I wish to refer to items Nos. 4 and 5 on the Order Paper relating to Statutory Instruments Nos. 36 and 37 of 1964. I understand that the 21-day period in which these motions of annulment can be effective expires this evening and I have been advised that it is not likely that the Agriculture Estimate, which is being taken in conjunction with these motions, will be replied to or completed this evening. I have had, in these circumstances, an informal discussion with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, with a view to resolving the impasse with reference to the motions and discussed by me in this House last week. He has assured me that the moneys collected to date on foot of the increased levies are still available for the meat research institute and that he, or more likely his Departmental staff, are willing to sit around a table with the trade interests with a view to getting the proposed institute established in the near future. In this connection I look forward to his reply to the Agriculture Estimate. On the basis of these assurances and mindful of the fact that similar motions can be moved in the Seanad during the next 11 sitting days, I am not prepared to pursue these two motions and I beg leave of the Chair to withdraw them.
Statutory Instruments: Motions to Annul.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5, not to be proceeded with.
In the light of what Deputy Collins has said.
The situation is substantially as the Deputy has outlined. In the informal conversation we had about this matter, it was agreed that there be meetings between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and representatives of the meat trade, without any commitment on either side, in order to resolve the impasse that has been encountered because I think Deputy Collins appreciates that both the Department and the meat trade do, in fact, want to arrive at a situation where an adequate meat research body is established.
I am withdrawing these motions in the hope that it will help to establish a fresh atmosphere of goodwill and co-operation between the Minister and the trade.
I was not aware that there was an absence of goodwill.
There was a High Court action.
Is it in order to raise Question No. 23 of 30th November?
Unfortunately it is past the time when it may be raised this afternoon.
Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question No. 23 on 30th November I wish to raise it on the adjournment.
What is the question?
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.