossa mentioned abortions. There are a multiplicity of reasons why abortions are sought. I have listened to thousands of my patients and some of the reasons they have given for seeking abortions are mind boggling. For instance, the husband is away at sea and there is no chance of getting him back. I could go through such stories all day. Various risks are taken and not just to prevent pregnancies. I am not saying I am opposed to tubal ligation but I feel we would be very wrong to hold that it should be available freely for everyone. If I were advising a patient I would suggest seeking the simpler way first. Only in cases where there would be problems, where the danger of pregnancy might seriously impair the person's general health, would I agree to it but it must not be resorted to too freely.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not propose to pursue the matter much further because there are other issues we want to reach in this debate. I am not proposing that female sterilisation be freely available across the counter, so to speak, because it has to be on the basis of consultation with a doctor and involves the hospital operation. You cannot just walk in off the street, demand and get it. My amendment proposes that the definition of a family planning service should include the provision of sterilisation both male and female. Unlike female sterilisation, vasectomy is available virtually on a walk-in-off-the-street basis if you can afford it. Counselling and a great deal of advice are involved; time is needed to think it over and so forth. Given the nature of our society and the psychology of men and women, it is not something most men and women will consider as a first option. In the nature of things both men and women shy away from surgery of any kind no matter how simple, especially when it is concerned with the reproductive organs. Men certainly shy away very quickly from the idea of vasectomy. I still believe we should acknowledge it as a valid way of ensuring pregnancies do not occur. As I have said, it is important to encourage the idea that men have a responsibility. A problem in the campaign for safer sex as it relates to men and condoms is that of persuading men to believe it is not less masculine to use a condom. There are all sorts of psychological barriers to be overcome in this area. It is not a question of saying that if my amendment is accepted it is a walk-in-off-the-street, on-demand, service, but it would provide a clear statement that sterilisation for both men and women is an acceptable form of contraception and is and should be available in the comprehensive family planning service, the Minister intends to provide under regulations through our health boards.

The Minister could easily overcome his fear about the cost by imposing restrictions of one kind or another on such a provision by way of regulation. It would be quite simple to do that. By accepting the amendment the Minister would establish the principle of what I am talking about. He would assist a considerable number of men and women, particularly women who currently have no other effective or appropriate means of avoiding a pregnancy, who cannot afford it at the moment, whose medical condition is such that they are not entitled to it in the medical sense, or there is no threat to their health as the result of not having sterilisation but there may be a threat to their mental health or the stability of the relationship they are in if they do not have such sterilisation.

The Minister came back to me with some statistics on abortion. He said 69.3 per cent of women who in 1991 had abortions in Britain were between the ages 20 and 34. I may have missed some other point the Minister made. I did not refer at all to ages. I said that of the 900 women approximately who approached a counselling service in Dublin for information on abortion 300 had children, 600 had no children and of the 300 who had children 100 had three or more children. One can draw the conclusion that at least some of those are women who are seeking abortion simply because the pregnancy is unwanted and they have completed their families. It seems that the provision of sterilisation in cases like that would avoid the necessity for women to seek an abortion.

The other statistic I referred to was in relation to the number of married women who had an abortion in Britain. Approximately one-fifth of the women who had abortions were married. The statistics are not very reliable and that figure is probably quite low in terms of the real figure. There are probably many reasons an abortion is required or requested but it seems reasonable to assume that a significant number of those married women sought an abortion because they had completed their families. They did not wish and may not have been in a financial position to have another child. Therefore, this issue of sterilisation is important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish to advise the House that in the opinion of the Chair perhaps we are devoting too much time to specific amendments and dealing with them a little like a Second Stage debate. We should expedite discussion if we wish to make any progress with the other amendments. In regard to amendment No. 4, does Deputy De Rossa wish me to put the question?

Proinsias De Rossa

Perhaps the Minister would indicate if he is still refusing to accept it.

Dr. O'Connell

I am conscious of the Deputy's views but I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

On a point of clarification, the Minister indicated earlier that he will accept amendments Nos. 6, 31 and 47 which are identical and may be taken together. We must nominate one of those amendments to be moved.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3. — Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of `that do not relate to the use of contraceptives'.".

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3. —Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection:

`(2) Nothing in this section shall absolve the Minister from the obligation to ensure that family planning services are made available in accordance with the terms of sections 1 and 2 of this Act.'.".

I suspect that amendment No. 7 has been superseded by the Minister's amendment No. 41 (a) in which he has taken on board the idea of providing a service and of securing a comprehensive family planning service.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3. — Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act, a draft of each regulation shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall not come into effect until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

This is a fairly standard amendment that I have put down to many Bills over the years. Where important regulations are being introduced the Dáil should have an opportunity to address and discuss them and propose amendments. In the normal course of events regulations are made by what is called a negative order; they are put before the House and if they are not rescinded within 21 days they are deemed to have been carried. I am proposing a positive procedure under which they would have to be brought before the House and discussed. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment particularly in view of the fact that a significant proportion of the development in this area will be made by regulation. It would be useful to give the House an opportunity to discuss those regulations; perhaps some Friday morning or afternoon could be set aside for this purpose.

Dr. O'Connell

I do not intend to accept this amendment. I assure the Deputy that his views will be given serious consideration when I am preparing the regulations. After the regulations are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 21 days are allowed for Members to table amendments to change them, that is the usual procedure. I can understand the fears of some Deputies in this regard but they can rest assured that their views will be taken into consideration.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not wish to take up the time of the House on this matter but I would like to explain that the only way the Opposition can overturn or amend regulations that a Minister places before this House is a Private Members' motion on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening. In the nature of things no party on the Opposition benches will share their time in this manner. If I, or Deputy Howlin, have an objection to some regulation the Fine Gael Party may not share their time with us or vice versa.

