asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, in the light of the large number of quality Irish applications to the FEOGA fund, he will secure a much increased national allocation.

I have on a number of occasions made representations to the EEC Commission about this country's participation in the FEOGA projects scheme and, in particular, about Ireland's share of the funds available for the provision of grant aid. Detailed submissions have been presented to the Commission making a case for a higher allocation of funds for Irish projects.

The Deputy will appreciate, however, that as the funds available to the Commission for the scheme are limited they are not sufficient to meet the demands of the various member states. Applications to the Commission are considered on their merits and it a matter solely for them to decide which projects are to be assisted.

Would the Minister agree that the allocations are on a national quota basis?

As I said in the reply, all the cases are supposed to be treated on their merits. That is all I can say at this time, but looking at the allocations it would appear as if there is another element which comes very strongly into it, who pays the bill?

What element, in the Minister's opinion, would be coming in at this stage?

For instance, Germany are continually reminding us they are paying 33 per cent of the total cost and they get 23.1 per cent of these grants. We get 4.1 per cent. These are some indications. The UK get 11.8 per cent, which looks low for them by comparison even with us.

What is the percentage contribution from Britain?

I think about 18 or 19. Off the cuff I cannot say.

The Minister did not answer my question. Does he agree with me when I state that allocations are on a national quota basis?

That is not admitted by the Commission.

Has the Minister examined over the past ten years the allocations to member states and does he not realise that the allocations have not varied at all, which would strongly suggest that allocations are strictly on a national quota basis? Therefore would the Minister, in his office as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, take some initiative to change that system?

As I said, it is entirely a matter for the Commission to make these decisions and not a matter for the Council of Ministers.

I disagree.

The Council of Ministers have no say whatever in the allocation of these grants.

I am asking that the system be changed. All the evidence suggests that the allocation for member states is on a national quota basis.

This is leading to argument.

If it was a proportionally based system as to who pays the bill, we would not come well out of that either.

Could that not be changed?

It would be very difficult to establish a system that might be satisfactory if we were to do it according to the need.

Do I understand the Minister to say that the Council of Ministers, in an examination of this method of allocation, would not have the power to direct the Commission in the manner that they would so decide themselves? Is the Council of Ministers not superior to the Commission?

There are certain things on which the Council can, by unanimous decision, direct the Commission, but there are many things on which they cannot direct the Commission, even with a unanimous decision.

Question No. 12 postponed.