Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1930

Vol. 13 No. 26

Public Business. - Housing Bill, 1930.—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: That this Bill be read a Second Time.

Mr. Connolly

In the arguments put forward last evening by Senator Johnson in criticism of the apparent attitude of the Minister to move gradually in his policy of meeting the housing shortage in the Free State, he gave us some very interesting figures and some very interesting economic data. It seems to be that year after year we will have extension measures like this coming on, and that may continue indefinitely. On the basis of the production of houses, Senator Johnson argued that if we were to double the number of houses we are erecting at present it would take us twelve years to meet Dublin's needs, and that apart from making good the wastage due to decay. That means, so far as the City of Dublin is concerned, that, in the matter of the erection of houses, if the present rate of building only is maintained, we will not have the number of houses admitted necessary by the Minister's Department for 24 or 25 years. In reviewing this whole housing business we have had put before us three different points of view. We had the point of view of the Minister, who is, no doubt, extremely anxious to have this problem solved. We had the point of view of Senator Johnson, who is equally anxious to have the problem solved, and we also had the point of view of Senator Sir John Keane, who, in spite of his plea for an economic rent, is, I am quite satisfied, also anxious to have this housing problem solved. I want it to be understood that when dealing with this I am not trying to make any debating points, nor am I trying to score any Party advantage whatever.

I could not help being intrigued somewhat when I realised that the Minister had to come to us with this extension Bill. The fact that he has to bring such a measure before us is an admission that due to forces over which he has no control, he is likely to have to go on doing so for the next 24 or 25 years, without even making allowance for the decay in property or what might be a possible increase of the population in Dublin which would lead to a demand for more houses. As I have said I was intrigued, and for one reason, mainly, that it so happened within the last fortnight the Minister in charge of this Bill, deputising for the Minister for Finance, came to this House and questioned some arguments which I made with regard to the cost of money and the prevailing system of financial control. In my arguments on that occasion, I specifically and deliberately made it clear that the whole economic future of this country, all the social services of this country, the lives and well-being of the people are entirely and completely involved in the one great fundamental problem, namely, the control of money. I would suggest to the Minister that if he analyses carefully, and I have no doubt he will, the different factors that make it necessary for him to come here year after year with these extension Bills he will realise that with the difficulties under which he and his Department labour it is going to be quite impossible for him to finance or to carry out building on anything like the scale commensurate with the need which he admits exists in his own reports. Let us look at the problem as it is. In this country we have workers idle in most industries and in most branches of employment. They receive unemployment benefit as long as they are in benefit, but they are a charge on the State in one form or another. They are an uneconomic and a losing holding for the State when they are unemployed. As regards building, most of the materials required are available.

The big problem is: what is the Minister going to do between these two resources that we have at our disposal, one of which is lying idle and the other of which is going to waste unemployed. We have on the one hand citizens living or trying to live out of work, partially supported in a state of semi-starvation by the State, and on the other hand we have tenements and hovels. Senator Sir John Keane, of course, thinks of his economic rent. Last evening Senator Johnson analysed certain standards of living. I am not sure whether he took the soldier's ration or the workhouse ration, but he gave us a figure which included an economic rent of 14/- out of a weekly wage of 61/5 in the case of a man with a wife and three children. The Minister must realise, if he takes Senator Johnson's argument to heart, and the deeper purpose of my argument, that the object I had in raising this whole question of the rental of money is because it is the rental that works down through the economic system in this country and leaves us without houses and without any other thing. I do not think the Minister will make the argument that the country can afford to wait until the building trade adjusts itself. I do not know what possibility there is going to be for the building trade or any other trade to adjust itself under our present economic system. On the other hand, Senator Johnson can hardly hope for a sufficient wage increase to enable the worker to pay what one may call Senator Sir John Keane's economic rent, while Senator Sir John Keane can hardly expect an economic rent of 14/- a week from the average wage in Dublin of 50/- a week.