The present system is not really an effective way of considering or approving regulations. It is a formal way of getting the approval of the House without the House having any input into the framing of the regulations. I have put forward this view on numerous occasions. There is a need to change the method of dealing with regulations. We make many laws by way of regulation and we must find some way to deal with them. They could be dealt with through a committee system, for example. We need to devise some system under which the Deputies on this side of the House will have some input into the form, nature and extent of regulations made by Ministers.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 10, 32 and 38 are related and amendment No. 37 is an alternative to No. 32. I propose therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 10, 32, 37 and 38 together.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3. —The table to section 17 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, as inserted by section 12 of the Principal Act, is hereby deleted.".

This amendment refers to the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929 which was brought into the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979. The deletion of the table, as suggested in the amendment, is one of the reforming measures I would have expected the Minister to introduce, as in my view it is an unnecessary provision in a family planning Bill. On Second Stage I drew attention to the fact that it could be argued that the Department's own advertising campaign on the question of AIDS could be deemed to be illegal under this section because the section specifically prohibits advertising in relation to sexually transmitted diseases arising from sexual intercourse and, as we know, AIDS, not in all cases but certainly in some, results from sexual intercourse. It appears to be an unnecessary restriction on the capacity of the Department, the health boards and others to advertise products which could help to reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and eliminate the anomaly in the health boards' own advertising campaign which could be deemed to be in breach of the law if someone were to challenge it.

Mr. R. Bruton

Amendment No. 32 in my name and that of Deputy Creed is of similar import. Essentially, this is an archaic provision in our legislation whereby advertisements which refer or relate to any disease affecting the generative organs of either sex, or to any complaint or infirmity arising from or relating to sexual intercourse, or to the prevention or removal of irregularities in menstruation would be deemed indecent and obscene. That provision is outdated and no one could conceivably take the view that that should continue to be the law. The Minister should avail of the opportunity to deal with this matter.

Our proposed amendment is more applicable than that proposed by Deputy De Rossa in that his amendment seeks to remove parts of the section that dealt with procuring abortion or miscarriage. As matters now stand I presume we would have to amend the Constitution before we could pass legislation that would change the law in that area. Therefore, we would need the proposed amendment in the autumn to the existing Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution before we could deal with that element of the table to section 17 of the Censorship of Publications Act. The Minister should deal with this matter. It is not a major issue and the House should not delay unduly long on it. The Minister should also avail of this opportunity to indicate his intention in relation to section 7 of the Principal Act which deals with the control of advertising and display and notices. At the conclusion of Second Stage he indicated his intention to change substantially the 1980 regulations in relation to advertisements, notices and display. Perhaps he would inform the House of his intention in that regard because at the end of Second Stage yesterday he did not make his intention clear.

Mr. Howlin

Amendment No. 37 in my name is largely the same as that tabled by Deputies Bruton and Creed. They seek to amend the section under the Principal Act whereas I seek to amend the initial Act — the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929. Section 17 (1) of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, makes interesting reading. It says that the reference contained in section 3 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, to printed matter which is of an indecent or obscene character should be deemed to include advertisements set out in a prescribed list. Section 3 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889 states:

Whoever affixes to or inscribes on any house, building, wall, hoarding, gate, fence, pillar, post, board, tree, or any other thing whatsoever so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any street, public highway, or footpath, and whoever affixes to or inscribes on any public urinal, or delivers or attempts to deliver, or exhibits, to any inhabitants or to any person being in or passing along any street, public highway, or footpath...

Therefore anybody making public any of the issues referred to in section 17 of the Censorship of Publications Act would be committing an offence. The offence could carry imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month with or without hard labour. It is time we addressed these issues and used the opportunity of this Bill to repeal that section, which has no place in contemporary society.

Amendment No. 38 in my name seeks to repeal section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, which states:

Any advertisement relating to syphilis, gonorrhoea, nervous debility, or other complaint or infirmity arising from or relating to sexual intercourse, shall be deemed to be printed or written matter of an indecent nature within the meaning of section three of this Act...

Quite frankly, that is ludicrous in the times in which we live. I hope the Minister will accept that this legislation is a useful vehicle by which to repeal this legislation which is Victorian in its content. As other Members have said, the real issue here — while not only bringing the law on these matters into the 20th century but also preparing ourselves for the 21st century — is to get an indication from the Minister of his intent as regards the possibility of advertising of condoms and contraceptives generally. We have not reached the section but the Minister indicated on Second Stage that he might be willing to change the legislation so as not to have the blanket prescription that is currently in place. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments which parallel one another and which have been tabled by Opposition Deputies.

Mr. Shatter

I will be very brief. I urge the Minister to accept Deputy Bruton's amendment. Because of time constraints I was rushed when delivering my speech yesterday and I would like to say something to the Minister now, which I had intended to say yesterday, but did not get an opportunity and which is relevant to this amendment. For many years Deputy O'Connell aspired to being Minister for Health. He is a person for whom I have always held, and still hold, a very high regard. It has always been my belief that Deputy O'Connell should have been made Minister for Health many years ago. If we have to have a Fianna Fáil Government I am pleased that it is Deputy O'Connell who is the Minister dealing with this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please get back to the amendment.

Mr. Shatter

For many years the Minister and I have been of the one view as to the somewhat ludicrous nature of our legislation in relation to family planning. In the context of bringing this Bill before the House and in the context of changes made he has travelled part of the journey which he would have liked to travel in this area over many years. This Bill may be the only opportunity we will get during the lifetime of this Dáil to complete that journey. So far the Minister has been open to constuctive amendments from the Opposition side, and in the context of what I think he personally would like to achieve with the Bill before the House, I invite him to accept Deputy Bruton's amendment. It is intended to be constructive. Yesterday I raised the issue of anomalies in the law which could remain after the Minister's Bill is enacted. It is my reading of the position that if this amendment is not adopted part of the campaign the Government have run to date on the AIDS issue will be illegal and possibly open to criminal prosecution for being obscene and indecent. Indeed, future advertisements by the Government could be similarly open to challenge. This is the only opportunity during the lifetime of this Dáil that we will get to address this issue.

