I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1) (b), to delate lines 11 to 20.
Much to my regret this matter was referred to a number of times in reply to the substance of the debate by the Minister of State when he spoke about the rights of parents. This is unacceptable. He said:
A number of Senators raised the issue of age limits. The Bill provides that condoms may be supplied from a wide range of outlets and that the age at which persons could obtain condoms should be reduced from 18 years to 17 years. Senators are aware that parents have expressed reservations in regard to the Bill which related in the main to a reduction in the age limit below 17 years. We must take cognisance of the views and reservations of parents in implementing legislation which provides for the wider availability of condoms. We must strike the correct balance between the concerns of parents and the requirements to take measures to protect public health.
Why? What is so sacrosanct about the rights of parents? What is so sacrosanct about the rights of one group of parents who apparently are unable to convince their children to behave in the way they think appropriate? Why should other parents' children be penalised? I have no doubt there may be a small increase in the incidence of HIV infection as a result of this provision.
Who should we be protecting primarily? To whom is our primary responsibility? It is not to the sensitivity of parents. I respect these parents, but to a limited extent. We should protect young people against a mortal illness and not dithering about the susceptibilities of parents who by their own admission have signally failed to convince their children of the rightness of their position.
As far as I am concerned, I accept absolutely the authority of parents and their right to influence their families. But what does this authority consist of? It consists of the capacity of the parents to convince the child through respect, through argument and through love that their position is the correct one; and if they cannot do that why should they use the brutal instrument of the law to place other parents' children in jeopardy? For that reason I think this is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Bill.
I wish to put on the record that I believe strongly there should be no age limit at all. If a 12 year old child were to be prevented from getting HIV by being given a condom free, I would personally give it to him and I would take whatever stick I got from the parents. I know that the Minister, Deputy O'Connell, has had experience of this. I know that he is a compassionate and caring man. I have to exercise my compassion when I see a person I know to be a good man, somebody who is deeply caring about this problem and has personal acquaintance with it, sitting there. Because of the reluctance of Government as a whole to move in this area, I am placed in this invidious situation. However, I will not withdraw from the position I take on this. There should be no age limit. Our concern is not with the sensitivities of parents; our concern is with the health, the wellbeing and the survival of young people. That is the paramount consideration.