asked the Minister for Education why he has ordered managers of national schools to remove from school rolls the names of voluntary and board of health inmates of industrial schools in respect of whom no Department of Education (Industrial Schools Division) grant is payable; and whether he will reconsider this decision so as to permit of these children being recognised for purposes of average and capitation grant in the national school which they attend.

The introduction of the scheme of partial payment of the salaries of teachers in industrial schools gave rise to certain difficulties of administration in dealing with pupils of these schools who have been attending adjacent national schools and in respect of whom no Government grant was paid by the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department.

In order to overcome these difficulties it was proposed that all children resident in industrial schools should be dealt with under the new system of partial payment of teachers' salaries. The adoption of this arrangement would involve the removal from the rolls of the national schools of the names of a small number of children of the classes mentioned in the question. The arrangement has been objected to by some of the schools concerned, and I am having the matter further considered to see if a more satisfactory arrangement can be made with regard to the classes of children in question.

On a point of order, Sir, I wanted an answer to question No. 18.

Is this a free assembly?

I was raising a point of order, Sir.

The Deputy should not have interrupted when the next question was being answered.

But I wanted the Minister to give way. I was raising a point of order. If a Deputy, no matter who he may be, raises a point of order, is not the Minister, the Taoiseach, or anybody else, bound to give way until you have ruled upon it?

The Chair had called the next question, and the Minister was answering it. I understood the Deputy wanted to raise a point of order on the preceding question.

I wanted to raise a point of order on the conduct of the Minister and the Minister refused to give way to the point of order. I have never known that to happen in the House before.

Will the Deputy say on which question he wanted to raise the alleged point of order?

I want to raise it on the conduct of the Minister.

On which question?

On the conduct of the Minister in replying to question No. 19 before he had answered question No. 18. The Minister was bound to give way, in my submission, until you had heard my representations.

I submit——

There have been 18 questions answered in 40 minutes. Normally, about 30 questions used to be disposed of in half an hour. I allowed four supplementary questions on the question to which Deputy Dillon referred. The Chair is the sole judge of the number of supplementaries. Having decided that four were sufficient, the Chair called the next question, and no point of order could arise on the Minister's conduct, seeing the Chair ruled out any more supplementaries.

Some of the questions were not answered at all.

I submit that the humblest Deputy in this House has the right to raise a point of order, and the Taoiseach or any other Deputy must give way until you have ruled on the point and have indicated to the Deputy interrupted that he may proceed. That course, for the first time since I entered Dáil Eireann, ten years ago, was departed from by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures because he thought he could get away with it. I protest against that.

Has a point of order ever been raised when a reply to a question was being read?

I do not know of any precedent.

On that point may I submit that a point of order can be submitted to the Chair at any time in this House — during a speech that is being made or while a question is being answered.

Does the Deputy know a single instance where it has happened?

It is not a question of whether it has happened or not. I am saying that any member of this House has a right at any period during the proceedings of the House to submit a point of order to the Chair.

The Chair agrees.

But the Taoiseach is denying it.

The Chair is the authority on order in the House.

I know that, Sir.

The next question having been called and the Minister replying, the Chair informed Deputy Dillon that when the Minister had answered the question the Deputy would be heard. The Deputy purported to raise a point of order on a preceding question.

The authority of the Chair was flouted by the Minister and the Chair approved of it.

The authority was not flouted because the Chair did not admit the point of order at the time, but informed Deputy Dillon that when that question was concluded Deputy Dillon would be heard as to a point of order. He was so heard.

May I submit, Sir, that the Chair was not aware at the time Deputy Dillon rose to submit a point of order upon what he was going to submit the point of order?

Hear, hear.

I do not think it required great intelligence to surmise what matter was in question. The Deputy could hardly raise a point on No. 19 before it was answered, hence the excitement arose out of No. 18.

The Chair is the judge of order.