We had three divergent points of view on this question. These divergent points of view are represented by Senators in two cases, and by the Minister in the other, who want a really decent social organism in this country, who want people to have houses and not hovels, who want families to have houses and not rooms and who know and feel as we all feel that something has got to be done. I am not prepared to propose a solution. A couple of weeks ago I tried to outline what in my judgment—I may be quite wrong—is the fundamental root evil. I went on to say that in my opinion, and I say this now quite seriously to the Minister, there is going to be no progress in the direction of housing until that issue is tackled. This is a problem that we ought to try and face and not put it off for 24 or 25 years. We ought to sit down and tackle the question. The question that we have to consider is, are we content to wait for 25 years to solve this housing problem? Most of us, I am afraid, feel that when that time comes we will not be worried about the housing, the Seanad or the Ministry. The position at the moment is that we have to realise that we are in a vicious circle—in a cleft-stick. If we are content to sit down and admit that the thing has beaten us, then that is our decision, but if, on the other hand, we want to realise our responsibilities and feel that we have a duty here and a problem to tackle we ought to try and see if there is any way out. We ought to try and see if the best brains and intelligence in the country cannot be got to come together to help to solve this great social problem that we have before us. This housing problem is a very big one, but it is only one problem. There are many others to be faced as well. The standard of living in this country, on the basis of the analysis made by Senator Johnson last night, is certainly not encouraging. I wonder if any of us ever sit down and consider, take it home to ourselves personally, what it means to live even on 50/- a week, and consider further what it means to live on 24/- a week, which is the general rate of wages paid to agricultural workers at the moment. In cases where they are getting 24/- a week they are expected to pay 4/-, 5/- and as much as 6/- a week for a house.

The result is that they are living in lean-to's and in sheds. Remember this is Christian humanity that we are supposed to be administering to them. I do not want to labour the matter unduly, but I merely take this opportunity of adverting to the discussion that took place here a few weeks ago on what I regard as the fundamental rental. The whole question of housing resolves itself around the question of the economic rent. If you borrow £400 at 5½ per cent. you know what that amounts to. You know that that is a big item in what is called an economic rent. I do not suggest that the Minister can get over this difficulty by fighting for special terms in regard to housing. It will not, and it cannot, be tackled in that way. What I do suggest is that this is a problem for the Minister and for the present Executive. It is going to be a problem for any Executive, no matter what Executive comes into power. I say that no Government is going to solve it unless it is prepared to get down to the economic root, and that, in my judgment, is the cost of money and the mal-administration in the banking system that we are living under. As I have said already, to deal with the problem we have the men available and the materials available. It is up to the Minister to say what he would suggest that we ought to do about it.

Mr. Farren

In connection with this measure we have no option but to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I have again to express my disappointment that a Bill of this character does not enable us to deal with the dreadful problem of the slums. This Bill only deals with the normal requirements in connection with housing. The Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the Dáil, said that provision was being made under it for a grant of £200,000 to subsidise the building of 4,000 houses. Not to think of the slum problem at all, the normal requirements as regards new houses would be about 4,000 a year in this country. There are at least 4,000 families in this country setting up new homes every year. The Bills that have come before us during the past few years have made no provision whatever for dealing with the slums. For that reason I have complained repeatedly that we are not handling the situation as it ought to be handled. When the Census returns were published it was admitted in them that the housing shortage in the Free State was 43,000 houses. The building of 4,000 houses a year is not going to meet the problem that has to be met. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the country, it is an appalling state of affairs that the deplorable housing conditions we have should be allowed to continue as they have been for such a long period.

The housing conditions are worse in this country than in any other country. Notwithstanding our dwindling population, there is the tremendous shortage that is revealed in the census returns. In countries where populations are increasing there might be some excuse for a housing shortage, but here where we have a dwindling population that excuse cannot be put forward. This housing question is not a party question and should not be considered on party lines. It is a tremendous problem that has to be faced. We must support the Bill, because even though it will not bring about the solution of the problem that we all desire, still it will help to do a little in that direction, and I suppose we must be thankful even for small mercies. The question of an economic rent was referred to by a number of Senators. When that question is examined one has to realise that if an economic rent is to be paid for a house, then an economic wage has to be paid so as to enable the wage-earner to pay that economic rent. The giving of subsidies for house-building is not subsidising the workers. What it amounts to is a subsidy to employers to pay wages. If a man is not paid a sufficient wage to enable him to pay rent for the class of house he is entitled to have, then the responsibility is not his but somebody else's.

