I move:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to establish a register of interests of Members of the Oireachtas and for related purposes.
Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill, 1989: First Stage.
Is it being opposed?
It is.
As the motion is being opposed, under Standing Order 79 the proposer of the Bill and the Senator who opposes the motion for the introduction of the Bill are entitled to make brief explanatory statements as to why the Bill should be introduced and printed.
Of all the times I have been called upon to speak in this House since my election almost eight years ago this is probably the one that has caused me the greatest astonishment. I would have thought that the obvious purpose of this Bill was contained in the Title which is to clarify to members of the public the fact that almost all Members of the Oireachtas — at least that used to be the position — were far from rich, and in many cases were extremely badly off, and in the process to remove the stench of a suggestion of corruption that goes around this House by clarifying for the public that Oireachtas Members are not lining their pockets by their presence here.
This is a change in my own position from what I would have articulated eight years ago. Therefore, it is astonishing to me that anybody would want not to argue about either the principle of the Bill or indeed the detail of the Bill but to suppress publication of the Bill. Whatever my own views are on the subject, a failure by this House to allow a Bill which would simply state in public what most Members of this House would assert to me in private ——
The motion before the House is very narrow. All I am asking you to do is to move for leave to allow it to be printed. You cannot make a Second Stage speech.
I would be very grateful for your guidance as to how I can explain why a Bill should be printed without talking about what is in the Bill. I have no intention of making a Second Stage speech but I would appreciate your guidance on that matter. As always, I am subject to your rulings. May I simply say——
I think you have made it quite clear why you want the Bill printed in what you have already said.
I understand you had told me that what I had said was out of order. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The point I have made, a Chathaoirligh, is that this is a Bill about which I thought there would be little controversy, judging by what I am assured to be the position of most Members of the Oireachtas. I thought it would be a contribution to something that I value and you value dearly, a Chathaoirligh, which is the restoration of the profession of politics to a very high view in the eyes of public opinion. I think the failure to print this Bill — and this is a specific issue to do with printing the Bill — will lead public opinion to a conclusion that somebody somewhere has something to hide. I think in the interests of all of us this Bill should be printed and I am astonished, amazed and not a little annoyed at the refusal — I want to make this clear — not to pass this Bill, not to discuss it, but to allow it even to be printed.
In my recollection, the last time the House voted not to allow a Bill to be printed was a considerable number of years ago. The previous Government never refused me permission to have any Bill published. I am deeply disappointed, deeply offended and somewhat annoyed that this Government have taken a much narrower view of their role, of public opinion and of the functions of this House.
The question is: "That leave be given to introduce the Bill".
On a point of order, I understood that those who oppose the introduction are entitled to make a speech. Can you clarify for me that they do not intend to do this?
They do not have to, Senator, if they do not want to.
I did not hear you ask for a speaker——
Nobody offered. I am putting the question: "That leave be given to introduce the Bill." I think the question is defeated.
Vótáil.
Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill, 1989: First Stage. The question is: "That leave be given to introduce the Bill." On that question a division has been challenged. Will Senators claiming this division please rise?
More than five Senators stood.
The division will proceed.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 25.
Tá
- de Buitleár, Eamon.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Bromell, John A. (Tony)
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators B. Ryan and Ross; Níl, Senators S. Haughey and Fitzsimons.
Question declared lost.