Yesterday I criticised some comments on the Bill in that Members were dwelling on the issue of AIDS and sexually transmissible diseases — they are serious and I do not want to diminish that — and not addressing the simple fact that people make love, happily in the vast majority of cases, without the risk of any disease. They use a condom purely to make love responsibly and to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not occur.

Of course, the issue of AIDS, as the Minister and the Minister of State emphasised, is very serious. I could envisage — I hope it will happen under this Minister — the television AIDS campaign that we have stuttered through on and off, becoming a great deal more explicit than it has been to date. The Minister's predecessor was somewhat reticent in the way he dealt with the issue which has been far more forthright on British television.

We may reach the stage — I would argue that we reached it some time ago — at which the Government may have to ensure that advertisements on television encouraging people who are engaging in sexual relations to use condoms, describe the dangers of AIDS and the need to ensure that problems do not arise from sexual intercourse. Legally, with this provision remaining in place, it may not be possible for such advertisements to be carried on the airwaves. If RTE, for example, are asked to run them they may say they had legal advice to the effect that they cannot do so.

The Minister should look at this amendment in that context. If Report Stage was taken on another day the Minister would be able to consider this amendment. However, we are taking all Stages today. I invite the Minister to take on board amendment No. 32. I do not think it would get the Minister into any great difficulty or controversy. I invite him to accept it as a further step along the road to achieving what I think he would like to achieve in this legislation.

Dr. O'Connell

Of course, I do not propose to accept these amendments.

Mr. Howlin

Why, "of course"?

Dr. O'Connell

Let me say a few words. The Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, as amended by the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929 is designed to prevent obscene advertisements. These Acts do not prevent advertising per se. The amendment proposes the removal of control from the 1979 Act over advertisements in respect of treatment for sexually transmissible diseases and in respect of products designed to prevent or remove irregularities in menstruation.

In regard to the question of irregularities of menstruation, I am satisfied that there is no demand at present for the advertising in general of products of this nature. These are medicinal products the advertising of which is covered by the Medical Preparations Regulations of 1958, and subsequent amendments to the regulations, and amendments made in 1989 to the Health Act, 1947. These regulations provide for the appropriate level of advertising to, inter alia, members of the medical profession, the pharmaceutical profession and the nursing profession. I am satisfied that they meet the general thrust of the Deputies' amendment bearing in mind that the Indecent Advertisements Act, as amended by the Censorship of Publications Act, to which Deputy Howlin referred, is designed to prevent the use of obscene materials in advertising and is not intended to prevent responsible and relevant advertising.

In regard to advertisements relating to the treatment of sexually transmissible diseases the 1889 and 1929 Acts are not designed to control advertisements by health authorities. "This was reflected in the Dáil debates on the Censorship of Publications Bill when it was stated that the purpose of these Acts is "to see that persons suffering from this class of ailment are not at the mercy of quacks who take advantage of their possible reluctance to attend respectable doctors". It is clear that there is a distinction between the intention of these Acts which does not impinge on the medical or the legitimate and responsible advertising. If the Deputies' amendments were accepted the way would be open for the possible use of obsence and distasteful material in the advertisements.

I should like also to refer to the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917. I remember looking this up in the Library at a time when very few Members knew what we were talking about. When I first put a question down about the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1935 I referred to the fact that I did not see the advertisements in public toilets which should have been there about the availability of sexually transmissible diseases clinics. The Venereal Diseases Act, 1917 enables the health board to advertise in respect of the treatment of persons suffering from a venereal disease. I see no reason for deleting the reference. However, it is time we insisted on the health boards putting up notices in every public toilet in regard to the availability of these clinics. I could not understand the reluctance of health boards to do this up to now and I will be making sure that this is done.

Mr. R. Bruton

I should like the Minister to clarify that point. The reason this was included in the Health Family Planning Act, 1979 was, persumably, because the promoter of that Bill felt the existing prohibitions prevented any advertising relating to the prevention of conception and decided to remove the notion of deeming advertising that related to preventing conception as being indecent or obscene. It was for that reason that it arose in the original Act of 1979. From a layman's reading of the Table in the 1979 Act, it would seem that the mere fact that the advertisement related to or referred to any disease affecting the generative organs or could be reasonably supposed to relate or refer to such was deemed by that fact to be indecent or obscene. It was not the manner in which it referred to them that was obsene. The Minister's interpretation does not seem to gel with what was stated in the 1979 Act. I have not had the opportunity to go back to the earlier 1929 Act to see if that is the case but the extract that was brought into the 1979 Act would certainly suggest that any advertisement that referred in any way to a disease affecting the generative organs and so on was, ipso facto, indecent and obscene.

Proinsias De Rossa

I find it difficult to understand why the Minister is not accepting the amendments. Table 17. —(1) in section 12 (2) of the Health (Family Planning) Act, 1979 says quite clearly:

The reference contained in section 3 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, to printed matter which is of an indecent or obscene character shall be deemed to include advertisements which relate or refer or may be reasonably supposed to relate or refer to any disease affecting the generative organs of either sex, or to any complaint or infirmity arising from or relating to sexual intercourse, or to the prevention or removal of irregularities in menstruation, or to drugs, medicines, appliances, treatment or methods of procuring abortion or miscarriage.

It seems obvious that it should be deleted. I do not understand the Minister's resistance. It does not make sense to have it there. If we want to seriously open up society — the Minister said yesterday that we have to stop regarding sex as sinful — we have to get away from the notion that the matters referred to here are automatically deemed to be obscene. It does not make sense to retain this table.

