asked the Taoiseach the number of library assistants with special responsibilities, among other duties, for security and prevention of theft, vandalism and damage to property in the National Library, Dublin 2.

All staff of the National Library are considered to have responsibility for security and prevention of theft, vandalism and damage to property. When the library is open to the public, there are at least nine staff on public duty of which two are library assistants.

I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that my question arises out of the theft of one of the most valuable properties in the possession of the library, a 16th century manuscript map of Munster. Is the Taoiseach aware that library assistants are mainly responsible for the on-the-floor security in the public area, that traditionally there were ten such assistants in that area, that up to September last there were five and that there are now three unless one has been appointed since last week? Thankfully, the valuable map is back but I should like to know if the Taoiseach considers the number of staff adequate bearing in mind that they are the people who are primarily responsible for the security of those works? Can we all feel confident that there will not be a repetition of such a theft?

I am afraid that this is a problem which besets libraries all over the world. In fact, I was in a university library not so long ago in the United States where the devices to which they are compelled to resort are quite horrendous to try to protect their valuable books and manuscripts. Unfortunately, it is a feature of our modern world. I am assured that in this case it was not shortage of staff that was responsible but rather inadequate security procedures. There has been an investigation into that aspect and it is hoped that the situation will greatly improve.

I am aware that it has been said that slipshod methods were responsible for the theft. However, although nobody would condone slipshod methods in the protection of such valuable items the fact that there are only three library assistants must place a big burden on them. Will the Taoiseach give us an assurance that he will consider the provision of all modern electronic aids, video cameras and so on, together with adequate staff to ensure that there is no danger of a theft of such items? The Taoiseach will be aware that such items are irreplaceable, that future generations will not be able to buy them.

I can give the Deputy that assurance.

2.

asked the Taoiseach the total number of staff allocated to the National Library, Dublin 2; the division of this staff between the genealogical office and the library section; and the numbers in each grade in (a) the library section and (b) the genealogical section.

The total number of staff allocated to the National Library is 44 in the library section and eight in the genealogical office.

I propose circulating in the Official Report a schedule which sets out the number of staff in each grade in these offices.

National Library of Ireland

We now move to Questions nominated for priority.

With regard to Priority Questions, the Chair's office communicated with me that my question as to whether the Minister had satisfied herself on the constitutionality of requiring a contribution for the provision of schools was not in order because it was a matter for the courts. I seek the advice of the Chair in regard to that ruling in so far as my question dealt with the attitude of the Minister rather than of citizens and of courts.

I am sorry, Deputy, but you may not raise that matter with me now. My office will be glad to facilitate the Deputy in respect of any elucidation he may require concerning the matter.

I should like to take the matter up with the Chair's office.

On a point of order in relation to Priority Questions, I tabled a question relating to the provision of school transport during this year and I specifically related that question to statements made from within CIE since Christmas. It was ruled out of order by you on the basis that it was a repeat. I have to say that I do not understand that, given that it specifically related to those statements but what concerns me is that I was not formally made aware of the fact that it was being ruled out of order until this morning. In fact, due to the good offices of another Member of the House, I was aware of it in advance of that and, being so aware, I attempted to take some steps——

The Chair has given the Deputy some latitude but the Chair must assert the fact that his rulings on these matters must not be challenged in the House. This is an erosion of the precious time for Priority Questions. I will not hear any more of this. In respect of the question the Deputy has adverted to, I should like to state that I understand that one of the questions was deemed late, considerably late.

With respect, that is to mislead the House.

I am not going to enter into argument now but if the Deputy wants any further clarification of the matter my office is at his disposal.

The only point I wish to make is that questions are ruled out of order too late for a Member to table an alternative and that is unsatisfactory.

It is not in order to raise those matters with me now.

This applies to all of us.

I am completely satisfied about the veracity of my ruling in these matters.

It is a question of your ability to react with sufficient expedition that is at issue——

I will not accept any reflection on my office in that regard but nevertheless I will have the allegation investigated.

Questions from three Opposition spokespersons have been ruled out.

The Deputy should resume his seat. Enough of the precious time for Questions nominated for priority has been eroded. We have only 15 minutes for that purpose.