Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

I have just spent two days dealing with Committee Stage of the Finance Bill in the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service, during which a number of amendments were tabled requesting the Minister for Finance to make reports by specified dates. These amendments were not ruled out of order but debated. It appears, therefore, that different rules apply when legislation is debated in the Chamber.

The purpose of the division on Second Stage was, to use the words in the Bill, to allow the Government, in principle, "to make provision in relation to eligibility for services under the Health Act 1970 and for liability for health contributions and to provide for matters connected therewith". The House divided on this issue and a decision was taken by majority vote. The division was not on a principle but to allow the Bill to proceed.

With the greatest respect to whoever interprets the Title as a principle, the Title clearly states what is the purpose of the Bill. It is "an Act to amend the Health Act.... to make provision in relation to eligibility for services under the Health Act 1970 and for liability for health contributions and to provide for matters connected therewith". That is the issue on which the House divided. I fail to understand how an amendment which differs from something in the Bill is contrary to the principle in the text, that is, to make provisions and so forth. Until such time as the legislation is voted through, this will remain the principle of the Bill.

With the greatest respect, consistency is required in the approach taken to legislation in committee rooms and the Chamber.

See this speech in context