Mr. Howlin

I do not want to go on too long about this issue as we have to deal with three other very important issues. I am at a loss to understand why this table should be retained. I looked at the 1889 Act, as amended by the 1929 Act and as incorporated in the 1979 Act, and I am still not sure why this table is being retained. The Minister said that under the 1917 Act, which I do not have, health boards are empowered to advertise products for the treatment of venereal diseases. Why is this Victorian phraseology, which was dragged into the 1979 Act, being left in place? Why should individual companies, subject to the ordinary obscenity laws, not be allowed to advertise products if they wish to do so? As I said, this Victorian phraseology — I have read it out already and I do not wish to repeat it — was dragged into the 1979 Act and it is now proposed to leave it in place. I am at a loss to understand why this is necessary. The Minister has given no cogent reason why this phraseology should be left in place.

Dr. O'Connell

My legal advisers have assured me that the position is as I have outlined. I should say that the advertising of medical products in general, including products for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, could create problems. The advertising of products is covered by regulations.

Mr. Howlin

All medical products are covered.

Dr. O'Connell

These regulations will meet the general thrust of the proposal in the Deputy's amendment. The Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, is designed to prevent the advertising of obscene materials. As I said, the regulations will meet the general thrust of the proposal in the Deputy's amendment.

Proinsias De Rossa

Why is this provision included in the Bill?

Dr. O'Connell

I have been assured by my legal advisers that this is the position.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish to advise the House that everyone will get an opportunity to contribute if we do not have cross-examination.

Mr. Shatter

I will be very brief as I am conscious that there are other matters with which we want to deal. I wish to point out to the Minister that a condom is not a medical preparation; under this legislation it will not require a prescription unless a person is under 17 years of age. I believe there is a misunderstanding in the section. The point I am making is that an advertising campaign which encourages people to use condoms as a protection against AIDS will fall foul of this provision because by its very nature it will be deemed to be indecent or obscene. In effect, this is what will criminalise the campaign. It may very well be decided to make health boards immune from this provision.

Under the Bill the Minister can, so to speak, farm out functions. In some cases other groups might perform these functions. There seems to be a problem with this proposal. I do not want to labour the point any further; I merely want to say to the Minister that he should look at this provision between now and the time the Bill goes into the Seanad.

Dr. O'Connell

This issue will be covered by regulations. I want to declare that publicly.

Mr. Shatter

One cannot change the ordinary law by way of regulations. The Minister will be tied by this provision. Regulations cannot change what is a basic statutory provision creating an offence. The Minister cannot delimit that law by way of regulation. I do not see any provision in the Bill which would enable the Minister to do that. I genuinely think there is a problem here and I ask the Minister to look at the section again.

Dr. O'Connell

I referred to this point in my speech yesterday and I have been assured that the matter can be covered by way of regulations. As I said, the regulations will meet the thrust of the proposal in the Deputy's amendment.

Proinsias De Rossa

Unlike Deputy Shatter, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I must accept his point that if the 1979 Act deems certain things to be obscene it cannot be overcome by way of regulation unless a provision is included in the Bill, which provides for exceptions to be made by way of regulation.

Dr. O'Connell

I will revise the 1980 regulations to bring them into line with this Bill.

Mr. Howlin

Is the Minister referring to the regulations made under the 1979 Act?

Dr. O'Connell

The regulations were made in 1980. As I said, I will revise them to bring them into line with this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An bhfuil tú sásta, Teachta de Rossa?

Proinsias De Rossa

I am still at a loss to understand precisely how regulations can overcome this problem. I wish to formally press my amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Dr. O'Connell

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 21, to delete "subsection" and substitute "section".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are alternatives, amendments Nos. 18, 25, 28 and 39 are related, amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are alternatives to amendment No. 18 and amendment No. 26 is an alternative to amendment No. 25. I propose, therefore, that we take amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 39 le chéile. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 3, subsection (1) (b) to delete lines 8 to 12 and substitute "or,".

This amendment proposes to delete lines 8 to 12 of section 3 (1) (b) on page 3 and substitute the word "or". Amendment No. 13, in the names of Deputies Bruton, Creed and De Rossa, is basically the same. The only net difference between the two amendments is the word "or" which would make the section read better. The net impact of these amendments would be to remove the proposed age limit. Section 3 (1) (b) (i) (V) provides that:

the person to whom the contraceptives are sold is over the age of 17 years or married or is named in a prescription or authorisation in writing for the contraceptives of a registered medical practitioner....

There was a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House about this issue, which was debated at length. I think we all agreed that contraception should be available to those who are sexually active. I do not think anyone argued against this point.

Mr. R. Bruton

This very important amendment should be taken on board by the Minister. The age limit will be unenforceable in practice. It could be counterproductive in that it could be interpreted as meaning that when people reach the age of 17 they have a licence to adopt a less responsible attitude to their sexual behaviour. The notion of age limits in our criminal law relating to how young people should address their sexual responsibilities is inappropriate and could be counterproductive.

The age limit will mean that sales of condoms will have to be conducted over the counter because there will be a responsibility on the shop owner to assess the age of the purchaser. A supermarket owner would have some difficulty in putting condoms for sale on a shelf because he would have to see that purchaser, eyeball to eyeball. The whole thing is foolish and will be unworkable, putting barriers in the way of young people who are sexually active acquiring contraceptives. It will drag back the whole purpose for which the Minister introduced the legislation.

Proinsias De Rossa

This is one of the most important amendments to this Bill. The idea that one can regulate sexual activity by way of some artificial age cutoff point is not valid. Boys and girls mature at different ages. There is no point at which we can say that a boy or girl is mature enough, by reference to chronological age. To introduce an age limit in relation to the supply of a contraceptive is mistaken. It will certainly not improve the sexual maturity of the individual. We all know men who are twice or three times 17 years of age and are sexually immature in their attitude. Some people under 17 may be regarded as more mature in their attitude to sex.

