asked the Minister for Fisheries if instructions have been issued to the Naval Service in relation to the arrest of boats over 33 metres in length and over 1,100 horsepower fishing inside this country's 200-mile fishing limit.

22.

andMr. Gallagher asked the Minister for Fisheries the reply, if any, the Government have given to the request of the Commission of the European Communities to postpone unilateral conservation measures until 15th March; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 22 together.

The Government have agreed to postpone until the 15th of this month the measures set out in the orders made by me on 16th February last pending consideration of new proposals for the conservation and management of fishery resources in Irish waters to be put forward by the EEC Commission. Details of these proposals are awaited.

Do I take it from the Minister's reply that no new EEC proposals are available to the Government at this time?

At this time that is so. The meeting in Brussels on Monday was between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, myself and officials and Mr. Gundelach and officials. Mr. Gundelach indicated to us that he would endeavour to get proposals from the Commission which he would send to us as agreed proposals which we could consider. At that time, last Monday, there were no such proposals available to us. I was permitted by the Government to indicate to Mr. Gundelach that we would give him the 14 days postponement and await the production of his proposals. We are still waiting for these proposals at this time.

In view of the fact that no positive proposals were available from the EEC, and in the light of our experience in dealing with the EEC on fisheries, would the Minister accept that it was unwise of him to change his original decision in relation to unilateral action on the fishing industry?

I would not so admit. The business of this Government and of the nation with the EEC is extremely large and important. When somebody of the stature and responsibility of Mr. Gundelach indicates to a Government, as he did by letter, that he is endeavouring to get the Commission to agree proposals to put to us and is asking for a short postponement of 14 days, the Government are wise to agree to that postponement.

In view of the fact that the Minister has now disclosed that all Mr. Gundelach said was that he would endeavour to get proposals from the Commission, is it not quite clear that the Minister has gone back on his original position? Was the Minister aware when he made his original proposals in regard to unilateral action on conservation that there were matters of major interest concerning Ireland's involvement in the Community? Since he made those proposals, what has happened to make him climb down now when the Commissioner has only told him he will endeavour to have proposals?

I would not accept that there was any climb down. This is merely a matter of wise business dealing. The situation is that Mr. Gundelach, having received protests from member states such as France, Germany and Holland in respect of our unilateral proposals, is endeavouring to get agreement with the Commission which will mean that he can put proposals to us which at least would be as good as or better than the result of the unilateral decision. We do not know if they will be or not. We have not that knowledge until we get the proposals, and we are still awaiting those proposals.

Can the Minister confirm that Commissioner Gundelach communicated personally with the Minister for Foreign Affairs by telephone?

In bed in Palmerston Road.

Can the Minister confirm that?

No. The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not communicate with Mr. Gundelach on Monday and Mr. Gundelach did not communicate with him. What happened was that when we left the meeting in Brussels the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs telephoned his Minister—Mr. Dillon the Ambassador also rang him—to indicate what had transpired. Mr. Gundelach did not correspond with the Minister for Foreign Affairs nor did the Minister correspond with Mr. Gundelach.

Does this mean that, contrary to all reports, there was no communication between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Gundalach on Monday or Tuesday?

That is a fact.

Will the Minister comment on the statement attributed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that what the Commission would be likely to propose would probably be better in the nation's interest than what the Minister was proposing in this House some weeks ago?

All that happened was that a newsman asked a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister indicated that a postponement was justified—I have his letter here which says so—as long as there was a possibility of a solution emerging. From that there grew up all kinds of press speculation for which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, nor the Government nor I are responsible.

Before the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave any view to any pressman or anybody else, is it true that he was not in communication with the Minister who is present in this House and that any views offered to a pressman were his own spontaneous views, which were a very adverse comment on the Minister for Fisheries?

I do not accept that.

Does the Minister not accept that this is a very strange way to conduct this country's negotiating business?

I do not, nor will I accept that my colleague created any embarrassment for me. All that happened was that my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, received telephone calls from his Parliamentary Secretary and his Ambassador indicating the result of the meeting. Somebody in the Press asked him a question and in the most natural way he indicated that a postponement was justified so long as there was a possibility of a solution. From that we have all the press speculation imaginable.

I am sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It is not clear from what the Minister said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made this statement without any communication with the Minister who was responsible in the negotiations? That in itself is a reflection on our negotiator's——.

This is leading to argument.

Not at all. It is no reflection at all.

Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs communicated with the news desk of RTE on Monday evening requesting that they present this development in a toned down fashion? Has he any comment to make on reports to that effect?

I have no comment to make on such reports. I am only telling the House what my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, indicated to me he said. Are you going to pick him up on all——

This matter cannot be debated now.

This is the most important question we have had today——

And the Chair has allowed wide discretion.

If the reports are true about the communication between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the RTE news desk——

That is a separate matter.

If they are true, does it not clearly indicate to this Minister, to the House and to the public that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has no confidence in the Minister to whom the negotiations were entrusted and that the Government are divided on——

The Deputy is widening the scope of this question.

We have so much confidence in each other that we are in danger of becoming cocky.

The Minister is the only one who believes that.

In view of the fact that the Minister mentioned a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will he make it available to the House?

No, I will not make a copy of a personal letter from one Minister to another available to anybody.

Does it start off "My Dear Paddy"?

I will not make that letter available.