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.