I believe that that is the problem. The management of Government business is indicated consistently and I see Senator Farrell nodding his head. He is sitting in the front seat, so he probably knows something that perhaps the Minister has been deprived of in information terms.
I have been contacted yet again today by people whose political persuasion I simply do not know, nor do I care. They are involved in this area and they are concerned about it, for very good reasons.
If I can comment simply on the ruling of the Cathaoirleach that the amendment is out of order which, of course, we all accept; we have to accept it; it is part of the tradition and regulations of this House, but acceptance of that ruling has certain consequences for what the Minister says. If we accept, as we are obliged to do, that allowing this amendment is impossible because it would create a charge on the Exchequer — that means an increase — then the Minister's statement that this section will allow the spending of extra money — or, at least, to stabilise money — must be incorrect. What is represented in this section as it stands has been determined by a ruling of the Cathaoirleach to be in effect a reduction. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to. With regard to creating a charge, the layman, not having the benefit of the special techniques of the Cathaoirleach, would say it was sustaining rather than creating a charge.
I come to my final point. As a result of the Minister's phrasing, we can now, clearly have a situation where a patient who is determined to be in need of nursing home care, and who is also determined not to have sufficient income to be able to support that, may not get it. As a result of the word "may" rather than "shall" the Bill clearly envisages the possibility that a person who needs nursing home care and cannot afford it may not get it. I would like to ask the Minister very specifically if he would agree with me on this point.
Does the Minister not agree that it is possible to interpret this section in the following manner and I will specify it again: is it possible that it could be determined that somebody was in need of nursing home care, could not afford it but still would not get it because the health board would not provide it? I am not suggesting this is going to be a widespread practice but it most clearly is indicated by the present wording of the Bill. I would be very sorry to see the Minister stand over that because that is clearly the situation. In other words people may not get the subvention as a result of the obdurate refusal of the Government, unfortunately, to accept this amendment which has the support of the entire House — although perhaps not Senator Farrell, he is waving his hands about; I think disclaiming that.