asked the Minister for Finance why allocations from the EEC Regional Fund are channelled into the Central Fund and not necessarily used for the projects specified.

The regulation governing the regional fund allows member states the option of using contributions from the fund either (i) to supplement the national aid granted to the project in question; or (ii) as a partial repayment of national aid, on the basis that fund assistance is used to supplement the overall regional development efforts of member states.

As the Deputy is aware, it is the second of these methods which has been used in Ireland, receipts from the fund being applied to the financing of increases in the public capital programme.

I am still not convinced that the existing arrangements for using fund receipts are the best way of achieving the objective of demonstrating clearly that the moneys received are used to finance additional investment especially in the areas of greatest need. Accordingly, as I mentioned in a reply to a parliamentary question earlier this year, the matter is being re-examined at my request by my Department. This re-examination cannot be completed until the review of the fund regulation which is currently taking place at Community level has been finalised.

Does the Minister agree that the present method of redistribution is not satisfactory?

My dissatisfaction with the present method is that it does not demonstrate clearly that the regional fund money is being used in addition to national moneys. This should be clearly demonstrated and I do not think the present method does this.

In view of the fact that such moneys are averaging only something in the region of £6,500,000 in the past three years, does the Minister not agree that separate segregation and administration in the context envisaged by him at this time do not appear to be very fruitful until such time as the regional fund is of some consequence in terms of the public capital programme?

I do not think the principle is affected by the amount. While I do not have the figures here, I think the Deputy's version of £6,500,000 as an average is not accurate. Although it is extremely small by reference to what we would wish to have, it is considerably bigger than that.

Did the Tánaiste not say yesterday in the EMS debate in reply to Deputy FitzGerald that in the past three years the total income from the regional fund was £18.8 million and the total moneys sought were in the region of £38 million?

The Deputy is correct except that he did not grasp the point that I was not referring to the past three years but to the three years 1974, 1975 and 1976 when the Coalition Government were in office and had renegotiated the fund.

The Tánaiste will agree that in the last three years there has been no particular increase and that my average of £6½ million is correct?

No.

Question No. 13.

Would the Minister agree that it is completely against the spirit of the regional fund to have the money channelled into the Exchequer when it should be spent in the depressed areas of agriculture?

That question was asked twice already.

It was not.

It was asked today.

Obviously the Minister was wearing two hats when he was on this side.

When I was on that side I objected to the way it was being dealt with. I am still objecting to it and I am trying to change it.

The Minister is not doing anything about it.

I cannot do anything about it until the Community complete their review of the fund, which is expected to be shortly. When that is done I will deal with it, unlike the Deputy who attempted to defend the present position where it was being poured into the Exchequer. In my time, at least it is being used to top up. I am now trying to ensure that it is demonstrated, something which the Deputy and his colleagues were at great pains to conceal, because they knew the real truth in their time.

The Minister has done nothing about it and he has been in office for a year and a half.