asked the Minister for the Environment whether he is aware that on 25 May 1982 the Incorporated Law Society advised solicitors that their clients should if at all possible avoid obtaining bridging finance on the strength of loans approved under the housing loan schemes operated through the National Housing Agency as the society have not yet seen the draft form of mortgage executed by those who obtain loans; and if he will clarify the position.

I am so aware. I understand from the Housing Finance Agency that the point at issue is the subject of discussion with the Incorporated Law Society and other interested parties. The agency anticipate that they will be in a position to issue a circular letter to housing authorities in the matter in the near future.

Could the Minister indicate when the Housing Finance Agency had a meeting with the Incorporated Law Society to discuss this problem? Would he further indicate what the reason is for the delay in the Housing Finance Agency submitting a draft form of mortgage document to the Incorporated Law Society for the purpose of examining such a document?

They had a meeting with the Incorporated Law Society on 15 June 1982. In the meantime, a draft mortgage document has been circulated to the representatives and managers, and it will be presented to them this week.

Could the Minister explain why the meeting with the Incorporated Law Society took place only two days ago, on the evening of Tuesday this week, the day before it was anticipated these questions would arise for answer in this House? Could the Minister further explain why when it was intended that this scheme would come into operation in the beginning of May according to his own Department, this document was not submitted earlier to the Incorporated Law Society? Could he explain why, despite the law society seeking a meeting with the Housing Finance Agency some weeks ago, the agency did not co-operate in such a meeting and no meeting was held until the day prior to these questions arising for answer in this House?

The meeting was an urgent meeting and I have no doubt that any reservations that the Incorporated Law Society have will be ironed out very quickly.

Arising from the reply——

Ceist 13.

On a point of order——

What is the point of order?

The point of order is that I put two supplementary questions only on this matter and I have——

Sorry, the Deputy had better listen to the rules of the House; you do not decide the number of supplementaries. It is at the discretion of the Chair. I decided that there should be two and now we are going on to the next question.

On a point of order, the Minister has failed to reply——

I am sorry, I am not responsible for that. That is not a point of order.

Arising from the Minister's reply, I think I should be entitled——

That is not a point of order.

——to ask the Minister why this document was not submitted some weeks ago to the law society.

The Deputy is not entitled to ask that now. I am not responsible for Minister's replies. He has given a reply and I allowed a supplementary question and a further supplementary and I am now on Question No. 13. The Deputy should resume his seat.

On a point of order——

I might enlighten the Deputy if he gave me a chance.

The Minister is not entitled to do that now.

The Minister has assured the House——

I want to know what is your point of order.

I have asked the Minister in Question No. 12 to clarify the position. He has not indicated the reason why this mortgage document——

The Deputy had better know the rules of the House. That is not a point of order and that is the second time I have told him so. A point of order is about order in the House. The Deputy must resume his seat.

The Minister is evading the question.

That is not my fault. Question No. 13.