Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I accept that the Ceann Comhairle has a job to do and I do not mean to show any disrespect to his office. However, in this instance, I say with respect that I do not believe he is entitled in any way to rule out these amendments. It is not his function to deal with the legislation as presented by the Government. The Long Title of the Bill sets out its purpose of making provision in regard to eligibility for services under the Health Act 1970 and for liability for health contributions and so on. Nowhere is there mention of any principle. The purpose of the Bill is set out in more detail in the explanatory memorandum, and this is the key issue. Its purpose is to introduce a new scheme for entitlement to the medical card for persons aged 70 and over with effect from 1 January 2009.

However, that is subject to the Bill being passed by the House. One cannot anticipate what will happen to this legislation until the Bill is passed. The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is the issue at stake here. That purpose, as stated by the Government, is to introduce a new scheme for entitlement to medical cards for persons aged over 70.

With the greatest respect, a Cheann Comhairle, you and your advisers are not entitled to prevent this House from debating the Government's proposals regarding the introduction of the new scheme. You are going to enter into the book of precedents another rule that is totally out of order. You constantly remind us, and rightly so because of your office, that if we wish to change the rules, there is a means of doing that. In this instance, however, we cannot go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and change a rule because this is a Bill introduced by the Government.

The Government has clearly outlined its wishes. We might disagree with its wishes but that is what divisions are for. When the vote is taken and the Bill is passed, if it is passed, that is the end of the matter. However, in the meantime an Opposition party is entitled to table amendments which might be contrary to the wishes of the Government. That is what debate is about. If we can persuade enough people in this Chamber to agree to our point of view, the Government will have to change the Bill. The Chair is not giving us the opportunity to persuade other Members in the Chamber to adhere to our point of view.

In all my years as a Member of the House, I have never encountered a situation like this. I can understand an amendment being ruled out of order on the basis that it imposes a charge but ruling it out of order because it is contrary to the principle of the Bill is another matter. Where is the principle? Will the Chair kindly point out where the principle of this Bill is set down, either in the legislation or in the explanatory memorandum? In your letter you said an amendment is contrary to the principle, but we cannot find the principle.

The amendments submitted by Deputy Reilly have not been circulated to me. They were not left in my post box. The only list of amendments I received was the list circulated earlier by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. That is contrary to the rules of the House because Members are entitled to see all the amendments. They have not been circulated. I am depending on a loan of the list of amendments submitted by Deputy Reilly to make my case. Where is the list of amendments? It has not been circulated even though we have started Committee Stage. That is contrary to the rules of the House.

See this speech in context