asked the Minister for the Environment if he recognises the fact that the existing system of financing local authorities militates seriously against some authorities who either had a very low rate in the £ in 1977 and/or do not enjoy the same level of development of houses, factories and so on as other areas and are thus deprived of the financial buoyancy available to areas being developed more quickly; if so, the steps he proposed to take to avoid this discrimination between local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

3.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends to review the present means of financing local authorities; if so, what those plans are; and, if not, how he proposes to overcome the serious financial difficulties being faced by some local authorities.

4.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he recognises that the present system of financing local authorities militates against those authorities which have a low level of development; and, if so, the steps he intends to take to eliminate this discrimination.

5.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends to amend the 1978 legislation which removed the power from local authorities to set a rate they felt was essential to maintain the services within that county.

6.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he intends to amend the legislation which was introduced in 1977 refunding to local authorities 100 per cent of the domestic rate.

(Dublin South-East): With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.

I am satisfied that the existing system of financing local authorities maintains broad equity between different local authorities. The higher revenue buoyancy in areas of rapid development helps to finance the higher demand on local authority services in those areas.

The limitation on rate increases is necessary for two reasons. First it protects the remaining groups who continue to pay rates — for example, shopkeepers, occupiers of factory and other commercial premises and so on — from the danger of excessive rate increases and, secondly, it prevents an open-ended call on the Exchequer for finance. I am satisfied that the present system strikes a reasonable balance between the desire of local authorities to press ahead with their services on the one hand and, on the other, the need to manage the nation's finances prudently.

On the wider question of the finances of local authorities, I was concerned when I took office at the extent to which local authority services had been underfinanced. The recent budget provided for additional funds amounting to almost £73 million for local authority services and this will help to offset financial difficulties that might otherwise have arisen in the current year.

I am at present considering any legislation or other changes which may be appropriate in relation to other aspects of local authority finance.

Will the Minister accept that the country is in a mess because the Government have expended largesse of the kind he has indicated without saying where it will come from? Will the Minister indicate where the £73 million extra will come from and how much that will leave local authorities short of what they require to maintain present services?

(Dublin South-East): I do not accept the Deputy's view. I have eight years' experience of local government activities and if the Deputy wishes me to deal with a particular council, rather than the overall situation, I will do so. The questions before the House deal with uniform rating and the need for rate limits. I was asked earlier if the rate limit would be scrapped. I should like to tell Deputy Mitchell that the Minister will review this matter if more funds are necessary. I said that last week. The £73 million that is being provided — it was referred to in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance — will go a long way towards relieving any pressure that is on local authorities at present. That is the factual situation as it prevails.

On a point of order, I should like to protest once again at the reaction of the Minister of State to these questions by taking four of them together. They deal with two separate topics. At the risk of not being as political as some Members might like to be I should like to concentrate on the points I raised in Question No. 2. I should like to ask the Minister if he accepts that in counties where the rate in 1977 was low the subsequent increases granted to local authorities have been of less benefit to such areas than they have been to areas that had a relatively high rate in the pound in 1977? Does the Minister not accept that that is inherently guaranteeing discrimination in the system of local authority financing as exists at present? Does the Minister not accept that throughout the country there is uneven development in terms of the provision of factories, housing schemes and so on, and where there is more development in one area than in another the area with the high rate of development must therefore benefit from increased buoyancy in rates? For example, is the Minister aware that in North Tipperary County Council buoyancy last year would have amounted to something less than 1 per cent while in Dublin city it would have amounted to something in excess of 6 per cent? The system of financing local authorities through the rating system as exists at present is inherently discriminatory and is ensuring that areas that are badly off will get worse. Will the Minister consider reviewing the system to give some hope to agricultural counties that do not have the benefit of the type of development such as Dublin city or other cities might have?

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy covered a number of points in his questions. In 1977 the rate increase in Tipperary North Riding was 5.3 per cent while in Dublin County Council it was 5.5 per cent. The Deputy made that comparison.

I made the comparison about the buoyancy.

(Dublin South-East): I will develop that for the Deputy. The Deputy mentioned rapid development. It is implied in the questions that areas of rapid development do better under the uniform rate limits because of higher revenue buoyancy but that is not necessarily so. In areas of rapid development there is also a greater demand for the services provided by local authorities. For example, new houses have to be serviced with water, sewerage, roads, refuse collection, libraries, parks and so on. Factories and offices also create demands on services such as pollution control, heavier road usage, parking, traffic problems and so on. The higher revenue buoyancy in these areas helps to finance the higher demand for services. Nationally, the average valuation buoyancy is 3 per cent but this varies in individual cases from under 1 per cent to 10 or 11 per cent. I should like to tell the Deputy that in the last six weeks I have had an opportunity of meeting representatives from many local authorities and I learned that that is the case. A local authority must be taken with its individual merit. If the Deputy wishes to deal with Tipperary North Riding I can do so but the question as it is phrased is a general one.

