asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will give an estimate of the loss in increased output of produce as a result of the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme.

11.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will quantify the loss in agricultural production because of the suspension of the modernisation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together. It is not expected that the modifications to the farm modernisation scheme announced in the budget will have any significant effect on agricultural production in 1983.

It is my intention to introduce a revised system of grant aid at the earliest possible date which will concentrate scarce resources on the most essential forms of investment thus ensuring the greatest possible increase in productivity.

Am I to take it that there is no mechanism in the Department to monitor the cost-benefit of the money spent on the farm modernisation scheme? The suspension of the scheme has meant the cessation of the development work which was so necessary. Our development is so far behind that of our competitors that we will need to spend money over many years to build up our agricultural infrastructure.

Would the Deputy himself recognise that as a question?

Is the Minister telling us that there is no mechanism in the Department to monitor the cost-benefit of expenditure under the farm modernisation scheme?

No such estimation has been given to me but I will ask if there have been any calculations along the lines requested by the Deputy.

Arising from the reply obviously prepared by a Department official, is the Minister serious in telling us that there is no loss in agricultural production because of the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme? By implication he is telling us that the money spent on the scheme over the years was useless. Will he go back to his officials and ask them to take this matter seriously and not to try to fool us?

Will the Minister take into consideration a small farmer who might lose a grant of about £1,000 which he would have re-invested in fertilisers and so on? It is a direct loss to this nation and the families concerned.

I said that there will not be any significant loss in agricultural production in 1983. I would not be so naive as to say it will not affect production to some degree in future years. We cut the Estimate and we will have to suffer some consequences as a result. I will not tell lies about this. We set out to save £10.5 million as part of our budget strategy and of course there will be some loss in output in years to come as a result.

Agriculture is being killed.

There were cuts in all sectors.

The Chair feels he should say that there seems to be an increase in the undesirable practice of attacking officials who are not here. Even though they are not named, it is still an undesirable practice. Whatever the Minister says in the House is his responsibility and he is answerable for it, not unnamed officials who should not be attacked. It should not be suggested that they are trying to mislead anybody. The Minister must take responsibility.

I would hate to think that the Minister was responsible for that reply.

I take responsibility for anything I say in the House.

Is the Minister aware that many farmers who are in financial difficulty had made projections based on grants being available to them? Those projections will not now be viable.

I appreciate that people will have financial difficulties because they had taken into account grants which will not now be available. We hope that on the re-introduction of the grants we will be able to help those people in some manner.

12.