asked the Taoiseach the total tonnage and value of sugar imports into this country in 1983 and 1984; and the country of origin of such imports.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers - Sugar Imports
1.
Dún Laoghaire): I propose to circulate a statement giving the information requested by the Deputy.
Following is the statement:—
Imports of Sugar.
|
From |
1983 |
January-October 1984* |
||
|
Tonnes |
£000 |
Tonnes |
£000 |
|
|
France |
3,583 |
1,556 |
3,877 |
1,795 |
|
Belgium/Luxembourg |
20 |
5 |
42 |
21 |
|
Netherlands |
437 |
149 |
1 |
1 |
|
Germany F.R. |
1 |
1 |
509 |
322 |
|
Great Britain |
2,371 |
1,215 |
3,904 |
2,069 |
|
Denmark |
248 |
113 |
0 |
0 |
|
Northern Ireland |
383 |
186 |
713 |
394 |
|
Malawi |
167 |
93 |
83 |
48 |
|
Malaysia |
22 |
13 |
— |
— |
|
Mauritius |
1 |
1 |
180 |
80 |
|
Other Countries |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Total |
7,235 |
3,334 |
9,311 |
4,731 |
*Latest available figures.
Perhaps the Minister of State would give me the overall figure concerning sugar imports and their country of origin. Could he summarise that information?
I rule that, if a question is answered by a statement which is to be circulated, it does not lend itself to supplementary questions. That is reasonable and logical.
It is not.
I rule that it is.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that precedent is against you in this matter. It is a long established tradition that a Minister answering a question by way of tabular statement will frequently, as a matter of courtesy — provided the Deputy does not abuse the matter — give a simple figure or two from the statement.
The table will be available in the General Office within minutes. My recollection in this House is that when a person was answered by tabular statement — I am going back to 1965 — there was never even an attempt to ask supplementary questions. It may be that now and again since then this practice has crept in, but I am asking for the co-operation of the House in this matter. If the House in its wisdom thinks that there should be no such thing as a tabular statement that is all right. If the rules are changed and questions must be answered orally, I will implement such a system. However, my interpretation of the tabular statement is that it does not lend itself to supplementaries and I am so ruling now.
You can rule us out of existence if you wish to do so but——
The records of this House will show that if I am attempting to rule anybody out of existence— and I am not — I am not getting very far. Obstruction and disorder in the House is growing rapidly——
It is not.
I refer you to your statement of 14 December 1982 which makes good reading but we have come a long distance since then.
I suggest that over the last two years this House is as well behaved and orderly as any I have experienced. However, I do not think we need to make — as our American friends would say — a federal case out of this. I am merely bringing to your attention in the most courteous and respectful possible way possible — granted my personality being what it is — the fact that for a long period of years, I am not going back as far as 1965, it has been a courteous tradition here, admittedly always at the discretion of the answering Minister, that one or two figures were given across the floor of the House by a Minister. If a Minister does not wish to do so, that is his privilege and prerogative; but I do not think it is the function of the Chair to prevent these small courtesies between us. God knows there is sufficient debate, discussion and argument and these small courtesies on a personal basis between Deputies on opposite sides should be encouraged rather than discouraged by you. I am just saying it has been the practice for some time and I think it is an admirable one.
The function of the Chair is to see that the business of this House is conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. In regard to parliamentary questions and supplementary questions, and with particular reference to a supplementary question as this is, I am guided by Standing Order No. 37 which states that supplementary questions may be put only for the further elucidation of the information requested and shall be subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, both as to relevance and as to number. It is a matter of supreme indifference to the Chair whether questions are answered by tabular statement or by oral answer but my experience as a Deputy and as Ceann Comhairle is that, if you have a mixture of a tabular statement and an oral answer, there is confusion and chaos because supplementary questions are asked about information which has not been given. It is not satisfactory and I ask the House to revert to the old practice. When a question is answered by tabular statement it should be left at that and I so rule.
I am not going to press this beyond the bounds of reason but I submit that whether a Minister gives an answer by way of tabular statement is not within your control, nor is it within the control of the Opposition. It is entirely at the discretion of the answering Minister and, if he or she so wishes, he or she can resort to the tabular statement as has happened. On a couple of occasions recently a Minister, particularly the Minister for Finance, has given an answer by way of tabular statement when there were only two figures involved. I am making the point that if it were a matter of agreement between a Deputy asking a question and the Minister answering that a tabular statement was to be provided, that would be one thing; but it is entirely for the Minister answering to decide whether he or she gives a tabular statement. In those circumstances the practice in recent years is desirable. If a particular figure can be given out of the tabular statement for the convenience of the Deputy asking the question and the practice is not abused, then, if the Minister so wishes, the Chair should not rule out that type of answer. If the matter is done on the basis of co-operation and courtesy between a Minister and Deputy, then nothing is lost in the order or dignity of the House. I appeal to you not to arbitrarily abrogate this practice which may, technically, be outside Standing Orders but which is well honoured by precedent. There is nothing lost by affording a Deputy the courtesy and convenience of giving one figure on request from a tabular statement. There my case rests.
I interpret the rules in a generous way. As recently as yesterday, because of exceptional circumstances, I allowed almost one hour for a Private Notice Question. In that regard the House, with my tacit consent and approval must have established a record. I have read Standing Order No. 37 and I have been interpreting that Standing Order in a commonsense and reasonable way. I find now, on referring to precedence, that I am not the only one to interpret it in that way. I refer the House to a precedent printed in the Book of Precedents regarding supplementary questions, that is, that when a reply is to be printed in the Official Report and not given orally, Members should await the reply rather than pursue the matter by supplementary question. That has been the case down through the years.
On a point of order, I was not seeking to raise something contentious. I was asking only for two figures.
I am not picking on the Deputy or referring in particular to the merits or demerits of his case but to yield in one case means that one would be pushed further and further.
The answer I was hoping to get related to the tonnage and the value of sugar imports for last year. The reason I needed the figures was to have the opportunity of bringing to the Minister's notice the fact that there is severe trading competition being experienced——
The Deputy is making a speech on the question.
This is important information.
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising the matter.
On a point of order, had I received the information I requested, I could have made the point——
You may not make the point. I am calling Question No. 2.
—that severe competition in trading is being experienced——
The Deputy is out of order. He must resume his seat or I shall have to take certain action.
Severe competition is being experienced by people who are selling sugar imported illegally, alleging that it is Irish sugar.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
On a point of order, may I take it that from now on there are to be no means by which information can be gleaned from a Minister by way of supplementary question when his answer is in the form of a tabular statement?
If the Deputy wishes to move to change Standing Orders so that questions to which the answers are in the form of tabular statements must be the subject of supplementary questions, he may do so.
Is it possible to suggest a figure to the Minister?
It is not. There are to be supplementaries on tabular statements.
In that case might it be arranged that when a question is to be answered in the form of a tabular statement, the Deputy concerned be given advance notice of that fact?
Only if the rules are changed.
The Chair is changing the rules.
I am not changing any rule but I am calling Question No. 2.
Will the Minister indicate in future whether they are providing tabular statements by way of answers to Parliamentary Questions?
A question about sugar which should be a sweetener and simple has been turned into a very sour situation.
It was simple question about sugar imports.