asked the Minister for Education if she is aware that the existing Government grant to primary schools is inadequate to provide for the increased running expenses of heating, lighting, cleaning and so on, and if she will now approve a realistic increase in the grants for such purposes.

National schools are financed for running expenses by a system of capitation grants payable to individual boards of management on the basis of enrolment and on condition that a sum equal to at least 25 per cent of the State grant is lodged to the school account from local sources. In recognition of the increased running costs of schools provision has been made in the 1983 Estimates for an increase in the capitation grant from £15 to £17 per pupil.

Would the Minister not agree that the level of increase in capitation grants has proved to be entirely inadequate to enable primary schools to keep up the level of service to which parents and pupils are entitled? Is the Minister aware that many primary schools are at the point of having to close due to lack of funds? Will the Minister agree to ensure that capitation grants at least keep par with the level of inflation?

Capitation grants have been increased over the past few years as follows: 1979-80, £11 per pupil; 1980-81, £13 per pupil; 1981-82, £15 per pupil, and 1982-83, £17 per pupil. It would be in all our interests if we could arrange for considerably greater increases in capitation grants to primary schools. Unfortunately the Government must undertake these increases having regard to the financial resources available.

Would the Minister agree that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of standards in national schools rests with the Government and that the school boards rely primarily on Government sources? Would the Minister also agree that the increases in capitation grants have fallen well short of the rate of inflation, leaving many schools with substantial bank overdrafts and deficits at high rates of interest which they are unable to meet?

I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

On a point of order, on the Order of Business you informed Deputy Gene Fitzgerald that it was not in order to raise the question of the imprisoned Ranks workers and that he should find some other modus operandi within Standing Orders to do so. I had intended to raise the question, as I did yesterday. I have under Standing Orders, under an accepted procedure, submitted a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Labour on this very serious matter of the jailing of 14 Ranks workers. Again you have in your wisdom disallowed this question, a Cheann Comhairle. I have studied Standing Orders and found nothing to justify your disallowing this question. I would ask you to clarify your reasons for disallowing a question which has not been raised before. A situation has not existed where 14 workers have been jailed following an industrial dispute.

I have gone out of my way to allow Deputy Gregory to make a submission and he is even abusing that. It gives me no pleasure to have to rule Deputies out of order or to rule out of order matters raised by Deputies, but the Chair is bound by Standing Orders and precedents. I have to rule Deputy Gregory's request out of order on the grounds that the matter was dealt with in principle last Thursday when it was raised not only by a question but also on the Adjournment. The Minister dealt fully and comprehensively with it and stated that, if there was any change or any other development by which he could help, he would gladly do so. To raise it again now would be repetitive. The fact that there happens to be some change numerically in the situation does not change the position. I am very sorry that I cannot allow any further discussion on it and I am calling the next business.

In fairness to Deputy Gregory——

I am sorry. Deputy O'Dea is in possession on the budget debate.

Could you hear me for a moment, please?

No, I will not. Deputy Fitzgerald intervened this morning and got on the record and Deputy Gregory has got on the record now. I am sorry but we have moved to the next business.

It is a principle.

The Chair is more concerned with principle than with Deputies and the Chair is concerned with principle as it affects the business of the House. Deputy O'Dea on the budget, please.

On a point of order——

I will not hear any more points of order or any more submissions on this matter.

I have a question which relates to something on the Order Paper.

If Deputy Walsh wishes to raise something else he may certainly do so.

May I ask a question arising from what Deputy Gregory says?

No, you cannot. I have ruled and that is that.

Surely it is reasonable to raise a point of order. You have not heard the point of order.

I will not have points of order used for interventions which themselves are out of order. Deputy Seán Walsh on another matter.

I would appreciate an oral reply to Question No. 223 on the Order Paper. Is that possible?

Yes.

On a point of order——

I hope it is a point of order.

Is a Deputy not entitled to make submissions to the Ceann Comhairle on a ruling?

No. There is a long established precedent that the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle cannot be questioned in this House. They are binding on the Members of the House and, if Deputies do not accept them and think that the Ceann Comhairle is not being fair or is not carrying out the points of order, they can challenge him before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or in another way.

I cannot give the exact reference but I know there is a point in Standing Orders and the Book of Precedents to the effect that Deputies can make submissions to the Ceann Comhairle in relation to statements he has made.