Vol. 255 No. 13
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will give details of how, why and when the ban on the import of East German potash was made; the precise date on which the decision to raise the ban was taken; and by whom the decision was made.
88.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (i) the amount and value of East German potash imported since the raising of the ban; and (ii) the value of agricultural goods exported to East Germany during the same period.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 87 and 88 together.
I decided to resume the issue of licences for the import of East German potash on 13th May, 1970. The reasons which influenced me in reaching that decision were outlined in my reply to a question from the Deputy on this subject on 24th June last.
In the period May, 1970, to April, 1971, imports of East German potash were valued at £678,000. There were no agricultural exports to East Germany in the same period.
Would the Minister repeat the last figure?
£678,000.
Will the Minister state the name of the company importing this potash?
I gave that the last time. It may be here somewhere but I just cannot lay my eyes on it. The Deputy could put down a question.
Look under B.
Has the Minister not got the name of the company?
The Deputy need have no apprehension in that respect.
I have no apprehension. I should just like to know the name of the company.
There must be some very compelling reasons——
Question No. 89.
The best of all reasons—cheaper potash for the farmers.
Is it a fact that only one company is entitled to bring East German potash into this country and that, therefore, the decision to sanction the importation of East German potash was a decision to expend a very large amount of public money—£678,000— on the materials this company had for sale? Is there competition in price for East German potash?
It was not nearly as simple as the Deputy suggests. One of the reasons that induced me to issue the licence was that up to that time there was only one firm from whom potash could be bought. The Deputy will appreciate that it is far better for any customer to have a choice of more than one, especially when the price of potash was affected beneficially for the customer by that action, and it was to the tune of about 60p per ton.
My question was whether there was another source of East German potash, not whether there was another source of potash.
I do not know.
How many licensees can import from Germany?
One.
There was only one company from whom East German potash could be obtained?
And the Minister does not know the name of that company.
I have it somewhere.
This question was not asked.
The Minister is anxious to give the name.
Surely if the Minister issued the licence he knows the name of the company.
I have it. The licence is issued to Irish International Marketing and Development Ltd.
Merrion Square? In view of some rather speculative rumours around the House that a Member of the Oireachtas is associated with this company——
This is completely outside the scope of the questions.
I am asking the question out of sheer innocence.
It is outside the scope of the two questions asked.
I am asking it in the public interest.
The Deputy can put down a separate question.
The Minister is aware that a number of individual licences have been granted and——
That is not so. I was concerned with the breaking of a monopoly.
And only one company can import. The Minister said that.
But there was only one other source of potash and, until the issue of the licence to the East German company, as far as I know there was only one other source.
And now there are two.
Now there are two.
But only one from East Germany.
That is not a socialist State, I am sure the Minister will agree, and, mark you, he and his friends are doing very well.
I want to assure the House, and this will be borne out by the fertiliser companies, that the issue of a licence to the East German potash company had the result of providing cheaper potash for the farmers and that is precisely what I wanted.
May I ask the Minister a straight question, if any Member of this House——
The Chair will not permit such a question. The Chair is calling on the Minister to answer the next question. The Chair has called Question No. 89.
It is a straight question and it arises——
The Chair is asking the Minister to answer Question No. 89.
It is a separate question.
It arises directly out of——
The Chair is asking the Minister to answer Question No. 89.
I want to say that if Deputy Desmond has any anxiety on that score he should take it up not on this question, because there is no reference in this question, but, if Deputy Desmond wishes to put down a question, he is at liberty to do so.
In view of the Minister's reply I will table a comprehensive question next week.
Not next week, the week after.
If the Minister will not give a straight answer he can take the full brunt of it.