Would the Minister not agree that he has, perhaps mistakenly, misled the House by suggesting that current revenue derived from rates buoyancy is used to pay for capital expenditure such as libraries and roads? It is not true to say that the Minister was not giving a correct answer to the question posed by Deputy Molony and that the premise upon which the Fianna Fáil abolition of local autonomy in 1977 was based has come home to roost? I shall give the Minister one specific instance and I should like to know if that instance is typical of most local authorities. Does he agree that the Minister for the Environment met a deputation from County Leitrim recently who posed a problem in terms of a shortfall of cash for their local authority and that as a consequence additional funds in excess of what the rates would have provided were made available to that local authority?

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy suggests that I misled the House in the course of my reply but I must categorically deny that.

Mistakenly.

(Dublin South-East): I have been at pains to give the maximum amount of information to Members. If the House agrees I will read out a lengthy report as to how local authorities have benefited by our policies. Deputies are aware of the action taken earlier this year by a Fianna Fáil Government.

The point at issue is not the action of an individual government but the system of revenue derived by local authorities from the rating system. It is an inherent injustice. Will the Minister agree that items such as libraries, sewerage and roads relate to capital expenditure and are not financed out of rates and that, as a consequence, he has misled the House?

(Dublin South-East): I disagree. The rate limit is necessary for the reasons I mentioned in the course of my reply.

I was stunned to hear the Minister's statement. Will the Minister explain how the increase in revenue to counties with a vast growth population, many new houses, factories and industries, was up by as much as 8 per cent over and above the limit allowed, while in smaller counties experiencing a slower growth rate the increase was as low as 1 per cent above what was allowed by the Department? The Minister has told the House that that money is used for the development of new housing estates, the provision of water and sewerage, all capital works, and roadways, which we all assumed was the responsibility of the developer to provide. I put it to the Minister that the reality is that a number of counties with lower valuations, very little increase in population and very little development——

Deputy, you cannot make a speech.

What plans has the Minister of State to increase the incomes of those smaller counties? Does he envisage introducing an equalisation grant which would increase the revenue to those counties?

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy has asked quite a range of questions. As I said earlier, I disagree with the point of view he takes. I am sure he is aware that the previous Government have left local authorities short of funds under a number of headings.

(Dublin South-East): I have listened for quite some time to Deputies——

Would the Minister of State answer some questions?

(Dublin South-East): I have answered the Deputy's question entirely. I am now attempting to answer another question.

Please allow the Minister of State to reply.

It is answers we want, not replies, with all due respect to the Minister of State.

(Dublin South-East): It is very difficult. Deputy Quinn seems unable to wait until his turn comes and when I am attempting to answer another question he keeps talking.

I am waiting for the answer.

(Dublin South-East): It is difficult to answer to questions which come like this continuously.

If the Minister of State is not able for his job he should resign.

(Dublin South-East): The domestic rate grant of £138 million was £12 million short of what was necessary. The decision to divert the full proceeds of house sales to capital purposes would have deprived local authorities of almost £7 million for current service. While it was not possible to alter completely the budgetary strategy of the previous Government, the Government took a number of positive steps costing almost £73 million which will help local authority services.

(Dublin South-East): Excuse me, I intend to finish. I was asked to give the information about where the £73 million was coming from. The sources are: limitation of statutory demands on local authorities in respect of supplementary welfare allowances, saving to local authorities £2.9 million; reversal of the previous Government's decision on the proceeds of house sales, an extra £7 million for local authorities' current account; a special allocation of £20 million to Dublin Corporation to supplement their non-capital resources; an extra £15.5 million for local authority housing, including £14 million for Dublin Corporation; an additional £10 million for road improvements; an extra £7.4 million for sanitary services excluding £0.4 million which does not go to local authorities; £2.5 million to enable Dublin Corporation to increase their workforce on the environment improvement scheme from 150 to 500; £1.5 million for revolving fund to enable local authorities to acquire, rehabilitate and sell currently rundown residential properties; £1 million to enable Dublin Corporation to install appropriate facilities in substandard dwellings with bathroom facilities; £200,000 to enable the corporation to purchase Shandon Park for general amenity purposes——

A Cheann Comhairle——

(Dublin South-East): I was asked for information which I am giving.

Could the Minister of State circulate it?

(Dublin South-East): I would be delighted to circulate it.

Deputy Sherlock. A few questions and few supplementaries have still to be answered. I am not ending it here.