Arising out of the Minister of State's reply to my first supplementary question about ten minutes ago, I understood him to say that the difference in buoyancy from local authority to local authority varied from under 1 per cent for local authorities in some areas to in excess of 10 per cent in other areas. Is the Minister of State satisfied that a variation of the order of 1,000 per cent is not discriminatory as between those local authorities? Secondly, does the Minister of State accept that in some local authority areas, for example, sanitary services such as sewerage disposal schemes or water supply schemes were provided prior to 1977 and as a result those local authorities had a higher rate in the £ than local authorities who carried out such work after 1977 and that within this whole system therefore this discrimination exists? In view of that, would the Minister of State agree to examine the system of financing new houses, because some local authorities are, without question, being seriously militated against?

(Dublin South-East): I have not heard a question being asked——

I asked——

(Dublin South-East): Let me finish. The Deputy alleged that there is discrimination. I disagree that there is discrimination. The Deputy tailed off by asking if we would review the entire situation.

Does the Minister of State accept that variations in buoyancy——

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy must let me finish. I am coming to the 1,000 per cent but I cannot accelerate my conversation to speak so rapidly that the Deputy will not even hear me.

We do not want your "sweet as pie" stuff.

Although this seems to arouse much interest, we cannot have a debate on it.

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy is speaking about his own performance. I am trying to give the information to the House.

The Minister of State is wasting the time of the House.

(Dublin South-East): It is the Deputy who is wasting it.

First, will the Minister accept that there is general dissatisfaction with the level of funding of local authorities? Secondly, as a result of this shortfall in the level of funding, will he accept that there has been a cutback in services provided by the local authorities? Taking these factors into account, if the Minister of State accepts them, would he agree that it is high time for the Department of the Environment to conduct a review into the funding of local authorities so that some level of services, or an adequate service which we are not getting at the moment can be provided?

(Dublin South-East): The Department are constantly watching the situation. If they feel that a review of the funding of local authorities is necessary that will be done, but not in the present situation.

I asked the Minister where the money was coming from. He gave a breakdown of the expenditure but he did not give the source of the revenue. What additional provision was made in the March budget to raise this money? Would the Minister not agree with Deputy Quinn's point that he misled the House, although it was almost certainly done inadvertently, by suggesting that revenue raised by rates was spent on capital projects? If this is what the Minister is saying, he is betraying a lack of knowledge of local authority funding.

(Dublin South-East): The Deputy is well aware that the finance comes from the Exchequer and his question is a matter for the Minister for Finance. I gave the breakdown because I felt it was necessary in the context of the question. I beg to differ with the Deputy's assertion that I inadvertently misled the House.

I asked a supplementary question which the Minister has not as yet answered. I asked what steps the Minister intends to take in view of the discrimination between different local authorities and whether the Government would contemplate the introduction of an equalisation grant. Since local authorities are now receiving only 91 per cent of the domestic rate, a reduction of 9 per cent on last year, what steps does the Minister intend to take?

(Dublin North-West): On a point of order, I am anxious to know how many supplementary questions may be asked on one question tabled in view of the fact——

There is no specific rule on this.

(Dublin North-West):——that only six questions have been answered so far today.

They are questions of great interest to Members and a certain latitude must be allowed. I am calling Deputies Quinn and L'Estrange to ask a supplementary.

I think the Minister wishes to reply first.

(Dublin South-East): I do not accept that there is discrimination between local authorities.

It is obvious.

Would the Minister state clearly whether he regards expenditure on roads, drainage and sewerage and public libraries as expenditure funded out of current account revenue or capital account revenue?

(Dublin South-East): That is a separate question and I would suggest that the Deputy——

On a point of order, I said that the Minister was, perhaps, mistakenly misleading the House by suggesting that such expenditure was funded out of rates. I do not wish the Minister to be disorderly and I want to give him the opportunity to correct a mistake he may have made.

That is not a point of order.

Is this expenditure now regarded as current account expenditure rather than capital expenditure? Otherwise the Minister has misled the House, perhaps not mistakenly.

Is the Minister aware that the system of financing local authorities bears no relation to the amount of money needed and has been only about half the rate of inflation over the past few years? Services are deteriorating and local authorities are now employing the smallest number of men since the foundation of the State. Was he aware when he made the charge that we were to blame in 1981 that it was the Fianna Fáil preelection budget of 1981 which left local authorities short of money? Is he aware that we had to provide an extra £1 million at the end of 1981 to pay for houses begun in 1980 for which funds should have been provided in the 1981 budget?

On a point of order, I tabled two questions and other Members have asked more questions than I have been allowed.

The fact that you tabled two questions does not necessarily entitle you to any supplementaries. It is at the discretion of the Chair. I think the House will agree that I have allowed a lot of latitude on these questions and Deputies will forgive me if I go on to Question No. 7.

On a point of order, I asked a question regarding domestic rates but I did not get an answer.

That is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the answering or non-answering of questions.

I would hope——

You can hope, Deputy, but I am hoping to go to Question No. 7.

On a point of order, in the interest of fair play a person who goes to the trouble of tabling a question should be entitled to ask at least as many supplementaries as Members who have not tabled any questions.

I have tried to be fair to every Member and I will now try to be fair to Deputy Naughten who has tabled Question No. 7.

7.