asked the Minister for Justice the up-to-date position in relation to the new legislation being drawn up on the control of stray dogs in the country.

I do not consider that control of stray dogs is an appropriate function for the Garda Síochána or that the issues that arise are primarily for my Department.

No proposals for new legislation in this area are being considered as far as my Department are concerned but I am informed that the question of dog control is currently being examined by the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication, which was established by the Minister for Agriculture.

On a point of order, did the Minister move that Deputy Harte be suspended from the House?

Yes, he left for the day.

Before or after the Minister moved that he be suspended?

Not for the day. There was no question put to the House. The Deputy left the Chamber.

I suspended him.

It was moved by the Minister.

He said he was leaving. I will have to ask for an adjournment of the House to have the matter clarified.

If I suspend the Deputy he will be suspended for four days.

The Minister moved that the Deputy be suspended.

He did not.

The Fine Gael Deputies were asleep.

The Deputy said he would leave the House before the Minister named him.

He was named by the Minister.

The Deputy withdrew the remark.

The Chair should make a ruling.

The Chair did make a ruling. The Deputy is suspended.

I asked the Deputy to withdraw the remark or leave the House and he chose to do neither.

The Chair told him to withdraw the remark or leave the House.

The question was never put to the House. There was no need to order the Deputy from the House because he said he would leave and he did so. Obviously the Chair did not hear him saying that but the record will show it.

On a point of order, Deputy Harte was named.

In the circumstances we will ignore it. I did not hear Deputy Harte.

On a point of order, the Chair asked the Minister for Justice to name the Deputy, which he did. At that time Deputy Harte was sitting——

——in his place and it was only subsequently that he got up to leave the House. At no time did he state, and the record will prove it, that he was leaving.

I am making the decision that there seems to have been a misunderstanding about the matter and we will ignore it. I am calling Deputy Farrelly.

It is so long since the Minister's reply that I have almost forgotten it. Is it true that the ISPCA and the advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication have made recommendations to the Department to bring in new legislation to solve this problem of stray dogs?

On a point of order, Sir, would you make a ruling as to Deputy Harte's precise position?

I made a ruling. There was a misunderstanding and the Deputy decided to leave.

I have clarified the position. There was a misunderstanding and the Deputy indicated that he would leave the House. He has not been suspended.

Did he indicate by word that he intended to leave the Chamber?

It appears he did.

And the record will show it?

I am making the decision now. Deputy Harte is not suspended from the House. He left the Chamber of his own accord.

It is my recollection that he did not intimate to the Chair that he was leaving.

Hear, hear.

I am satisfied he did.

I do not wish to take advantage of the Chair, but I want to know if I make an allegation across this House and then voluntarily withdraw from the House, does that mean I do not have to withdraw the allegation?

A good point.

Unfortunately, that is so.

Deputy Harte accused the Minister of deliberately confusing the truth. A Deputy may leave the House without withdrawing his remarks?

Yes.

When you ask a Minister to name a Deputy and he does so ——

The Minister did not stand up.

I did stand up. The Deputy is blind as well as deaf.

——do not Standing Orders bind you to call a vote?

No.

Despite the fact that you called the Minister——

I am satisfied the Deputy was leaving the House. I have made my decision and we are not going to continue.

For clarification, you asked the Minister for Justice to name the Deputy?

Yes, but he indicated just before that, that he was leaving the House.

You will agree that is not the recollection of some Deputies?

On a point of information, could you tell the House where it is provided in Standing Orders that the Chair can reverse a motion proposed by a Minister? Once you call on the Minister to name the Deputy you have put procedures in motion which you cannot reverse.

I am sorry but we now——

Where in Standing Orders is that provided or by making this decision are you creating a new precedent?

There was a misunderstanding. The Deputy concerned indicated that he was leaving the House and because of that the question of his suspension did not arise. I am now satisfied that that is the position and we will not pursue the matter further.

There is a procedure under the Rules of this House where in certain circumstances, if the Chair calls on a Minister to name a Deputy, certain procedures are put in motion. Where is it provided that the Chair can reverse those procedures?

The Deputy in question was leaving before I asked the Minister to name him.

Are you creating a precedent?

