asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will indicate in relation to his statement concerning handicapped areas in County Monaghan (details supplied) (a) the sources from which he obtained the relevant statistical data on which the decision was based and (b) the local interests with which detailed discussions took place.

The statistical data referred to were obtained from relevant publications of the Central Statistics Office, the Agricultural Institute and my own Department. Useful data were also submitted jointly by the county committees of agriculture and the county executives of the Irish Farmers Association in Monaghan and Cavan and detailed discussions took place on two occasions with a group representative of these bodies.

I did not catch the full reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if they had discussions with the senior officials in the farm development office and with the CAO in the county?

The eligibility of County Monaghan with a number of other areas in the country was examined thoroughly by the Department for inclusion in the specially handicapped areas. With the exception of seven district electoral divisions in County Monaghan, the remainder of the county did not measure up to the criteria set down. As the Deputy knows, this is set down in the EEC Directive 75268. County Monaghan was examined thoroughly in common with other areas from which applications were received for inclusion. As I said County Monaghan with the exception of seven district electoral divisions did not come within the designation of a severely handicapped area.

I am not accusing the Parliamentary Secretary of being evasive. I asked if they had a discussion with the officials of the farm development service and the county committee of agriculture prior to this, as he indicated in a letter which I have.

Deputations representing the county committees of agriculture as well as county executives of the IFA in both Cavan and Monaghan discussed their joint written submissions with the Minister in January, 1975, and, subsequently, with departmental officials in February, 1976. In addition the Minister received very strong representations from Deputies representing the Monaghan constituency who put all aspects of the position before him but it was not possible to accede to their request other than in regard to the question of the seven electoral divisions.

I am aware——

One brief supplementary, please.

——of the submissions by the IFA and otherwise but my question asked whether the Minister had discussions with the farm development service and the county committee of agriculture in Monaghan as indicated in this letter.

Discussions took place between departmental officials and many people so far as Monaghan is concerned. It was decided to designate the entire county as a disadvantaged area but to designate part of it only as being severely handicapped.

Is it not the position that there was no discussion with those officials referred to?

Order. That question has been posed three times.

There were discussions with numerous organisations and individuals.

But not with the officials indicated in the Minister's letter.

Order.

This is a very important matter. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there were discussions with the county committees of agriculture——

We are having the same question again.

My information is that there were no such discussions. Was Monaghan an exception?

The same procedure was adopted in regard to determining the eligibility of Monaghan as is adopted in regard to any other parts of the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary should answer the question.

Order. The Chair has no control over the replies of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

The Minister stated specifically in a letter that discussions in relation to statistical data and so on took place with local interests.

I have allowed the Deputy every latitude to air his grievance.

I have informed the Deputy that discussions took place on this matter as far back as January, 1975 and that there were further discussions in February, 1976.

That is not an answer to the question.

I am calling Question No. 20.

On a point of order, a question has been asked three times by Deputy Leonard and once by Deputy Callanan but the Parliamentary Secretary has refused to reply.

This is not a point of order.

I contend that it is.

If Members fail to get a satisfactory reply they have a remedy but repetition is not the answer.

What is the reason for the waffle? Let the Parliamentary Secretary give us the answer.

I have given the relevant information.

The fact is that there were no discussions.

I gather that Deputy Leonard is jealous of his colleagues in Monaghan.

There is no need to be jealous.

Order. I have called the next question.