Perhaps I should ask the indulgence of the House first of all to explain the Government position in relation to this measure. So far as the Government are concerned they are not opposed to a First Reading of this Bill, but they take the very proper view that it is a matter for individual Senators. Every Senator on this side of the House, supporting the Government, will be free to vote exactly as he or she likes, for or against the First Reading of the Bill. Personally, I am opposed to it, for reasons which I will mention shortly. Before I do that, it is right to explain to the House that the reason I did not propose the Order of Business today is because the views which I take in relation to this measure are so deep and fundamental that I felt I was not prepared to propose the inclusion of this item in the Order of Business for the Seanad. I recognised that my own particular stand on the matter was not reconcilable with the discharge of my functions as Leader of the House. While I was prepared to go further if it was necessary, I felt I was entitled to accept the suggestion that the proposing of the Order of Business should be dealt with in the manner in which it was carried out. It was appropriate that the inclusion of this item in the Order of Business should have been proposed by Senator Alexis FitzGerald because I know that his view, while reserving his position on further Stages of the Bill, is strongly in support of the proposition that a First Reading should be allowed to the Bill.
I should like to say briefly that I agree fully with the remarks which Senator Robinson made regarding the decision which Senators are asked to make at this Stage, that is, when she makes the case, which is a perfectly valid case, that because a Senator supports the First Reading of this Bill today that Senator is in no way obliged or in no way committing himself or herself to support the Bill at any of the remaining Stages. I think that Senator Robinson was right in making that point. It is a point which I feel also obliged to make on behalf of Senators on this side of the House who may feel as Senator Alexis FitzGerald does that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading, and we may vote accordingly.
I oppose this Bill because I believe that in terms of public demand the Bill is unwanted. I believe that in terms of the common good, in terms of human values and in terms of moral values the Bill is undesirable. It is true that at this Stage all that is involved is a decision as to whether the Bill should be printed and circulated at public expense. I can fully understand the point of view of those who may feel that to refuse a First Reading to the Bill is to stultify the parliamentary process by negativing the right of a Senator to initiate legislation. I can also appreciate the argument that publication of the Bill would avoid misunderstanding as regards its contents.
Nevertheless, the First Stage of the Bill is the first step in parliamentary procedure designed to place the Bill on the Statute Book of this State and consequently I think it is right to oppose the First Reading when one's objections to the Bill are of a fundamental nature. In other words, at this stage. as Senator Robinson mentioned, the Bill is not really a Bill. It is only in contemplation in the parliamentary sense and it is still possible to prevent its conception by the use of the appropriate contraceptive.
My opposition to this proposal is fundamental. In addition to the reasons which I mentioned at the outset, while I do not for a moment question either the sincerity or the good faith of those who are supporting this measure or those who are sponsoring it, I honestly believe that legislation of this sort, if enacted would open the door to far more than is intended or desired by those sponsoring or supporting the proposal. If one supports, on the grounds of civil rights or minority rights, a measure of this sort I would certainly find it difficult to see how one could argue logically against the enactment of other measures, no matter how obnoxious to public feeling or objectionable to public morality, which are advanced on similiar grounds.