asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the proposed vesting date for the establishment of An Post under section 9 (2) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983.

The proposed vesting date is 1 January 1984.

Has the Minister finalised negotiations with staff organisations in relation to the transfer?

That seems to be a separate question altogether.

It is not.

It is.

The position is, as the Deputy will be aware from his time as Minister of State in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that a working party are set up and are considering all these matters. The working party are representative of all the unions in my Department and considerable progress has been made. Matters are not yet finalised.

Surely the Minister can not give an assurance that it will be 1 January 1984 if he has not finalised the arrangements with the working party? A major problem has arisen in relation to the stores branch and the Minister may wish to comment in regard to a possible industrial action in relation to this.

We cannot debate the whole transfer.

Those people are being treated in a very high-handed manner by the working party.

Could I say——

Ceist 7.

On a point of order, why should you interfere with the question?

I am allowing the Minister to answer the question that is on the Order Paper and the Deputy should have a look at the question.

My memory of answering questions on the far side of the House is that when a supplementary was asked I endeavoured to answer it. I would often say to the Deputy in question that he should put down another question.

I refer the Deputy to Standing Orders and he will see that the Chair is the judge of what questions may be asked and what questions may not be asked.

On a point of order——

There are no points of order at Question Time.

Surely this is a relevant question?

The Chair has ruled that it is not.

The Chair is being unreasonable.

The Chair is not being unreasonable. Ceist 7.