Before I call on the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge, I wish to say there is a misprint on the Order Paper — 1, 2, 3, 1. We are not going backwards, it should read 1, 2, 3, 4.
Order of Business.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. We have a matter in regard to the amendment of our Standing Orders in No. 1, and then move on to the resumption of the debate on the disadvantaged areas. The proposal is to adjourn from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and that No. 3 should be taken up if No. 2 concludes before lunch, or very shortly after lunch. It is proposed, in the event of No. 2 finishing before lunch, that No. 3 would be taken at 2 p.m. and No. 4 will also be ordered for 2 p.m.
While we are discussing the Order of Business I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to No. 25 on the Order Paper, which is a motion in the names of Senator Robinson and myself. This is a motion to annul statutory regulations made by the Minister for Social Welfare under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1981, by which regulations it seems to us that the Minister is purporting to introduce a discrimintory free fuel scheme replacing one which had already been struck down by the High Court. The point of my intervention today is that this matter must be dealt with within 21 sitting days from the date when the matter was laid on the table of the House. As I understand it, it was put on the table of the House on the seventh sitting day, on 28 February, and we are now at the 16th sitting day, so that we have approximately ten sitting days to deal with this matter. If it is not debated in the House before the expiry of the 21 days then the section of the Act — which is section 3 (5) of the Social Welfare Act which covers the annulling of these regulations — will be of no effect and the House will have no power to annul the regulations unless it is brought in within 21 days. I ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that the matter will be taken within the statutory period.
I am grateful to Senator McGuinness for calling my attention to the fact that there is a question of a lapse of time here. I am not in a position to check her arithmetic but if she is correct in saying that we still have ten sitting days it will be possible to take this in Private Members' time when next it is the turn of the Independent group to use that time. However, I will undertake to Senator McGuinness that if time runs out more quickly than that, Government time will be made available.
I am concerned that this is a motion which is brought forward in a statutory situation where the House is given power to do this kind of thing. I do not think it is correct that it should be taken in Private Members' time. If a motion is brought under statute in this way it should be taken in Government time. It is not fair to my colleagues on the Independent benches to ask them to give up their Private Members' time to discuss a motion which was brought in under statute in this way. However, we will have time to have some negotiations with the Leader of the House about this. I do not want to prolong the matter today. I want to make the point that whenever a motion is brought under statute, Government time should be made available for it.
I agree with Senator McGuinness. This is a very important amendment. Basically what happened was that a High Court ruling was made which meant that certain people were entitled to free fuel vouchers, or that certain people could not be discriminated against in the issuing of free fuel vouchers. It is deplorable that the amendment should have to come in here under Private Members' time. If there has to be an amendment made, it should come in in Government time.
I would like to say in supplement, that the position is that this is a Government order. Apparently, it is the Government's opinion that it should stand in this particular form. It is inappropriate to say that anyone has anything approaching a right to move an amendment such as this in Government time. Senators are aware that as Leader and Deputy Leader of the House both myself and Senator Ferris have always been flexible on these matters. We are prepared to be flexible on them. A Leas-Chathaoirligh, like yourself, who prefers to be approached outside the House rather than across the floor of the House on matters, I too prefer to be approached outside the House rather than across the floor of the House. I am certainly concerned, but I can give no guarantee on my feet because this matter is being raised without notice. All I can say is that I will give consideration today to the question of whether the matter cannot be disposed of next week. If I find that there is no objection to it being disposed of next week it can be ordered on Wednesday next.
On the Order of Business, may I ask the Leader of the House if it would be possible to bring forward item No. 19 on the Order Paper? This is an item raised by Senators of the Labour Party and Independent Members but it concerns the Nicaraguan people. It is a motion that, in view of what has happened in the United States over the past few days, should be debated in this House. We had a very good debate on the situation in Nicaragua relating to the elections that took place there. We have an excellent report from the people who went to Nicaragua to see the manner in which the elections took place. In the last few days President Reagan has been rebuked by both Houses in the United States for his efforts to give aid to the anti-Government forces in Nicaragua. After being beaten on that he suggests——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
All you are doing is asking that it will be allowed to be discussed.
I just want to give the reasons why I think it should be discussed. President Reagan has now suggested, having been beaten in both Houses in the United States, that there should be a trade ban and that Nicaragua should not get aid, food, or any of the aid which would be necessary for that country to succeed as a democratic country. I ask the Leader of the House that this matter be brought forward as a matter of urgency in this House.
I would like to say that this motion has been on the Order Paper for some time. It is a Private Members' motion. My memory is that it was down before we debated Nicaragua on the last occasion and that when we did debate Nicaragua on the head of a report from a parliamentary delegation the debate was so wide that a great deal of the substance of this motion was subsumed within it. There is not a very strong case for Government time to be given in this regard. I repeat that in the Seanad the amount of time given to Private Members has exceeded that given previously certainly within my memory of the Seanad, which is quite a long one. I can give no guarantee whatsoever for allowing Government time in view of the matters we have discused.
Order of Business agreed to.