asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the communication, if any, he had with RTE or any national newspaper on Monday, 28th February, 1977, on the conduct or likely outcome of this country's fishery negotiations within the European Community.

On learning from Brussels that the Minister for Fisheries and my Parliamentary Secretary, who were then about to leave Brussels for Dublin, wished to make a statement to the media on arrival at Dublin Airport on the subject of the discussions with Commissioner Gundelach, I notified representatives of the media of this fact. I later received a telephone call from the RTE correspondent in Brussels.

Is the Minister saying that the absent Minister or the Minister who was present at the negotiations requested that he would, in fact, arrange a Press conference for the Minister for Fisheries on his return and that was the purpose of his call to the media?

Yes. I learned in Brussels that the Minister for Fisheries——

Did the Minister for Fisheries request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to arrange this and was this the purpose of the call?

If the Deputy would let me answer the question. I learned from the ambassador in Brussels that the Minister for Fisheries and the Parliamentary Secretary wished on arrival at the airport to make a statement to the Press and, in order to ensure the fullest opportunity for the Press to hear that, I contacted the newspapers and RTE to tell them of his intentions.

That is not the answer to the question I asked. Would the Minister tell me precisely whether or not the Minister for Fisheries requested that he, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would arrange this Press conference?

No. The meeting with the Minister for Fisheries was immediately after the meeting resumed at the airport in Brussels. That communication came from the ambassador.

There is a lot more to this. That is only one aspect of it. The next aspect is, is the Minister now telling us in fact this was the only purpose of his call to RTE and the various newspapers, simply to request them to be present at the airport to meet the Minister for Fisheries on his return for a Press conference?

That was the only purpose.

Does the Minister not recognise it seems very strange for him to take on the role of asking the media to arrange a Press conference when there are, I presume, Government services available for that purpose?

Yes. We all have our own style of doing things and, as they were about to board the aircraft arriving in Dublin an hour and a quarter later as the Deputy is well aware, it seemed to me more appropriate to communicate rapidly instead of at that hour of the night moving through the normal channels and, by doing so, I succeeded in alerting the media. The Deputy may feel that is unusual but if one is lying in bed and has nothing else to do and there is a matter of great urgency then it seems to one useful to do one's bit in those circumstances, and I did.

The Minister regarded it as doing his bit. The Minister for Fisheries and the public did not take that view. Incidentally, how many of the media were contacted? Was it all the newspapers?

I contacted the four daily papers and RTE with my customary efficiency.

The Minister's modesty overwhelms me. Did the Minister express views to each of the national dailies and RTE of the likely effect of the postponement, as they published on the following day, namely, that what the Commission would eventually propose would probably be better than what the Minister for Fisheries had proposed earlier?

No. I did not express views to each of them. In certain cases where my notification of the desire of the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary to make a further statement at Dublin Airport led to further discussion and informal inquiries, I did reply, for the record, to the questions asked and I expressed the view in one or two cases, I think —it is difficult to remember every detail as the Deputy will appreciate— that once the possibility existed of a Community solution which could be as satisfactory, or even more satisfactory, than a unilateral one, I felt the Government were justified in postponing action until they discovered what the new proposals would be.

We cannot continue on this question. I am calling Question No. 19.

We have waited a long time for the Minister to come back. I welcome him back.

If the Deputy wishes to debate the matter then it must be done at the proper time.

I have had to postpone this question for four weeks.

I will allow the Deputy a further brief question. I have already allowed him a series of questions.

The Chair will recall the Taoiseach said a few weeks ago that this was the proper forum in which to debate this matter.

This is not the time for debate. The Chair is following the rules applicable to Question Time. There can be no debate. The Deputy may ask a brief question.

Does the Minister not recognise that what he was doing was, in fact, undermining the position of the Minister for Fisheries for whom he now says, with his customary modesty, he was arranging a Press conference? The comments he made to the newspapers which they published as they understood them were undermining the position of the Minister who was conducting negotiations on our behalf that day.