The age restriction does not apply to married people. This means that a young person under the age of 17 going into a supermarket or a newsagent will have to prove he or she is married to be entitled to purchase condoms. It is likely that the person serving in the shop will be older and the situation could clearly be embarrassing. The whole thing is a nonsense. We cannot hope to regulate the sexual activity of young people by applying an artificial age limit. Responsible attitudes to sex must be developed by way of education, primarily in the home. We should not necessarily lay the responsibility on the teachers in schools. The schools can do very little to reverse a bad attitude developed in a home environment.

The application of this age limit is foolish for a further reason: to a large extent it will be unenforceable. I cannot imagine that a garda will prosecute a young person who misrepresented his age or marital status to a shopkeeper. It is wrong to include provisions in our laws simply for the optics, to satisfy the view that young people are promiscuous. According to the Irish Family Planning Association, only 15 per cent of people who go to them in relation to pregnancy are teenagers. The myth that our young population are extraordinarily promiscuous is not borne out by statistics. It is wrong to incorporate this age limit in legislation.

Mr. Callely

I am a little concerned about the policing of this section. The Minister might indicate the number of prosecutions of 18 year olds since condoms became available for sale in pharmacies. Today I called to a pharmacist to find out what her reaction would be in relation to policing the age of 17. She replied, "An old one like me is not going to ask any young girl or fellow what his or her age is." If they ask for a condom she will serve them regardless. That begs the question as to who will police this regulation.

The section also refers to authorisation by way of a GP's prescription. Would this mean that a sexually active person under the age of 17 could avail of a condom with such a prescription? If the Minister wants to achieve the objectives he laid down on Second Stage, why include the age restriction?

Tomás Mac Giolla

I agree that this makes no sense whatever. I think the

Minister also agrees but he has probably put in this age limit to keep some foolish people happy, whether in his own party or elsewhere. It will be impossible to regulate it. People under the age of 17 who are not sexually active will not be wasting their money on condoms or any other contraceptives. But, if they are sexually active, they will need them and the Bill should provide for that. This Bill is ruined through the exclusion of certain people who would require the use of contraceptives from being able to avail of them. For health and other reasons that destroys the Minister's own case. If he excludes one person he is destroying his case on health grounds.

I expected a ministerial amendment to be tabled in regard to this. The case hadbeen made so strongly I thought the Minister would have taken it on board, particularly when a Member of his own party made such a strong case, and is making quite a strong case here again today on behalf of quite a number of people in his party. I should have thought the Minister would have dropped the inclusion of any age limit. I do not see the need for such or for the reference to any age limit at all. The Minister's stated purpose in introducing this Bill on Second Stage will be lost to a certain small number of people, by the inclusion of an age limit. Indeed some 17, 18 or even 19-year-olds could be denied contraceptives in that they might well appear to be 16 years of age to some pharmacist or whoever. We are supposed to be making contraceptives available to people who require them which will serve the purposes the Minister had in mind in introducing the Bill.

I would ask the Minister to re-examine this and delete any reference to an age limit.

Mr. Shatter

I dealt with this at some length on Second Stage and will not repeat myself other than to point out a number of realities. The first reality is that in the period 1981 to 1990, inclusive, a total of 5,818 children were born to mothers of 17 years of age and under outside marriage; that is 550 children a year. Some of those were born to mothers of 17 years of age but, of their very nature, they would have been conceived when the young teenage girls concerned were 16 years of age. Indeed the statistics cover even younger girls; I think the youngest births were to girls under 14 years of age. I do not want to go into it in any greater detail than to point out that there is a reality, the reality being that there are a substantial number of children being born outside marriage to young girls who either do not have the information available to them to take responsible decisions or do not have the facility to implement the decisions they may wish to take. I do not think any of us would encourage our 15 or 16-year-old daughters to engage in sexual intercourse but, if they did, I would prefer that at least they would have the facility to take precautions.

I want to point out that there is a fantasy element about all of this. As the Minister well knows — and I think he said himself — the age limit is unenforceable in any case. How can one stop a 16-year-old getting a condom? If he goes into a chemist shop will he have to produce his birth certificate? If an 18-year-old buys a condom and gives it to a 16-year-old will the Garda investigate the matter? We all know this age limit is ludicrous. Why do we have to retain it in the Bill?

At least there would be some consistency if it were totally unlawful for persons under 17 years of age to obtain contraceptives. I want to deal with the issue of condoms, which appear to constitute the most simplistic issue but, of course, they do not. For some years persons under 18 years of age have been able to obtain condoms lawfully if a doctor issued a prescription for them. I would be astonished if there were a single doctor anywhere in this State who has ever written a prescription for contraceptives for someone under 18 years of age, or ever been asked to do so. Now it is proposed to lower the age limit to 17, when the position will be that anyone over 17 can get a condom by walking into the local pub or grocers and asking for one but someone under 17 can get one by way of medical prescription. What is the point in that? Why maintain a legal fantasy or fiction that just holds us up to ridicule, which I suggest does not allow the Minister complete the job I feel he wants to do.

The position would be even partially understandable if we said: all under 17-year-olds always had to get prescriptions for condoms if they wanted them. I would think that was nuts, but some people might think there was an element of rationality in it. What happens when the average 15 or 16 old is fortunate enough to be able to go off with his local schoolboy soccer team on a trip to England? He might play a match, see Spurs, Manchester United or Liverpool play on a Saturday afternoon. Before or after the match that 15 or 16 year old can walk into Boots chemists in Manchester, London, Birmingham or wherever he is, buy a condom, bring it into this State and do what he wants with it. What happens if he is stopped at customs? He is a traveller and travellers have had a special position under the terms of this legislation since 1979; because he is a traveller he does not require a prescription. In fact he could bring in a suitcase of condoms at the age of 14, if he wished, when the only action a customs officer could take would be to ask him whether they were for his own use and, if he said they were, on he would go, condoms and all.

