Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The difficulty we are in highlights the exact reason that no Government should ever order Committee Stage to commence half an hour after Second Stage. It is outrageous. Having had nine weeks to progress this Bill, we are being put in this position by the Government. We should not be. This is undermining the role of the House.

I am sure the Minister for Health and Children will tell us, if we ask her, that she has had no role in ruling out these amendments as it comes from the Ceann Comhairle's office. The Minister is subject to quite an amount of criticism. I am not going to criticise her for something she may have no hand or part in. I would be interested, however, to know what advice the Ceann Comhairle's office got from her Department on these amendments. I support what has been said. We should adjourn to allow the Ceann Comhairle to come back to the Chamber to explain the position in respect of specific amendments.

I will allow Deputy O'Sullivan to speak for herself, but Deputy Reilly's amendments Nos. 1a and 1b are not declaratory. They actually impose legal obligations on the Minister if they were enacted. Declaratory is something that declares something to no effect. Amendments Nos. 1a and 1b, if enacted, would impose specific obligations on the Minister.

What has been said about amendment No. 5o is extraordinary. This amendment, in my and Deputy Reilly's name, seeks to ensure any person who has a medical card will not lose it as a consequence of being rendered a widow or widower. My earlier amendments would address the scenario of where a person over 70, who through bereavement becomes a widow or widower and as a consequence has €1 in excess of the €700 threshold, will not be deprived of a medical card. This is a very straightforward principle. The Minister has tabled a similar amendment which would allow such cases to retain their medical card for three years, a proposal I criticised earlier.

The Minister and this side of the House are addressing the same issue — the Minister, from my perspective, in a minimalist way and Fine Gael from a humanitarian and correct way. However, we are both still addressing the same issue. We are told, however, that these amendments are ruled out of order because they conflict with the principle of the Bill. Is the Minister's amendment in conflict with the principle of the Bill? If our amendment is ruled out for that reason, her amendment must be ruled out too, in which case the Bill should be withdrawn. The Bill will have an impact on widows and widowers that even the Government is resiling from.

The main principle of the Bill appears to be not simply to target everyone currently over 70 who has a medical card, but to target the rest of the community who might attain the age of 70 in years to come. If we were to undermine the principle of the Bill — I would understand this being ruled out of order — it would be through an amendment that simply stated the absolute right to a medical card that people over 70 have should continue, and continue in future years for everyone who attains the age of 70. It is Fine Gael's view that people should retain the medical card on reaching the age of 70, but we know we cannot table an amendment that would effectively nullify the impact of the Bill. Amendment No. 5o does not nullify the Bill. It is not contrary to the principle of the Bill. It is simply providing a different type of an amendment to the one tabled by the Minister to protect the position of widows and widowers.

I do not accept it is out of order, nor can I accept that Deputy Reilly's earlier amendments are out of order. We should get an explanation from the Ceann Comhairle. If these issues cannot be dealt with properly today, this House should adjourn, move on to other business, and we should come back to this Bill next Tuesday. The House should not be muzzled in dealing with an important item of legislation that will impact on the health and well-being of thousands of people over 70 in this country.

See this speech in context