asked the Minister for the Environment if he will amend legislation to give the Garda powers to move on vehicles of journeying businessmen illegally parked in the Limerick area.

I do not consider that any amendment of the Road Traffic Acts is necessary, in regard to the control and regulation of traffic and parking, for the purposes mentioned by the Deputy. Local bye-laws in Limerick, as in other areas, include provisions for the control of parking and the enforcement of such provisions is a matter for the Garda. Any amendment to these bye-laws would be initiated by the Garda Commissioner.

Is the Minister aware that the powers of the Garda authorities are very limited in regard to dealing with this very serious and increasing problem? The Department of the Environment are now proposing to construct new roadways when they could be providing for these people. Unless the Minister implements effective legislation to allow the Garda to move these people on, they have no powers to deal with these people.

The position is that local parking bye-laws are initiated by the Garda Commissioner under the Road Traffic Act, 1961, after consultation with the local authority and with the consent of the Minister, for the control of parking in specified areas. They lay down conditions subject to which vehicles may be parked on public roads in the areas concerned. The Limerick Traffic and Parking Bye-laws, 1975, contain provisions indicating conditions for parking and places where parking is prohibited and control is exercised by signs.

I am referring to illegal parking of vehicles and the lack of power of the Garda authorities in dealing with this type of person. All they can do is go to the occupier of the vehicle and ask for his name, take the number of the vehicle and then proceed through the courts. The Garda authorities have no power to move vehicles on from the public roadway where they are a hazard and an obstruction.

Is the Deputy referring to traders, hawkers and so on?

Yes. We have a situation in Limerick where we have a new roadway called Childers Road——

We are not going to have a discussion.

I am talking about the limited powers of the Garda authorities. The Chair is more liberal with the Dublin people and seems to be down on the country boys.

What about Deputies from Donegal?

In reply to Deputy Lipper, the position is that, in so far as traders who operate on our public roads are concerned, they would be outside the terms of the road traffic provisions and, as such, their activities would be the concern of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. As the Deputy is probably aware, there are proposals in that Department for legislation which relates to the control of this type of illegal trading by persons who are unauthorised to park on the roadway.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Arising out of the Minister's statement that the problem can be dealt with by bye-laws made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, the Minister will be aware that any such bye-laws made within the last 12 months are null and void.

That is not a question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Of course, it is.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question on the Order Paper. I am not allowing it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Chair bear with me for one second? Will the Chair allow me to make a submission?

The question on the Order Paper——

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not care what the question on the Order Paper is. The Minister——

The Chair does care. I will have to ask the Deputy to leave the House if he does not obey the Chair.

(Cavan-Monaghan): May I make a submission?

I will not allow the submission. I know what the Deputy is trying to say. I am calling the next question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to make a point of order.

Deputy Fitzpatrick on a point of order.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister stated——

That is not a point of order.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair is too busy covering up the bunglings of the Minister of State——

That is not a point of order.

Surely the Deputy is entitled to make a point of order? The Chair has many qualities but not telepathy.

The Deputy has a knack of pretending that he has a point of order and then asking the question that was ruled out of order. He is doing this now.

The Chair should hear him first.

He has repeated it twice.

Let him make the point of order.

If it is the same question I shall ask him to leave the House. It is in downright contempt of the Chair.

That is not fair.

I protest against a threat by the Chair.

If the Deputy shows that he is deliberately in contempt of the Chair, I shall ask him to leave the House.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I shall obey the ruling of the Chair when the Chair hears my point of order. If the Chair is not satisfied that it is a point of order I shall be satisfied, but I want to make it.

It is the same question that the Deputy has asked already.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not raise it yet.

It is a case of "heads you win and harps he loses".

(Cavan-Monaghan): I shall obey the ruling of the Chair as I have always done. A question was put to the Minister and he replied that the problem was dealt with by certain bye-laws made by the Garda Síochána. I wanted to ask the Minister if he was aware that any such bye-laws made within the last 12 months were null and void, if he would look into the matter and what steps he would take in regard to it.

That is not a point of order. That is the question the Deputy asked and which was ruled out of order by the Chair.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The point of order I wanted to make was that that was a valid supplementary question——

I rule that is not a valid supplementary question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): With reluctance I bow to the Chair's ruling on the matter.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

With the permission of the Chair I wish to raise on the Adjournment the urgent matter of the likely if not imminent lay-off of men in the boatyards in Dingle and Baltymore——

I shall communicate with the Deputy.

I tried to have this matter raised in a Private Notice Question today. With due respect to the Chair, I suggest to him that he should regard the information given by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as less than honest and I suggest also that he looks at the statement——

The Deputy may not proceed.

Two weeks ago the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry made a statement with reference to this matter and that also was less than honest. That is why it is so urgent that the matter be raised today.

With the permission of the Chair, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of what action the Government propose to take in relation to the national monument at Wood Quay and its imminent destruction.

I shall communicate with the Deputy.