The Minister knows it makes no sense to retain this provision in this Bill. From the enlightened contributions — and in the context of my past experience of the Minister's party I would have to say the surprisingly enlightened contributions coming from behind him — it is quite clear now most Members of his party accept social reality. Let us delete this subscription from the Bill. Let us provide education for life to discourage young people from engaging in sexual activity at too early on age. If they persist in behaving in a way that they deem appropriate, that perhaps older adults do not deem appropriate, at least let us facilitate them in taking precautions. Let us remove the fictions from the Bill. Why should the 14 or 15 year old schoolboy league soccer player, returning from England, be able to travel into Ireland with a suitcase full of condoms while his compatriot, who lives next door, who is not perhaps as successful a soccer player, who may have managed to get on the reserves of the team only, who was not taken away, have to go to his doctor to get a prescription legally to obtain one?

Mr. Gilmore

I agree with the observations of previous speakers in relation to the age limit. The inclusion of an age limit in this Bill is daft and is completely out of touch with the views of the public at large. This is probably the only assembly in this country which would insist on such an age limit, if that is what it does. For example, one could walk into any community hall, take a random sample of any group of people, when I believe their view would be that the age limit is unenforceable, unnecessary and should not be included. Of course, it is a product of a point of view rapidly losing currency, which is that if one excludes an age limit in some way one is conferring some kind of State approval on sexual activity under the age of 17. The fact of the matter is that one cannot legislate one way or the other for sexual activity. It is a fact that many young people under the age of 17 are sexually active. That fact is very evident from the numbers of young girls under the age of 17 who become pregnant.

If we are to do something by way of legislation it should be to encourage a responsible attitude to sexual activity. We may have differing views about the question of responsibility of 15 and 16-year olds. Whether it be responsible of them to be sexually active in the first place, it is irresponsible of them to be sexually active without using contraceptives. Whether or not they are irresponsible by being sexually active in the first place, they are certainly irresponsible if they do not use contraceptives. The State is being irresponsible by attempting to prevent access to contraceptives by people who are sexually active. We are creating a climate in which people under 17 years, who are becoming sexually active for the first time, will engage in unsafe and unprotected sex because the State says they cannot have access to contraceptives. It is irresponsible of the State to encourage that and it is out of touch with the views of the majority of Irish people. This House should respond to the mood of the people on this issue and not insert a provision in legislation that relates to a different age and a different perception of morality.

Mr. Creed

This area has been well covered and I appeal to the Minister to take on board the views that have been expressed. I made the point on a previous amendment that we must legislate for reality; and one of the glaring realities in the statistics which have been highlighted throughout this debate is that, whether we like it or not, young people under 17 years are sexually active. Are we prepared to expose those people to the risks involved in unprotected sex or to provide them with access to contraceptives which will reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases? That is the fundamental question facing the Minister in deciding whether he should accept the amendment before him.

We have another important duty in regard to this amendment. We often despair of the levels of cynicism and apathy displayed towards politics and politicians but; if we persist in passing legislation which is clearly farcical in its content, we will bring oursleves into disrepute and generate further cynicism, apathy and disrespect for this legislative Chamber. It is pointless passing laws which are patently unworkable and which cannot be policed. We have ample evidence of this in the area of alcohol abuse and teenage drinking in that the law which makes it illegal to sell alcohol to people under 18 years has proved to be totally unenforceable. We are now heading down the same road with regard to access to contraceptives for people under 17 years.

We must ask ourselves what sort of signal this will send out to young people. Will they assume that in some way we are saying it is correct and proper to embark on sexual intercourse and sexual relationships at 17 years? We are all aware that when one reaches the age of 17 one can apply for a driving test and that at 18 one can legally purchase alcohol. If we persist in enforcing an age limit of 17 years in this legislation it will register in young people's minds that the State is giving legal access to contraceptives at 17 years and the peer pressure mentioned earlier will come into play. It would be far better if this legislation made contraceptives available to all those who are sexually active. As proposed in a previous amendment which the Minister did not accept, we should, in conjunction with the Department of Education, embark upon a proper life skills, sex education programme which would educate people for a proper and healthier attitude towards their own sexuality.

Dr. O'Connell

I am rather surprised at the negative attitude of the Opposition to this Bill, which represents a radical change. It provides for wide availability of contraceptives. Deputy Shatter was not very loud or clear when the 1985 Bill was being debated. Perhaps he was not in the House.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister was absent from the House at that time on some sort of permanent vacation, but I was in the House and expressed my view strongly.

Dr. O'Connell

My views are made known all the time. Deputy Shatter, I am on my feet——

Mr. Creed

The Minister is on the defensive.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister just came in to vote against the 1985 Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption, please.

Dr. O'Connell

I understand why Deputy Shatter's voice was not heard at that time. Deputies should take into consideration that I am not legislating for myself. In 1985 the position was improved——

Mr. Shatter

The Minister voted against it.

Dr. O'Connell

——from that which existed in 1979, but by today's understanding of the position it was not good.

Mr. Creed

Why did the Minister vote against it?

Dr. O'Connell

We have advanced a good deal since then and I think most Members would agree with that. However, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was the only Member to congratulate me on the legislation, which seeks to extend the availability of condoms. Deputies should reconsider this matter, but I am aware of the negative attitude of some Members. What would have happened if I had deregulated all contraceptives? I am not legislating for Dublin 4, Dublin 6 or County Dublin. It is understandable that parents have fears for their young children. They would like to have responsibility for educating them up to 17 years and would like to feel that their children were not exposed unnecessarily to condomns before that stage.

Mr. Shatter

What about the 5,500 unwanted pregnancies?

Dr. O'Connell

We are all parents, and parents of children in their early teens certainly have fears.

Mr. Creed

I am not a parent.

Dr. O'Connell

Perhaps Deputy Creed is not.

Mr. Howlin

He hopes he is not.

Mr. Callely

He is not sure.

