John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)

I thank Deputy Reilly, Deputy Shatter and Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who were reflecting the views of Deputy Barrett and other Members of the Opposition, for calling to my office to discuss this situation. The difficulty is that amendments Nos. 1a, 1b, 6a and 6b in the name of Deputy James Reilly have been ruled out of order on the basis that they are declaratory in nature. The amendments seek that the Minister shall make various reports to the Dáil.

Amendments Nos. 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h, 5i, 5j, 5k and 5l, also in the name of Deputy James Reilly, were ruled out of order on the grounds that they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. They all seek to increase the range of eligibility for medical cards and for that reason they have been disallowed. Only the Government or the Minister representing the Government may bring forward a proposal which involves a charge on the Exchequer.

Amendment No. 5o, in the name of Deputy James Reilly, has been ruled out of order on the grounds of it being in conflict with the principle of the Bill. I will deal with that in a moment in the context of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's amendments, Nos. 1 and 3, which have been ruled out of order on the same grounds. To deal with that which appears to be the kernel of the issue today, the principle of the Bill is the general principle which is deemed to have been passed after the Second Reading has been voted on in the Dáil. In this instance the Bill was read a Second Time and passed. It is set out in Standing Order 127 that, on Committee Stage, amendments must be relevant to the provisions of the Bill and must not be in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

It is true, as Deputy Barrett says, that an individual might have a different interpretation of what is the principle of a Bill. The principle of the Bill in this instance is considered to be that the principle of universal availability of medical cards to persons aged 70 years and over will end. Due to the fact that the amendments put down by Deputy Reilly and Deputy O'Sullivan are in direct conflict with that principle, amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 50 have been ruled out of order. No new precedent is being created today. These are precedents of long standing and I am not changing the rules of the House in any way. I understand that Members might feel that the general principle of the Bill is different from what I have outlined, although I find it hard to see how one could disagree that it is, in fact, the general principle of the Bill as passed on Second Stage.

My new difficulty is that rulings made by the Chair cannot be challenged on the floor of the House without the House descending into grave disorder and being unable to discuss business further. While I understand and appreciate that Members might have a different view, my rulings have been made in a dispassionate, neutral and objective manner. I ask the Members on that basis to proceed with consideration of the legislation. Committee Stage is due to terminate later this evening and Members will wish to discuss the other amendments that have been deemed to be in order.

See this speech in context