I recognise nothing of the kind. The Deputy is talking utter rubbish.

Why then did he write to the Minister for Fisheries explaining——

I am calling Question No. 15.

Will the Minister say why he wrote to the Minister for Fisheries?

Because I was in bed and could not talk to him.

The Minister told the newspapers——

The Deputy must resume his seat. I have called Question No. 15.

We are getting to the nub of the question but I am being prevented from doing so by the Chair.

I have given the Deputy every facility but now he seeks to defy the Chair.

I have put a question to the Minister.

The Deputy will desist. I have told him he must resume his seat. Question No. 15 has been called.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

15.

andMr. Gallagher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the communications, if any, he had with Commissioner Gundelach of the EEC in recent weeks on the postponement of the unilateral conservation measures announced by the Minister for Fisheries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In ordinary circumstances it is not the practice to supply details of communications of this nature. However, in view of some misunderstanding which seems to have arisen I am prepared to say that I received a letter from Commissioner Gundelach on 22nd February asking the Government to postpone the date of application of the unilateral conservation measures which were to have come into operation on 1st March. In response to this letter I spoke to Commissioner Gundelach on the telephone on Saturday, 26th February. I also had further telephone conversations with Commissioner Gundelach on Friday, 11th March.

In the Minister's absence his Parliamentary Secretary indicated to the House that the Minister's communication with Commissioner Gundelach was some days before 27th February. Is the Minister now telling us that he was on the phone to the Commissioner on 26th February?

I spoke to Commissioner Gundelach on the telephone on 26th February. I do not recall the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary and therefore, I cannot comment on it. The intention was to communicate with Commissioner Gundelach much earlier in the week, on Tuesday. However, he was in the United States and it was arranged that I would communicate with him on Friday. His return was postponed and the actual communication took place on Saturday. If the Parliamentary Secretary said what the Deputy now suggests it is possible he was working on what the intention had been before it was frustrated by the Commissioner's exceptionally prolonged absence in the United States. I met the Parliamentary Secretary on Sunday and briefed him fully on the discussion I had with Commissioner Gundelach.

The Minister will appreciate that the media generally to whom he communicated conveyed the undoubted bona fide impression on their part that the Minister had been in communication by telephone on 27th February and that as a result of that urgent communication—from him to Commissioner Gundelach or vice versa—he was conveying to the newspapers the real position on the Commission's proposals.

That is hardly a question.

I think the Deputy meant 28th February. Some of the media seemed to have acquired that impression but it was pure speculation on their part. I had no communication with Commissioner Gundelach between 26th February and 11th March. Any statement to the contrary was pure speculation and had no foundation in anything I said or in any basis of fact.

I am calling Question No. 16.

Is the Minister saying that the impression created by the newspapers that the Minister was in telephone communication with Commissioner Gundelach on 28th February was a misunderstanding on their part——

The Deputy is making a statement.

The Minister will accept that it is rather strange that the newspapers were misled by their understanding of what he said.

My recollection is that that particular point was made in only one or possibly two of the media but, of course, I should have to check that carefully to be certain of that.

Has the Minister any comment to make on the statement——

I have called Question No. 16.

In view of the fact that my name is appended to this question perhaps I might ask the Minister a supplementary question.

Has the Minister any statement to make on the comments made last week by his Parliamentary Secretary——

The Deputy may not defy the Chair. He will resume his seat. I am calling Deputy Gallagher whose name is also appended to this question. I will allow a final question.

The Minister has stated he was not in telephone communication with Commissioner Gundelach on the day of the negotiations even though the media gave that impression. Does he not consider he should have taken an opportunity to deny that statement in public?

The number of cases where speculative reports appear in newspapers which are unfounded and incorrect—inevitably and understandably on the part of the newspapers as they seek to probe and speculate about the activities of government and public affairs generally— are so numerous that if one started to contradict them all and to chase all the hares there would be no time left to do any governing. This is what we are here to do.

I have called Question No. 16.