No.

Are you satisfied that you are not creating a precedent?

I am satisfied the Deputy was leaving the House.

It is not clear to me or to other Members on this side of the House that another precedent is not being created by the Chair because of the way you handled this matter.

I am satisfied the Deputy was leaving.

I suggest that the rights of Members are being seriously jeopardised by the manner in which you are interpreting the Rules of this House, as is evident in this case.

You are at liberty to express your opinion but I have made my decision. I am satisfied the Deputy was leaving the House.

While I do not wish to add to your dilemma, I would like to put on record it is my clear recollection that when you asked the Minister for Justice to name the Deputy, Deputy Harte was still seated and did not leave his seat until such time as the Minister had named him.

I am satisfied the Deputy was leaving.

The Deputy left the House.

It would be very difficult for Deputy Mitchell to know what was going on behind him.

I am calling the next question.

I asked a supplementary question and I would like a reply.

The Dogs Act, 1906, gives the Garda certain powers to control dogs. I presume the Deputy has in mind the serious difficulty posed for sheep farmers where stray dogs are concerned? I do not consider that my Department or I should have responsibility for introducing such legislation. While I accept that there may be sections in legislation prepared in other Departments that will impose the responsibility of enforcing it on the Garda, I do not consider the Garda should be the only people with the responsibility of being dog collectors. They have other onerous duties and it would be too much to ask them to take on the role as suggested in legislation which has been sought from my Department by the Deputy.

I accept the role of the Garda Síochána, what they should do and what they should not do. Does the Minister not accept that three Departments are involved in this problem? Is it not time that he, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for the Environment should ask one Department to look after the problem — I suggest the Department of Agriculture — somewhat along the lines of what has been done in Wicklow and Longford? This would alleviate the enormous loss suffered by the country in the way of exports and damage to the sheep industry here.

I am still of the opinion that I should not be the Minister responsible for the introduction of this legislation. I am sure the Deputy is aware that recently the Law Reform Commission published a draft Bill dealing with civil liability in respect of animals, but that Bill did not evoke the type of public debate I would have liked to see. However, I recognise that farmers have suffered serious losses as a result of damage caused by dogs. I accept that new legislation may be necessary but I do not accept that it is my Department or I who should have that responsibility. I think the question would be better put to another Minister.

Is the Minister aware that according to existing law dogs must have a collar and a tag? I was in the House when Deputy Haughey introduced the legislation and he told us it would be rigorously enforced by the Garda Síochána. He said he did not believe in having legislation on the Statute Book unless it was enforced. Will the Minister agree that unfortunately legislation in this area has not been enforced?

The Garda Síochána have many duties. The Deputy is aware that enforcement in any area cannot be done to the exclusion of enforcement duties and other duties in other areas. If the Deputy has any cases or areas in mind and if he can give to the gardaí a written statement evidence of what he has referred to, I am sure they will be glad to take it. However, if he is implying in what he has said that the Garda Síochána are not doing their duties, I reject that.

With regard to the point raised by the Minister regarding the Law Reform Commission, does that not put the responsibility clearly on the Department of Justice in that their Bill deals not just with stray animals in relation to agriculture but stray animals generally which also affect urban areas? Does he not consider it his responsibility to introduce legislation in this area?

I do not.

The Minister has suggested that this question should be put to another Minister. Surely it is the responsibility of the Government to decide which Minister will answer questions? Further, if the question is proper to another Minister, why did he not refer it to that Minister, as is common practice?

If Deputies on the other side of the House are not in a position to know to whom they should put a particular question, I am not going over to join them. I will give them advice.

Is the Minister aware that draft proposals have been sent recently by the Dublin Corporation either to his Department or to the Department of the Environment? This problem is a serious matter not only in country districts but also in urban areas. Very few dogs are licensed and there is no check on licences. Is the Minister aware that the IFA, the ISPCA and other organisations have expressed grave concern about stray dogs? There is also the serious problem of disease.

I am so aware. I recognise this is a serious situation.

I am asking Deputy Farrelly to put a final supplementary question.

I reject that——

I have told the Deputy he may put a final supplementary on this question.

I asked the Minister is it not his Department who are concerned with the collection of licence fees? Is it not the position that his Department introduce and implement regulations regarding stray dogs if they do harm to property or to other animals? I think that in one of his answers the Minister has been misleading to his own Department.

That is the second time I have been accused of misleading the House. The Garda Síochána have responsibility in various legislative areas for the enforcement of the law in relation to stray dogs but that does not necessarily mean that they have other duties in this area. The Deputy is suggesting that the Department of Justice have total responsibility for stray dogs but that is untrue. The Garda Síochána have enforcement powers under certain legislation.

I was the only Deputy who made a submission to the Law Reform Commission on this matter. Does the Minister agree with the principles of the proposed legislation as outlined by the Law Reform Commission? Will he indicate which Minister he considers is responsible for proceeding with the introduction of the type of legislation suggested by the commission?

What about the Minister for Health?

Many of the proposals in the draft Bill as prepared by the Law Reform Commission are of significant value. I was concerned about one area, the fact that it was proposed to put the Garda Síochána in the role of dog catchers or dog keepers. There is responsibility under section 11 of the 1906 Act with regard to the collection of dogs but I do not think it should be the total responsibility of the Garda Síochána in the way suggested. I consider that new legislation would be more appropriately introduced, either by the Minister for Agriculture or by the Minister for the Environment.

I wish to ask a final supplementary——

We must move to the next question.

On a point of order——

The Minister is more concerned about straying Deputies.

I want to raise the question of one Minister saying a question should not be addressed to him but to someone else. I have had this experience in the past few weeks with other Ministers. I asked one Minister a question and he told me I should put it to another Minister. I put down a question to the other Minister but it was ruled out of order by the Chair on the basis that it was a repeat of the original question.

Is this a new departure: for Ministers to answer questions saying "You should put down a question to another Minister" or will past practice be resumed, that, if a Minister feels he is not the correct Minister to whom the question should have been addressed, it will be transferred automatically to his relevant colleague? Will that practice be resumed?

I did understand that questions that were referred would be transferred to the appropriate Minister. That is the understanding I had. If there has been a change in that practice, I am not so aware. Could we have it cleared up very quickly by saying I will look into the matter for the Deputy?

The question has been three months on the Order Paper.

Just a point of order——

It is on this issue.

Unless it is a point of order, I am not going to allow it. There can be no more supplementary questions now.

It is up to you, Sir, to decide whether or not it is a point of order.

On a point of order——

The Deputy was not in the House when I made the decision. If the Deputy continues on points of order that are refused, I shall ask him to leave the House.

Sir, I am endeavouring not to abuse the point of order.

Was it a point of order?

It is a question I want to ask, Sir, and it arises directly from the issue, which is this——

No, Deputy, unless it is a point of order, I cannot allow it.

But I cannot know whether it is a point of order unless you decide whether or not to allow it.

Well, the Deputy must get to know about the rules of the House, that a point of order must be related to the issue.

Yes, but on the matter that was the subject of Deputy Mitchell's point of order.

Yes, we have admitted that, but in relation to the stray dogs, no; I cannot allow it, Deputy.

It arises from that, Sir. The Minister has said that the matter should be referred to another Minister.

That is all right.

On a previous occasion in this House the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment said the same thing. On a previous occasion outside the House one of the Ministers of State at the Department of Agriculture said that he was proposing legislation——

I think that is a misinterpretation of what I said here.

Could we decide——

What I am saying is that the introduction of legislation in the particular area referred to by the Deputy in his question would not, I consider, be my responsibility. However, let there be no misinterpretation of the fact that the enforcement of existing and indeed future legislation might be very much my responsibility and particularly that of the Garda Síochána.

On a point of order, to finally clarify the position in relation to this question, Sir, would you prefer that Deputy Farrelly put down now an identical question to the Minister for Agriculture and that will not be ruled out of order on the six months rule? Are you in a position to clarify that, Sir?

I am not going to give any such assurance now. I shall consider the matter. I think that would be better.

A Cheann Comhairle, a week ago in this House a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment——

Deputy Farrelly, I have said I will examine the question and let the Deputy know. We cannot revert to that.

It has been four months on the Order Paper, so it will be six months before we see it up on the——

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