Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

In the letter I received in regard to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my colleague, Deputy Reilly, with particular reference to amendment No. 5o, I am told they must be ruled out of order because they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill. This is directly relevant to section 3, which includes a provision whereby a person who had full eligibility for medical card services prior to the coming into operation of the Bill will continue to have full eligibility until 2 March 2009. Amendment No. 5o, which has been ruled out of order, provides that: "A person who had full eligibility for a medical card having attained the age of 70 years prior to 1st January 2009 shall not lose their medical card as a consequence of any provision contained in this Act."

This amendment has the same intent as that of Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment No. 3, which is to ensure that when this Bill comes into force, anybody who is over 70 on 1 January 2009 will not be deprived of a medical card. Like the Labour Party, we also disagree with the overall approach of this Bill, and we voted against it on Second Stage. Fianna Fáil, Green Party and Independent Members who support the Government voted in favour of it. This particular amendment does not conflict with the principle of the Bill, because that principle is to delimit the entitlement of over 70s to medical cards from 1 January and for the future. That will continue to happen even if these amendments are accepted.

A Cheann Comhairle, this is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. The Bill, in its Long Title, does not detail a principle, namely, that the Government is revoking the universality of medical card provision. That is not stated. As set out by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, the defined purpose of the Bill is effectively to amend existing legislation. With the greatest respect, it is not the function of the Office of the Ceann Comhairle to glean principles from Bills that are unarticulated in the Bills as published and, thereby, to constrain Opposition parties from seeking to improve upon and amend legislation in the public interest.

Moreover, it is somewhat ironic that it should be suggested that what we are doing is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. This is particularly unprincipled legislation. It contains no discernible, laudable or identifiable principle. It is very dangerous, in a parliamentary democracy, to curtail the capacity of Opposition parties to propose amendments to Bills to delimit their detrimental impact. I contend that a principle has been gleaned that is unsustainable and not articulated in the Bill. I ask that this be reconsidered.

This Bill can be enacted while preserving the rights of those who, as at 1 January 2009, are eligible for medical cards under the law as it is today. That will not impact the Bill's main effect, of which some of us do not approve. If it were our objective in these amendments to undermine the principle of the Bill, their acceptance would render the Bill nugatory and nullify in total its impact if enacted. I accept that we cannot do that, and that is not the intention of these amendments. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to reconsider his ruling. There are many elderly people looking to us to ensure that the rights they currently enjoy are preserved. They have a legitimate expectation that not only the Government but this House will protect their rights.

See this speech in context