asked the Minister for the Environment the amount by which the sum of £142,700,000 provided in this year's Estimates for grants to local authorities in lieu of domestic rates falls short of the sums which local authorities would receive at current rate levels if domestic rates were still payable; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Because of the assumptions which would have to be made relating to rate levels, standards of collection, etc., nine years after domestic rates were abolished the value of any calculation on the lines requested would be problematic; such a calculation is in any case impossible since not all local authorities have so far determined their 1987 rates.

Is it not a matter of fact that an undertaking was given to local authorities in 1977, when the remainder of domestic rates were abolished, that the replacement grant would be kept in line with inflation? Since the rate of inflation is not a matter of arithmetic assumption, the Minister's Department are in a position to calculate accurately the shortfall as sought by Deputy Clohessy.

The inflation rate might not create the same difficulty as the other matters I raised. However, the determination of interest rates is often post the event and it would not be possible to exercise it in the calculation of Estimates in advance of knowing what the rate would be. I should also like to point out that many of the authorities have not yet completed their business so it would not be possible to facilitate them in the way the Deputy suggested. There have been many changes since 1977, particularly in regard to the SWA demand and internal capital resources which were allowed to be used towards revenue. In all the circumstances, it would have been a very difficult task to seek the type of information requested.

In view of the high percentage of council revenue spent on loan charges, would the Minister agree that it is high time he allowed a 100 per cent subsidy on loan charges arising on water and sewerage schemes? May I respectfully ask the Minister if he has any idea of what it cost the State to answer Question No. 9 by saying that a grant will be paid as soon as possible?

I presume that should be the subject matter of another question but I am told that the cost is in excess of £100. I do not know if that can be verified.

Could the Minister tell us the value rather than the cost?

I will not go into that as it would only lead to argument. However, many questions raised are important and deserve a response. If the question the Deputy raised about one-liners could be eliminated, extra time could be given to dealing with more important questions. In so far as charges are concerned, it is not possible to agree because of financial constraints and I do not see any change in the pattern of servicing loan charges for sanitary services at present.

Would the Minister agree, leaving aside his obvious reluctance to give a clearcut answer to Question No. 7, that there has been a vicious cutback in the rate support grant payable to the local authorities during the current year and is he aware that as a result of these cutbacks that not a single penny is available for disabled person's grants or to build extensions to dwellings to facilitate disabled people? Does the Minister accept that situation and is he satisfied with it?

I am satisfied that there is a need to cut back on the level of the rate support grants generally but I am not prepared to accept that it has caused the difficulties to which the Deputy has referred.

Indeed, it has.

The rate support grant has been allocated to all the local authorities who have been making their own arrangements as to how they will live within the limits being applied to them. The vast majority of them at this time have struck their rate. While things are going to continue to be difficult, at the same time there is no money available by way of further support in that area.

Did you ever hear of the farmers or capital gains tax?

Let me return to the Minister's official reply which, would he not agree, and I do not for one moment want to suggest this to him, could be construed that he is evading a reply in this House, if not misleading it, by failing to factually answer the question which was put down by Deputy Clohessy which is a factual arithmetic question to which the Department of the Environment in the Custom House either have the answer or are refusing to offer it? Is it not a fact that when domestic rates were abolished in 1977 an explicit commitment was made, that the balance would be maintained on an annual basis in line with inflation? The Minister's Department must know the answer to that question and frankly, he is failing to give the information to which we are entitled in this House.

The Minister is in no way trying to mislead the House and it is not his intention to do so. I am giving the Deputy the information which is available to me by way of my brief. If he had asked a specific question as to the financing which has been available and if he had asked me about the figures which are involved in the supplementary welfare scheme in 1986 I could have given him all those figures but that was not part of the question.

On a point of order, it is rare that a Minister is accused of not providing information which he has available. As the Minister who was responsible for the SWA change, which was negotiated in 1985 between the Department of Finance and the Minister's Department, with profound respect, I can say he knows precisely the information which is involved. I therefore suggest——

That is not a point of order.

Is he aware that the Department of Finance have the information?

I deprecate the pretence of a point of order on Question Time.

The Deputy rose on a point of order and has proceeded to make a speech. This is not in order.

Could the Minister please give us the information he has available? I am sure it is in his brief.

The Deputies are quite entitled to any information that I have in my brief and I would be more than happy to give it to them but I suggest, as was outlined in the question, that it is problematical to try to bring all those figures together nine years after the matter has been——

This is not the way to start your ministerial career.

Order. Deputies, if you want to debate this issue you must find another time to do so. I am now proceeding to deal——

A Cheann Comhairle——

Sorry, Deputy, as soon as the Minister concludes I am proceeding to the next question.

A Cheann Comhairle, I beg your indulgence——

I beg your pardon, Deputy, I have stated my position on the matter. Has the Minister anything further to say?

I would just like to say this——

A Cheann Comhairle, may I raise the matter on the Adjournment?

I will communicate with Deputy Desmond in regard to that request. Question No. 8.

Unfortunately, it will be at 11 p.m. tonight.