asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why on 17th December, 1975, there were 40 unused post office vans in St. John's Road, Dublin, and other unused vans stored elsewhere at a time when his Department was renting vans commercially.

The only serviceable vehicles held at St. John's Road Depot which were not in use on 17th December, 1975, were 15 new vehicles which had been specially fitted out and were in course of issue to the engineering branch.

At other locations serviceable vehicles which were not being used were immobilised because of an unofficial industrial dispute or the absences of drivers. Accordingly, they could not have been used to reduce the number of vehicles and drivers hired to cater for pre-Christmas postal pressure.

The Minister seems to have missed the point of my question. Is the Minister aware that the fact that he is using rented vans to do work which could be done by employees of his Department is one of the thorns that caused the unofficial, and now official, action the country is confronted with?

I am not so aware. The Deputy does not state the facts correctly. I have answered the Deputy's question fully, and accurately, and I am sorry he is persisting in the course of action which he, and some of his colleagues, have taken in relation to the dispute at the Post Office which is to encourage strike action. I deplore that.

Will the Minister tell the House if he has been using commercially hired vehicles to do work that could be done by the vans of the Department?

No. Commercially hired vehicles are only used at certain times when the Post Office fleet, for reasons of rush traffic, is fully occupied, fully absorbed. These extra vehicles are only taken on occasionally for that purpose.

I am afraid I am being given the run around. Does the Minister not consider that it was bad business practice to hire commercial vehicles when 15 new vehicles were not in use?

The Deputy is talking complete nonsense. The spokesman on the subject for the Fianna Fáil Party is here and there are three former Ministers belonging to that party who could take an attitude in relation to this whole important matter but they are not here. It is somewhat irresponsible that questioning in this most sensitive area at this time of great public concern for the Post Office and the public should be left to Deputy Lemass.

The Minister should tell us what he did to solve the strike.

Order. Question No. 28 has been called.

(Dublin Central): May I ask the Minister——

I have called the next question.

(Dublin Central): May I ask a brief supplementary question?

The Minister has been insulting to this side of the House.

This is a very important matter.

We cannot debate it now.

The Chair should keep the Minister under control.

(Dublin Central): May I ask the Minister a brief supplementary question?

Yes, if it is a brief relevant question.

(Dublin Central): The Minister referred to the current strike which is causing grave concern. Has he any hope that it will be fixed in the near future?

That is a separate matter. Question No. 28 has been called.

I appreciate the Deputy's concern and, with the indulgence of the Chair, I should like to answer his question briefly. I appreciate it is an entirely legitimate one and reflects legitimate concern by the public. As Deputies may have observed in the Press, discussions have been taking place between officials of my Department and members of the union concerned. The officials of my Department have reported to me on progress made. I have every reason to believe that the executive of the union, like the Department, wish to see this dispute resolved as soon as possible. I think Deputies will understand that while these discussions continue to proceed and while reports are coming back I would be unable to enter into any detail of the matter. My Department are continuously concerned with it. It is our major preoccupation at the moment and I should like to take the occasion of the Deputy's question to express to the public my Department's regret at the serious and growing inconvenience which this dispute has caused.

Question No. 28.

Will the Minister give an undertaking——

I have called the next question.

In view of the Minister's——

Order. The Chair will not be intimidated. I have called the next question.

I want to ask the Minister.

The Chair will be obeyed.

This is a serious matter.

The Deputy must obey the Chair.

The Chair is being disorderly.

I have called Question No. 28. I have allowed deviation from the question on the Order Paper. I have called the next question several times.

I want to ask the Minister a short question——

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Order. Question No. 28.

On a point of order, as the Minister is the only person on the Government benches I wish to call for a House.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

On a point of order, is it not the case that Question Time exists for the benefit of Opposition Deputies who wish to extract information from Ministers——

That is not a point of order.

——and is not, therefore, formally part of Government business comparable with legislation——

I object to the Parliamentary Secretary making ex parte statements in this manner.

There is no convention that provides that the Government——

Order.

This is the bullying that made the Opposition famous and which put them over there. It will leave them over there. Surely no convention obliges the Government to provide a House for Question Time? If there are not enough Opposition Deputies there who are as interested as Ministers, let them close down Question Time and resume Government business at the time prescribed in Standing Orders——

Another lecture.

I will raise the matter at the next meeting of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges.