Were these figures available to the Minister when he was in Oslo two months ago discussing with the Norwegian Government the possible admission of Norwegian ships under Irish flags to Irish waters in exchange for an Irish concession on the Norwegian oilfield?

I was not in Oslo two months ago and no such discussion took place. The Deputy should not act in such a misinformed manner.

Had the reports attributed to the Minister for Fisheries some part in the negotiations or approaches between the Governments?

Question No. 5.

If there were no fish in these waters the matter would be of no importance.

The Deputy is engaged in idle speculation.

Is there some truth in the reports which attributed some part to the Minister in the negotiations and approaches between our Government and Norwegians in regard to the possible exchange of an admission to our fishing waters in return for a stake in the Norwegian oilfields? Had the Minister no hand, act or part in those negotiations?

I engaged in no negotiaions in Oslo or Dublin or anywhere else, in regard to the matter mentioned by the Deputy.

Question No. 5.

Does the Minister realise that that flatly contradicts what he said in this House not more than four weeks ago?

This is engaging in an argument which is barely relevant to the question.

Will the Deputy sit down and behave himself and not act like a naughty schoolchild.

I was in conflict with the Chair before this today, and the Chair was 100 per cent wrong on that occasion. This time, I feel entitled to pursue under Question 4 the question whether the species mentioned by Deputy Deasy in his Question are likely to be eaten into by a Norwegian entry into our waters whether under the Irish flag or otherwise.

There is absolutely no question of that. I cannot be more emphatic than that.

We need a little more than that from the Minister in order to be sure.

If the Deputy presumes to tell the Chair how to behave I will tell the Deputy that I have had enough of these irrelevant questions. There is a limit to even the Chair's patience.

I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair more than is absolutely necessary, but this question clearly relates to the blatant possibility of over-fishing.

The question the Deputy is pursuing is whether the Minister had negotiations about oil or not and that does not arise.

Leaving the question of the negotiations out of it, may the House take it that the Minister would be against the admission, whether in concert with the other EEC countries or not, of non-EEC fishing vessels to the Irish 200 mile zone in order to fish for the species mentioned by the Deputy?

Of course.

Of course, the Minister will be against it?

Of course, yes.

Is that an unqualified yes?

Yes, it is.

Deputy Mitchell wishes to ask a supplementary question.

The Minister must be aware of the newspaper reports about a deal with Norway. Did the Minister's Department issue any denial of these reports?

Did Deputy O'Malley not say——

Deputy Mitchell is only a short while in the House, but if every Minister spent every hour of every working day chasing around denying all the reports made about him and his Department it would be a full-time job.

Question No. 5.

Will the Minister agree that these reports were attributed to Government spokesmen?

The question does not refer to newspaper reports. I am calling question No. 5.

It is one of the weaknesses of Deputies like Deputy Mitchell that they tend to be run by newspaper reports; they do not know what politics is about. Politics is about making decisions here, not running after newspaper reports or chasing headlines for cheap publicity.

5.