asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) the number of new passport applications made in the first ten months of this year, with comparative figures for the same periods in 1976 and 1977; and (b) a breakdown in respect of these years of the countries named by the applicants as the destination for which passports were required.

The number of new passports issued in the first ten months for each of the years 1976-1978 was as follows: 1976, 76,313; 1977, 76,585; 1978, 98,158. Records are not kept of the destinations named by applicants and it is not possible therefore to answer the second part of the Deputy's question.

While accepting that it will be a lengthy business for the Department to go through 96,000 application forms and take out the information I am looking for I should like to know if the Department have an impression about the areas of destination which applicants for passports have to name when they are first getting a passport—they can go where they like later on? Have the Department any impression about whether they are emigrant passports or whether Spain is having a boom this year because of the spending spree the Government sent the country on?

The Deputy will appreciate that there is a question requesting the address of destination but in many cases applicants are unable to answer that question or put down an answer for general purposes. The Deputy will also appreciate that people applying for passports or renewals will need them for more than one country and for that reason the Department have always accepted that as being a satisfactory reply. Therefore, it is not possible to have anything like an accurate record of destinations; some give a general response and others name six or seven different countries. The Deputy will appreciate that there would be a lot of work for very little purpose if one tried to tabulate even the limited information available.

I accept that but I wanted to discover whether there was any information of the kind which the Department of Economic Planning and Development would need——

The Chair is concerned about the dialogue that takes place across the floor of the House and the Deputy completely ignores the Chair. I am calling the next question.

I completely ignore it when the Chair lets one question go on for a longer period than another and does not permit me to ask a second supplementary.

The Chair is concerned that the Deputy is addressing the Minister directly and completely ignores the Chair. I am not going to permit it and the Deputy will have to leave the House on the next occasion it occurs.

The Chair is very cross to-day.

The Chair is being blamed for lack of progress at Question Time.

I resent the Chair using language like that towards me. I am no worse than Deputies on either side of the House and I feel than when the Chair allows one question to go on for ten minutes and another to go for 15 minutes the Chair is treating me with less than the rights a Deputy is entitled to expect here, particularly when I am not allowed to ask a second supplementary question.

The Chair is concerned with making progress at Question Time but without the co-operation of Deputies that is not possible.

With respect, the Deputy who stepped out of line was Deputy Briscoe and the Chair allowed him to do so.