In the future the Minister will make an order which will be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas, debated and confirmed by resolution. Is there any limitation on the number of such orders which may be made by the Minister?
Local Elections Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy knows the answer. There is no limitation. The Minister will come before the House on each occasion. However, I do not envisage a period exceeding seven years. The Deputy may remember that local elections were held every three years at one time. The period was increased to five years and Deputy Molloy, or his predecessor in the Department, was responsible for having the elections postponed on two occasions, making seven years.
That does not arise from the question I asked, which was whether there is to be any limitation on the number of orders the Minister may make in this respect.
There is a precedent for seven years but I would not envisage the period being extended beyond the seven years. The Deputy got an extension last year and I am asking for one now. Instead of replying to stupid questions, I am saying that we are providing that there will not be this long rigmarole of having a Bill on each occasion and having it debated at length. The order will be debated in both Houses.
The suggestion that the time of the House be cut down is admirable in some respects but this Government have met only on a few occasions since they were appointed. Are we to take it that this is to be a new pattern or development—that most of the business of the House will be done by orders which will be presented on the occasional day the House will meet? Is this part of a new development, that the business normally done in the House in a democratic way, through Act of Parliament, will in future be done by ministerial order?
We all know that certain businessmen would love that to happen. It is the intention of the Government to do things in a democratic way but it is not their intention that the time of the House should be taken up dealing with things that should be done in a less formal way. We shall be busy dealing with legislation to improve conditions in the country. There was a lot of legislation and a lot of discussion here in the past few years that we could have done without.
The Minister could say that again. I am amused that the Minister should consider stupid the question I asked him.
I am sorry about that.
I wish it to be stated clearly that under the legislation the Minister has introduced he and the Government will have authority to continue to postpone local elections for as long as they wish. This is an interesting piece of information of which the people should be informed. I do not think it was a stupid question.
It was a stupid question because, as the former Minister is aware, if this section had not been introduced the Government could next year introduce the same Bill and this procedure could continue for as long as the Dáil and the Seanad agree. To suggest there is anything sinister in section 2 appears to me to be a bit stupid.
The Minister seems to be nervy and touchy. He suggested there was something sinister in my statement on the section. All I wanted was a simple answer. Seeing that the Minister has all the arrogance——
The only person, the only people whom I have seen arrogant in this House during the years have been the Deputy and his predecessors in his Department. They had reputations for arrogance. I do not propose to continue that. If Deputy Molloy asks a reasonable question he will get a reasonable answer. I suppose he thought his question was a clever one.
It is regrettable that the Minister has such a suspicious mind. It will cause him a lot of trouble.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.