James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

A Cheann Comhairle, you are held in high esteem in this House. I hold you in high esteem too. I mean no disrespect but the dangerous territory you have arrived at is where one man's meat is another man's poison. You used three words to describe your actions. I am not sure if you used the word "fair", although that would be your view, but you used the words "dispassionate" and "objective". That is the difficulty. Your objectivity in this regard is difficult for us to understand when neither the Bill's Long Title nor the explanatory memorandum mention the principle. If we have now established a precedent in the House whereby neither Government nor the Opposition can argue with a third party's — be it you, your office or the Bills Office — interpretation and perception of a principle that is not clearly stated, we are in dangerous water. It is not a good day for democracy. I say that with the height of respect and the best will in the world to you. It is a dangerous place to go.

I have not been a Member of the House for long but I have listened to others who have been Members for a long time. They are flabbergasted at this. It is not logical that matters that are so important to the State can be ruled on in this fashion. We are talking about changing the law on eligibility for medical cards. We have sought, in amendment No. 3, to ameliorate this proposed change. The amendment is not in conflict with the principle. We do not agree with the loss of universality and seek to ameliorate the hurt and harm done to people who have, as I stated, legitimate expectation.

To return to the first point I made, if a third party rules on this matter because it is his or her perception that a principle, which is not clearly stated, is X, Y or Z, we will be in trouble and this day will come back to haunt the House.

See this speech in context