(Limerick East): The statement with which most citizens are familiar is the one which was distributed through people's letter boxes. Was this letter distributed by employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

No.

(Limerick East): Is the Minister aware that the Post Office have a monopoly on letter deliveries and if it was not delivered by employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs by whom was it delivered?

The Deputy missed the point of the question put to me.

(Limerick East): I got a letter from the Minister.

I am delighted the Deputy received it.

(Limerick East): Who delivered it?

Has the Deputy read it?

(Limerick East): What arrangements did the Minister make for the delivery of this letter around the country at public expense? Is the Minister in breach of the monopoly law——

I am not in breach of the law.

(Limerick East): Is the Minister in breach of the law which gives the Department of Posts and Telegraphs a monopoly in delivering letters?

I am not in breach of any law.

We cannot have this.

(Limerick East): My question was not answered.

I heard a reply.

(Limerick East): Who delivered the letter?

I have no intention of answering that question. It is not in connection with the question which is before me.

Why not?

It is not relevant.

(Limerick East): It is relevant.

I do not accept that it is.

I refer the Minister to his reply in which he referred to his campaign on crime. Is posting the letter not part and parcel of the campaign?

The question put to me refers to the protection of the citizen. My campaign was launched with that in view as far as crime and vandalism are concerned. If the Deputy wishes to throw dirty water on the campaign, I can take no responsibility for his unfortunate attitude to a positive step.

In the light of the Minister's reply, does he not accept that the campaign is relevant to the question? Will he please answer the question he was asked originally: who was responsible for posting letters around the country and what was the expense to the State of this exercise?

That is not relevant to the question before me.

On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to reply to every supplementary question that people are misinterpreting his answers and that supplementaries are not relevant when they are clearly relevant to the issue?

The Chair has no function in that regard. I am not responsible for the content of answers but merely that the Minister makes a reply.

I should like——

Deputy FitzGerald knows that.

A ruling on the relevance of a question is a matter for the Chair and not for the Minister. The Minister is seeking to take the place of the Chair in this respect. Unless the Chair rules that it is irrelevant, the Minister should answer the question or give some reason for not answering it.

If the Deputy looks through the questions which were put to me, he might find that there are later ones on which the answers he seeks may be given.

It would appear that the letters were not delivered by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In fighting crime the Minister may have committed a crime by breaking the law relating to monopoly.

I did not commit a crime.

Was the Minister in breach of the law when he was supposed to be fighting crime?

No.