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.