I welcome the opportunity, as many other Members have, to make a contribution to this Bill. Before Senator Lanigan spoke I had referred to the fact that much of the debate that has taken place in both Houses up to now has diverted away from the real legislation, the real amendment involved. Such diversions into a far wider plain of social and economic problems in some places, with regard to references to unemployment, are a tactic used by the Opposition in this House and in the other House to divert attention from the real amendment proposed. We know the Bill is a minor amendment.
It can be said that what the Opposition are doing is nothing short of political opportunism. I believe that not only the electorate but many Members of this House also have recognised it as such and I hope that when the opportunity comes to give a judgment on that tactic the electorate will duly do their work. If the debate had strictly gone along the lines at issue it would have been far more constructive, reasonable and supportive of the Minister. I want to compliment the Minister on the courageous steps he has taken in bringing forward this Bill, not because it makes contraceptives freely available to all, as might be interpreted from many of the comments, but because it regularises an intolerable situation. The present situation, whereby it is claimed that contraceptives are freely available, is being changed. Senator Lanigan's reference to the fact that it is not necessary to change the present law seems to be the perfect Fianna Fáil approach of an Irish solution to an Irish problem. The Government and the Minister responsible for bringing in this legislation have been courageous and must be complimented for that action.
The tactic has been used whereby for emotive reasons the title of the Bill has been changed, glibly and for no other reason than to bring public opinion against the proposed legislation and to bring in many of the pressure groups that have a legitimate right — up to a point — of making their case known, and produce a rash of material of which every Member of the Oireachtas, both in the Dáil and in the Seanad has had a full supply for this debate and much of it totally incorrect. I will quote from one such circular from my own constituency:
We are surprised and angry at the proposed changes to the Health Family Planning (laws) which the Minister of Health has suggested. We strongly object to the sale of contraceptives of all kinds in shops, supermarkets etc.
Those people who are supposed to be giving their opinion on this legislation got something in the region of 300 signatures beneath that paragraph which they went to the trouble of producing but they would have been far better off had they spent some time examining the proposed legislation, examining the previous legislation, working out the present position and what has gone wrong.
That type of literature has been sent to many people. It has been done on an organised basis by pressure groups and, in some cases, concerned people — we have to acknowledge that there are parents and others who are concerned about what this legislation would do. No one can legitimately say that this Bill provides for the first time for the availability of contraceptives to young people under 18 years of age: that is not so. The 1979 Act provides that a doctor can prescribe condoms not only for bona fide family planning but also for adequate medical reasons without limitation of marital status or of age. This legislation tightens up that very vague piece of legislation. We have heard time and again in this debate that nobody has yet defined "bona fide family planning". I do not believe it has been defined yet.
Now the proposal is that there will be a legal limit to the availability of contraceptives to those of 18 years and over. Much play has been made by the Opposition, and other people who oppose the legislation, of the fact that it will never be implemented; that it will be impossible to implement. Where have all those conscientious people gone since 1979 when 30 million to 40 million condoms were imported? We do not know who has used them or how freely available those contraceptives were in any area, in any place in Ireland. It is time that some people examined the reality of this legislation and stuck rigidly to the points in question and then agree that what is actually being done is an improvement on the 1979 legislation.
We have, for the first time, legitimate outlets for dispensing contraceptives. Doctors, health boards, certain maternity hospitals and so on, may dispense them. The people who oppose this legislation are questioning the very integrity of those people and their capability of deciding who is entitled to them under this new legislation. There is no doubt that, as before, certain people will ask why they should get involved in this legislation by being outlets for distribution. There is no doubt that certain chemists will have a conscientious objection to proceeding along the lines set out. I would ask the Minister to ensure that before the actual implementation of the Bill takes place, when it has passed through this House, there will be consultation with all people listed with regard to the available outlets for contraceptives and that the Minister will be reasonable enough to recognise that there are certain people in Ireland who will have difficulty in adhering to the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give time to consult with these various groups, let them have their say and come to a reasonable solution if there are difficulties there.
From many of the utterances in the other House, and the divergence I have referred to, it would be imagined that from the day on which this Bill is enacted the public, and particularly the youth, will be fed solely on a diet of contraception. I reject that and say that such expressions are alarmist in the extreme. The most unfortunate episode of all with regard to this is that it inflicts on the youth of Ireland a damnation as to their future ability to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. Unlike many of the Opposition speakers I have the utmost confidence in our youth to decide for themselves, as they have done before this, as the youth of other countries have done, whether they want to use contraceptives or not. It is a pity that the main Opposition party took that line. They have said in both Houses that if there is any future for the youth of Ireland it lies in the hopes of the Opposition. Categorically time and time again, the eight or ten speakers from the Opposition benches have said that our youth are put into a situation where they will not be able to decide. I think the Opposition are unfamiliar with the attitude of our youth and the responsibility which young people have shown down the years. The young people of Ireland are capable of making positive decisions at present.
