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.