Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

This issue was discussed on Committee Stage when the Minister referred to, among other things, my raising the fundamental matter of this amendment on the Adjournment. He referred to my speech as being pained, empathetic, outraged and so on. However, I wish to focus strictly on the ruling under discussion, namely, Standing Order 125. Adequate notice was given of this matter on Second Stage and it was discussed substantially on that Stage. When in Government, my understanding was that while a member of the Government takes responsibility for introducing legislation, from the moment it comes before the House, it becomes the property of the House. Standing Order 125 is explicit that matters which are discussed substantially on Second Stage — this was done on Second Stage in this case — and which are again referred to on Committee Stage are relevant to the Bill in question. The suggestion that one can, as it were, resile to the Title by way of exclusion of the amendment is unacceptable. While I have no difficulty in living with Standing Orders, my understanding is that Standing Order 125 covers this situation.

While I am anxious to be as co-operative as possible in this respect, I will make a point. This amendment would insert a new section, section 4A, into the Competition Act 2002. While it was open to the sponsors of the legislation, that is, the Government, to call it the groceries order amendment Bill if it wished, it did not do so. It called it the Competition (Amendment) Bill.

As for the manner in which this is discussed, a further problem arises. During the debate on the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act, it was explicitly stated that when a similar amendment was inserted, such an amendment belonged by way of revision to the competition legislation.

By the way, very unhelpful remarks were made concerning this legislation on Committee Stage, including, for example, one which suggested that people with views similar to mine assume that all actors are poor, all barristers are rich and so on. That was a shameful remark. My remarks on the Adjournment and on Committee Stage were made on the basis of——

See this speech in context