James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I acknowledge that the Bills Office is under pressure. We did not allow circulation of our amendments until the required time as a protest against the guillotine being imposed on this Bill. I remind both the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister that rushed legislation invariably comes back to bite us. There are issues in this legislation that may well come back to bite us, notwithstanding the advice from the Attorney General. There have been several instances where rushed legislation, including the Bill dealing with the Medical Council, required further amendments shortly after enactment. I envisage similar problems with this Bill.

I must take issue with the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has read out the Long Title and the explanatory memorandum. Nowhere is the principle of universality mentioned. We are in dangerous water when the Office of the Ceann Comhairle can find a principle within a Bill and obstruct Opposition amendments by ruling them out of order on the basis of that principle. Let the amendments stand and let the Government exercise its majority in the House.

I will not repeat the arguments already made. We should be allowed to discuss the merits and demerits of the amendments. There is undoubtedly precedent in law for what we are proposing. I recall that when the Government of the day realised in the 1980s that the construction grant scheme for older homes was proving to be very expensive, it changed the law to cease operations forthwith. However, following legal advice, it was subsequently obliged to allow anybody who had entered into a contract with a builder to continue that work because there was a legitimate expectation of a contract with the Government. People who are over 70 years of age and are currently in receipt of a medical card have a legitimate expectation that they would retain those cards for the remainder of their life, as promised by the Government. These cards were not granted subject to financial circumstances or the onset of a recession. They were given for life.

I cannot accept the determination of the Ceann Comhairle's office that these particular amendments are out of order. I accept that some of the other amendments, referring to gross and net incomes, could be construed as having a potential cost to the Exchequer, but that is not so in the case of amendments Nos. 5o and 3a. Like my fellow Deputies, I object strenuously to this decision, which creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the role of this House and of democracy. Nobody on this side of the House can see a legitimate reason for this decision. I am sure the Minister has no problem discussing the amendments if they are found to be in order. It falls to the Ceann Comhairle to reconsider this decision.

See this speech in context