asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries how, why and when the ban on the import of East German potash was imposed.
50.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Potash Imports.
49.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries how the ban on the import of East German potash, imposed by the Government, could be raised by him.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 49 and 50 together.
On 23rd November, 1967 the Government made an order entitled "Restriction of Imports (Fertilisers from East Germany) Order, 1967" (S.I. No. 254 of 1967)——
Can the Minister not answer a simple question by giving a date?
Please do not interrupt.
The Minister was not asked——
The Minister must be allowed to answer his questions.
I know, but he is not answering them. We do not want a lecture.
But the Deputy wants a reply. I think I should begin again. On 23rd November, 1967, the Government made an order entitled "Restriction of Imports (Fertilisers from East Germany) Order, 1967" (S.I. No. 254 of 1967) the effect of which was not to ban imports of fertilisers from East Germany but to bring them under licensing control.
The order provides for the issue of import licences by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The main purpose in making the order was to endeavour to encourage agricultural exports to East Germany in exchange for imports of potash.
I take it that the answer given really refers to Question No. 50, that is how the Minister came to remove the ban that was imposed by decision of the Government and, while technically it would appear that this has been duly done, I am still asking the question: why if the Government made this order in full consideration of the adverse balance as between our exports and our trading with East Germany, the Government on May 13th should not likewise have considered the removal of that ban for which, in fact, the order was first instituted in 1967?
It is important to remember that the effect of the Government order was not to impose a ban on fertilisers from East Germany but to bring them under licence. I am not aware of the reasons which actuated the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at that time in imposing the ban, but I am aware that on 13th May last year, on official recommendation from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and having examined the facts myself, as I outlined to the House last week or whenever the subject came up before, it seemed to me to be a sensible and wise thing for this country to draw its potash supplies from more than one source. Up to this it was possible to get muriate of potash or any other potash salts from one source only. This was plainly a bad situation from the customer's point of view and for that reason the licence was renewed.
While I appreciate the technical aspect of the answer given by the Minister, I still want to ask, since the order of 1967 was made after due consideration by the Government of the adverse balance of trade between this country and Eastern Germany, why the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, solely and without consultation with his Government should, in effect, abrogate the decision of that Government in 1967.
The Deputy is under two misapprehensions. The first is that in 1967 the Government imposed a ban. This is not so, as will be found by consulting the relevant order, the number of which I have quoted. However, they did institute a licensing system under which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries exercised discretion in that case. The Minister at that time, for his own reasons, decided to ban the import of potash salts from Eastern Germany. On 13th May, when I examined the situation, I made a decision that was different from my predecessor's decision for reasons that I thought sufficient.
The misapprehension is the Minister's not mine. The decision to ban—and to me it was a ban, call it what you will—was taken after full consultation and discussion by the then Minister, myself, with the Government. Why then was it removed without such discussion and consultation?
The Deputy has no grounds whatsoever for that assumption.
It is on the basis of the answer to last week's questions. That is why I put down this one.
The Deputy has no ground whatever for saying that the decision of 13th May last was taken without consultation.
There must be something wrong then, because the reply that I got to a question last week, I think it was, was to the effect that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, on the 13th May, removed or raised the ban or whatever he likes to call it, and that is what I am asking about here.
In compliance with the order to which I referred already, the implementation of the order lies with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and that was the office I held on 13th May.
This is all very technical as to where implementation lies. When something is decided by a Government, surely one is entitled to know why the reversal of that decision is not also considered and decided by the Government, the same Government with a few changes, very notable changes, of course.
That is quite an unwarranted assumption on the Deputy's part.
Might I ask the Minister if we may assume that this vendetta refers directly to the relationship between the former Minister and another Member of this House and refers particularly to the election of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch?
The Deputy may not refer to the question further.
That had nothing to do with it, and I would not like that this should get across that this was so, that any Member of this House did not become interested in East German potash until after it happened.
May I further ask the Minister if in relation to the recent decision, with the boot on the other foot so to speak, he received representations from the same Member who was involved in the fracas with Deputy Blaney? Would the Minister reply to that question?
No. It has no relation at all to the question before the House.
Could Deputy Blaney say——
Does the Minister's order cancel one order or more?
Question No. 51.
On a point of order, I have put a question——
The Deputy was putting a question to the Minister which had nothing to do with the question asked and the Chair did not allow it.
The Minister has replied to many questions by Deputy Blaney. I asked two questions and, in fairness, I think I should be allowed the same latitude.
The Chair disallowed the Deputy's question because it did not have reference to the question asked.
Is the Chair aware of all the facts in this matter?
All the Chair is aware of is the questions on the Order Paper, the answers given and the relevance of the supplementaries being put.
There are some subterranean facts in this question.
May I point out that you permitted six supplementary questions to Deputy Blaney, many of which were not necessarily germane to the question put down. I asked the Minister one direct question to which the Minister has not yet replied, namely, were representations made to him by a Member of the House to have a second licence issued? While not wishing to be Deputy Blaney's dirt bird, I think the Minister should be frank with the House.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is the province of the Chair to determine how many supplementaries may be asked.
With due respect to the Chair, there are many features involved—in this question of which you may be unaware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.