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.