Mr. McCartan

Hopefully he will be some day.

Dr. O'Connell

Hopefully he will, if this Bill does not wreck his chances. Most parents are not fundamentalists, but they have fears in this regard.

Mr. McCartan

What fears?

Dr. O'Connell

We must take their fears and anxieties into consideration.

Mr. McCartan

What are they?

An Ceann Comhairle

The previous speakers to this amendment were heard without interruption. Therefore, I must insist on the same courtesy being extended to the Minister. This is a Committee Stage debate and, hopefuly, time permitting, Members may intervene again.

Dr. O'Connell

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, and if I interrupt any of the Members please let me know and I will desist.

I know Deputy McCartan is concerned about his constituency but sometimes it is a good idea to just drive out of a constituency for a while — nobody will take care of it in his absence. If the Deputy visited parts of rural Ireland he might be greatly enlighted. There is a different way of life in parts of the west——

Mr. Gilmore

They have sex there too.

Dr. O'Connell

I have visited hospitals in Kerry and Cork. There is a lovely way of life there, much different from that in Dublin.

Proinsias De Rossa

Without sex.

Dr. O'Connell

Ireland does not end at the Pale. It does not end at the boundary here.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McCartan

I was reared and educated there. I am only part Dub.

Dr. O'Connell

I suggest that you go back there——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. O'Connell

——very soon, and learn. The Deputy should refresh his memory with regard to the wonderful life there. I did not mean that comment in a wrong way. There are people living in Ireland who have old standards which I regret have been lost in the metropolis. They have real fears for their children. None of the Deputies would find fault with people having fears about the rearing of their children. These people would like to have control over that and the education of their children up to the age of 17, which is a mature age. This age was agreed as a Cabinet decision. There is collective responsibility here.

Mr. Shatter

None of the Minister's colleagues is willing to come in here and back it. I have not seen a PD for two days.

An Ceann Comhairle

Ciúnas.

Dr. O'Connell

I am part of the Government who made that decision. I am a Member of a very democratic party which will hear the views of other Members——

Mr. Creed

Do they hear the views of other parties in Government?

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Creed, desist.

Dr. O'Connell

In 1979 I was instructed by my party to sit in this Chamber but not say a word, not even partipicate in the debate. It was very humiliating but they were my instructions. It is nice to know that Members in my party are able to express views. We are legislating here for all the people, including those who may have fears about the upbringing of their children, who would like to set their own standards.

Mr. Taylor

The Minister is allowing them to set standards for everyone else.

Dr. O'Connell

I struck a balance between the fears and the anxieties of those people and the need to provide contraceptives and make them more widely available.

Mr. Taylor

The Minister is allowing them set standards for everybody.

Dr. O'Connell

I hope I have struck a balance. If circumstances and attitudes change I hope we will be bringing in a Bill to meet the changed needs. I ask the House to remember that there are positive elements in this Bill——

Mr. Shatter

We accept that.

Dr. O'Connell

I have not once heard Deputies accept that. With the exception of the deputy leader of the Labour Party——

Mr. Shatter

That is not true, and the Minister knows it is not true.

Dr. O'Connell

——no one has come forward to say——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter should desist.

Dr. O'Connell

——that the Bill has its good points. The Bill has attempted to liberalise the law to make contraceptives more freely available. I deleted the reference to a medical doctor having to say in writing that he is fully satisfied that the contraceptive is required for family planning or other medical purposes. Wider availability should pose no problems. Shortly before I became Minister I considered putting down amendments to the 1991 Bill. I checked in a few places abroad and found that there were no vending machines for contraceptives.

Mr. Howlin

Where?

Dr. O'Connell

I was in America in January and I could not find any.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. O'Connell

I was asked to find out. A former Taoiseach said to me that if I found them readily available, perhaps he would allow them in here. They were not available and I was very surprised. Deputies should look at the positive side of this Bill. We have made great progress. There have been positive changes and if we consider them we will realise that we are moving, maybe not as rapidly as we would like, but if people's attitudes change there will be a more radical change in legislation which will come before the House.

Mr. McCartan

Is a person under 17 years of age immune to AIDS?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. I am calling Deputy Richard Bruton.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Richard Bruton has been called.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister has shown more sensitivity to criticism than any ability to explain what he is doing today. The Minister seems to be casting around for persecutors on the Opposition benches. Most of this debate has been conducted in a very constructive manner with people congratulating the Minister on the concessions he has been willing to make.

The Minister has a responsibility, as a Minister in charge of public health, to educate people. If parents approach the Minister with fears, he must educate them and tell them that one will not create sexual responsibility through the criminal law. The Minister must teach them that sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, do not respect age or regulations that a Minister may like to impose. Young people, whatever their age, are at risk. They are sexually active, are having unwanted pregnancies and are contracting sexually transmitted diseases. The Minister has not defended his position today.

The only voices I have heard from Fianna Fáil have advocated change in respect of vending machines and in respect of the age limit. One of the Minister's backbenchers said on the radio this morning that he and the Minister wanted to see changes in this regard. Who are the people who are telling the Minister not to make changes? There are none in the House this evening that I can detect. Where are they? The Minister is out of touch with what is happening in the country and around him in the House.

A Deputy

Where are the Progressive Democrats?

Mr. Howlin

I am quite taken aback by the response of the Minister who has put no cogent reasons before the House as to why there should be an age limit. A great number of people fit into the category whom the Minister describes. I represent a rural constituency. It is not a Dublin 4 or an urban clamour to have this change made in the Bill. Not one speaker on either Committee or Second Stages argued in favour of the retention of this age limit, so why is it there? The Minister's heart is not in this debate.