It was stated that we we are going to embark on the slippery slope of decadence, promiscuity and so on. If that is so, what has happened? We have statistics quoted from other countries whose society cannot be compared to our society here. The moral fabric of those other countries is not the same as ours and to quote their statistics is not comparing like with like in any way. We have a Catholic community in Ireland: I refrain from saying that we have a Catholic State because this debate has attempted to bring confrontation and highlight confrontations that could exist between the State and the Church. The people who embarked on that attitude from the beginning, as Fianna Fáil obviously did by their opportunistic ploy — before this Bill was ever published they decided to oppose the legislation — must have been hypocritical. They decided to oppose it because, they said, what they had in 1979 was adequate. It was no time to do this in the bad economic state we are in at present. There was no wide clamour for change. Concealed underneath all of that must have been a hypocritical attempt to cover up reality as it exists in our society today.
The other tactic that was used was an effort to bring serious criticism and serious confrontation between Church and State. Every speaker who has stood up here and also in the other House has categorically stated that the Church, through the Bishops in their teaching on Catholic morals had the right in the strongest possible terms to give their opinion to their flock, to their Catholic community within the State. But it would be unfair to say that there were not some individuals within that group who did not, in their first salvoes across the bows of this legislation, try to in some way intimidate or divert the attention of the legislators and ask them by word or deed to oppose it. It was unfair, therefore, of the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. MacNamara, to make the particular statement he did at the particular time he did. He made it as an individual speaking to the Catholic community at home and I hope his intention was not to divert the attention of the legislators away from the work they had to do. As far back as April 1978, the Bishops' Conference said on the matter of contraception, and I quote:
It does not necessarily follow from this that the State is bound to prohibit the distribution and sale of contraceptives. There are many things which the Catholic Church holds to be morally wrong but which it has never suggested should be prohibited by the State, Those who insist on seeing the issue purely in terms of the State enforcing or not enforcing Catholic moral teaching are missing the point.
I would say that there is no consistency between that and the utterences of the Archbishop in his statement on that matter. The most recent published Bishops' Pastoral Love is for Life outlines very clearly and forcibly the Catholic Church's teaching on contraceptives. In fact the paragraph heading is “The Contraceptive Mentality” and that, I believe is an unfortunate heading for a section within any pastoral letter, because we have heard here, time and time again in the debate that we seem to have a contraceptive mentality in Ireland today and that things are sliding down the slippery slope. I would not accept that. With the permission of the Leas-Cathaoirleach, I will read the most recent statement of the Bishops through their recent Love is for Life pastoral issued in the past few days. It says:
One great factor in the contemporary revolution in sexual behaviour is the introduction of contraceptives and their constantly wider and freer availability. It is more than half a century now since Bertrand Russell declared that contraceptives call for a completely new ethic of sex. It has become clear in recent times how radically "new" this ethic is, and how deeply it is in conflict with Christian tradition.
In paragraph 97 it says:
Contraceptives are in essence divisive of what God has united. Primarily and directly contraceptives separate sexual intercourse from its intrinsic openness to life giving. Contraceptives also increase the propensity and the temptation to separate sex from fidelity.... They facilitate the separation of sex from love. They make it easier to separate sex from marriage. Much of what is nowadays called "family planning" has no relevance either to marriage or to family.
Much of what has been said in the debate goes very clearly along the same lines, in many cases a vague line, that the Church has to do its duty to define its faith for its flock, but it has left it there. In 1978, it made a pronouncement and in 1985 it has made its pronouncement in this recent letter. It is a pity that this document was not freely available to everybody before this debate began in either of the Houses and that the timing seemed to clash, because people would get a more balanced view of the Catholic Church's idea and its absolute and total opposition to contraception within Catholic teaching and it would put more clearly the job that has to be done by the Houses of Parliament in this country to provide for the legal aspects of it. Anybody who thinks or tries to divert attention away from what this Bill is trying to do, and to make it a moral issue or make it an economic issue has missed the point because there are only legal implications here and the individual still has the right to adhere to his own Church's teaching.
Many people have been put under extreme stress and strain, particularly in the other House. We are delighted that the debate in this House has taken place in an atmosphere of calm and that no Member of this House has received intimidatory literature or has received threats of any kind from members of society who took it upon themselves to be the voice of conscience within the country. The debate in this House has been seen to carry on with free expression of the opinions of the various people who made their contributions. The fact that people have threatened to watch our antics, and watch our support or opposition to this Bill and to use that at election time has a serious implication for democracy within this country. It is unfortunate that the people who made it probably made it at that time off the cuff and speedily and on an emotive basis. But if our views, as we express them honestly to this House, are to be noted for no purpose other than to be used against us, favourably or unfavourably, at a future date when we choose to go before the electorate, it is a sad day for democracy in this country in 1985.
I will finish, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, by saying that I believe that this legislation is necessary to tighten up a situation that has existed of providing an "Irish solution to an Irish problem." Though I have said before that people may run the gauntlet of criticism by the electorate at a future date, I believe that, if some sacrifice has to be made electorally to ensure that the Bill goes through and to show that legislation in this country is separate from Church affairs, sacrifice will be worthwhile. Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.
