I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £62,800 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Rátaí agus Síntiúisí in ionad Rátaí, etc., i dtaobh Maoine Rialtais.

That a sum not exceeding £62,800 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property.

I do not know how long it is since the Government took a comprehensive survey of the buildings and lands that they hold. I do not suggest the Government should part with any property that they are likely to need in the near future, but, at the same time, I think the tendency is for certain places that have become derelict or that are not being used, to fade out of sight; no further use is made of them. I think in everybody's interest the Minister might have some sort of survey made of property that is not likely to be of further use, and it might be as well to bring this property into the market. How long is it since any sort of comprehensive survey along these lines was made?

I asked a question of the Minister some months ago about the rates that are being paid on the Viceregal Lodge. I was informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that rates to the amount of £850 a year are being paid on this building. So far as I can see, this sum we are asked to vote of £850 a year is expended solely for the purpose of housing one grand piano, about which we heard so much in general elections in days gone by.

And, of course, the caretaker.

Ministers, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, played upon this grand piano at every cross roads in Ireland, because of its alleged expense.

I did not play on a piano for years.

We are asked to pay £850 solely for the housing of this grand piano. How can the Minister justify such an expenditure? This is merely a particular point in connection with the general question raised by Deputy Dockrell. I do not think we should be charged £850 a year for the maintenance of this instrument.

It is an extraordinary thing, but I rather anticipated that when the Deputy rose his remarks would have relation to a certain monument which is dear to his head if not dear to his heart. I think the question which the Deputy addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary must have been addressed many months ago.

No, it was this year.

Before the 1st of April?

Yes.

What a date—April 1st!

There is nothing in this year's estimates in respect of rates on the Governor-General's establishment.

Are we to understand that the £775 formerly paid to the Dublin County Council, perhaps in respect of the rates on the Governor-General's establishment, is not being paid to the Dublin County Council this year—that it is being added to the £448,000 as a windfall to the Minister?

I was informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that that sum was included in the general amount that appeared in the estimates; it was not particularly specified in the Governor-General's estimate, but it was included in the general amount.

It does not figure in the general estimate this year. As to Deputy Mulcahy's point, at any rate it will comfort him, if not Deputy McGilligan, to see that we are trying to reach the two million mark.

At the expense of the ratepayers?

It must be at the expense of somebody.

That is a new gloss on the economy advertisement.

In reply to Deputy Dockrell, there was a survey of that sort made ten years ago, but the Deputy will understand that under the Constitution we cannot alienate Government property.

But that is no reason why you should not have it examined to see if some use could be made of it.

That does not prevent it being let or leased.