The Minister indicated to the House that we would take it step by step and that we could have another Bill next year to reduce the age to 16. It is wrong to signal any age. Many people fit into the category of whom the Minister talks. They would be concerned about any age being put in, because of the signal that gives, that sexual activity at 17 or 16, or whatever age the Minister puts in, is permissible. It is better to have no age. The only criteria should be that young people who are sexually active would have condoms or other contraceptives available to them, particularly in the light of the Minister's argument from the outset that his primary motivation is the battle against AIDS. Why should anyone be vulnerable to AIDS? Should somebody under 17 be made vulnerable because we have some difficulties or hang-ups in relation to removing the age barrier in other legislation?

I do not want to go into the history of this. I quoted the 1985 contributions from the other side of the House the last time we discussed this issue. They were nothing short of cynical and disgraceful. Today's debate has been characterised by a different ethos. There has been consensus and support from this side of the House. We have asked the Minister to address a few fundamental issues and this is one of them. In the six minutes remaining I am sure all Members want to address the vending machine issue. Will the Minister give us a commitment that he will consider this between now and bringing the Bill before the Seanad?

The consensus from every Member who spoke on Second and Committee Stages — and I have been here throughout — was that we make this change. The Minister believes in making it. The Minister in his light-hearted story about his trip to America said the Taoiseach said he would allow vending machines in certain circumstances. If the Taoiseach is the problem, or if any other member of the Cabinet is the problem, let us identify that, otherwise the Minister should act on the consensus expressed in this House on this issue.

Mr. M. Barrett

I support the Minister in his assertion that a very negative contribution is coming from the Opposition benches.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy was not here for the debate.

Mr. M. Barrett

They are unfortunately giving the impression that every young person here is sexually active and involved.

Deputies

Rubbish.

Mr. M. Barrett

I did not interrupt any Deputy.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy has been here five minutes only.

Mr. M. Barrett

I did not interrupt the Deputies.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy was not here.

Mr. M. Barrett

As well as the health issue, there are moral issues to be considered. A great many people would not agree with Deputy Mac Giolla that there should be no age limit. There should be an age limit. The present age limit is 18 years but the Minister is seeking to reduce it from 18 to 17 years in this Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

Why?

Mr. M. Barrett

If what the Opposition Deputies are asserting is right, there should be no problem in places like England. During a discussion programme on British television this week it was stated that in Europe Britain had the highest number of young girls who became pregnant this year. The number of people contracting AIDS is also increasing. Deputies should not give the impression that, if we do as Deputy Mac Giolla suggests and abolish the age limit, we will be free of the problem. That is not true.

In Ireland in 1990, 697 girls under 16 years of age gave birth. Are the Opposition Deputies saying that if contraception were available to everybody that figure would be wiped out?

Mr. McCartan

It might be reduced.

Mr. M. Barrett

No, it would not. We must take account of everybody's views. Deputies expressed the view that there should be no age limit, but I represent a great many people who would not agree with that viewpoint. As I said yesterday, I support this Bill on health grounds. I agree that if contraceptives were available to people of 17 years and upwards this would reduce the problem but it certainly will not wipe it out.

Proinsias De Rossa

The last speaker's contribution was extraordinary. I represent the same constituency as Deputy Barrett and never in the ten years that I have represented the constituency did a single parent come to me demanding there should be an age limit for those wishing to buy condoms. Hundreds of parents have told me — and I am a parent of teenagers myself — they would be very pleased if their children acted responsibly and used condoms when sexually active. No parent wants his or her child to become pregnant or make a young girl pregnant. They would prefer that the young person would use condoms if sexually active.

If the Minister says that the metropolis is more decadent than the rest of Ireland, let me remind him of the notorious case of the 15 year old girl from Granard who died giving birth in the middle of a field. Let us not assert that sex does not exist outside Dublin. As far as I can see, there is only one person in the Chamber who lives in Dublin 4, I live in Dublin 11 and the remaining Deputies come from outside Dublin city. It is not a question of Dublin versus the rest.

Mr. Doyle

I come from Dublin 4.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am sorry, Deputy — there are two Members present from Dublin 4. May I appeal to the Minister to drop this hypocritical nonsense of limiting condoms to those of 17 years and upwards. May I also appeal to the Minister to drop this nonsense of not making condoms available through vending machines. It is nonsense. The argument the Minister made yesterday that it would help us to mature if we had to ask for a condom across the counter is too much. We have a great deal more to do in terms of having a mature attitude to our sexuality than simply asking people to purchase a condom across the counter. While we do that there are young, middle aged and elderly people who are sexually active but will not ask for a packet of condoms across the counter. They should be provided with a simple means of purchasing condoms in private.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to put the question.

Mr. Quinn

On a point of order, Sir——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will hear no point of order now.

Mr. Quinn

I am entitled to raise a matter with the Minister since he quoted me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is adhering to an Order of this House and it will be implemented.

Mr. Quinn

I have been quoted in this House and I would like the opportunity to reply.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to make a statement, he should communicate with me and, if I think it appropriate, I will facilitate him.

Mr. Quinn

I do not agree with what the Minister said, although the Minister knows that I support him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before proceeding with the vote, an error has been brought to my notice which requires correction. I accordingly call on the Minister.

Dr. O'Connell

There appears to have been a typographical error. There is a correction required to amendment No. 41a. The phrase "of section 2" in section 7 (2) should read "of subsection (1) of this section".

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to put the question. As it is now 5.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the House of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Health for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; ——"

Mr. McCartan

On a point of clarification, what is the position with regard to amendments put down by other Deputies?

An Ceann Comhairle

"——in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee;——"

Mr. McCartan

Is the amendment to allow for the sale of condoms through vending machines agreed to?

An Ceann Comhairle

"——that the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and that the Bill is hereby passed".

An Ceann Comhairle

May I say that I deeply resent the intervention of a Deputy when I am putting a motion from the Chair.

Mr. McCartan

I just wanted to know if an amendment was agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was grossly disorderly.

Mr. McCartan

I meant no disrespect to the Chair.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Dennehy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.