Questions may be raised about some of the arguments Senator Johnson used yesterday in dealing with the problem of economic rent. When talking about an economic rent and wages you have to take into consideration that there is nothing like the continuity of employment in this country that there is in other countries. Take the building trade. Taking the building trade as a whole, embracing labourers and skilled men, I do not think on an average they work more than forty weeks in the year, so that when considering the question of an economic rent for those people you must take into consideration the number of weeks they work. I think it is admitted, on all sides, that every person is entitled to a decent home and we are all anxious that everyone shall have that. I am sincerely anxious that the Government should take this matter in hands. There is no use setting up an inquiry like what was set up before in connection with this matter. That leads nowhere. The Government should take the matter in hand and view it from every aspect, and if they do they will find that there is goodwill all round to help them to solve this problem. It is not a question for party advantage or party consideration. It is impossible to be indifferent to the necessity for house-building in the City of Dublin when one goes through thoroughfares like Cumberland Street, Gloucester Street and Mercer Street and York Street, and all those frightful sores we see in the city with people living in festering slums.

The provision of 4,000 houses a year will do nothing to help that. The Government will have to take some other steps to deal with it, and they will have to make provision for something more than £200,000 in one year. I believe the problem can be solved. We have stated from these benches that the way to solve it is to set up a National Housing Board to deal with the matter. My idea is if there was a guarantee of continuity of employment the cost of housing would be considerably reduced. I said on many occasions that a solution of this whole question is continuity of employment. It is expecting too much from human nature that any man employed at work, if he does not see there is some hope of constant employment, is going to break his heart, in order to put himself a few weeks sooner on the street. I have nothing further to say on the matter, only that I hope in the near future the Government will seriously take this matter in hands, and that they will deal with it in a way that will solve the problem. Remember that some of our best citizens are living in these festering slums. It is a crime to expect decent men to bring up their families under the conditions in which they are compelled to live at present. We should forget everything else in our effort to try and solve this big problem which is responsible for most of the social evils we are suffering from in this country. I have to support this Bill, but in the meantime I hope that in the near future the Government will tackle this problem with a view to settling it on the lines I have suggested.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

Senators who say in regard to the present housing problem that what has been done in the past few years has done nothing to solve the slum question are quite right. And when Senator Connolly says this general housing question is a question of Christian humanity it appears to me that the Christian humanity side of the business moves more to the slum side than any other. From the Christianity side and the poor humanity side you know we are principally concerned with preparing the ground so that we can deal with the housing of the very poor, with people living in very insanitary conditions. I leave Senator Connolly to follow his own line of thought to some kind of conclusion, but I am quite satisfied that to simply face the housing problem and say that you cannot do anything with regard to the housing until you remodel and rechange the whole banking system and get a new kind of rock that you may strike and draw money from is simply running away from the question. I think we would be all under a debt of gratitude to the Senator if he would follow his line of thought to some kind of conclusion and then see whether from the housing side, the industrial side, or any other side you could get anything.

Mr. Connolly

May I state that I pointed out in my speech that it was the rental of money that was making the economic rental so high?

General Mulcahy

That is where we are looking for the rock that we could strike and get the money from so that we would not have to pay five or four or three per cent. for it. At any rate it is the money that is wanting and we want to pay as little for it as we can. There is certain money that can be got at present and we have to pay a certain amount for it. Within the limits of the money available, without finding the special rock Senator Connolly is looking for, we are facing at any rate up to the solution of this housing problem.

One other word in reference to the Senator. He feels that the housing industry or any other industry cannot be made economic without cheaper money. We cannot solve the slum problem, in my mind, as long as our building industry is in the condition that its normal workers, paid good wages according to those who organise and control the building industry, are not expected to pay an economic rent for the houses that this industry produces. Until we can arrive at the position in which our building industry is so organised that it can produce houses that the normal worker can pay a proper economic rent and price for, as he pays an economic price for his food and clothing, until we can arrive at that position with regard to the normal worker in this industry we cannot solve the slum problem.

Mr. Connolly

Who is going to organise that development, or on what data is it to be organised?

General Mulcahy

That will be another question. But if the Senator thinks that the present Executive Council in the year 1930 is going to take upon itself the responsibility for reorganising the whole building industry in this country, I can say for the Executive Council that in the year 1930 it is not going to take on that responsibility.

Mr. Comyn

Has the Executive Council then any hope of continuing in office?

General Mulcahy

At any rate I would like to see a group coming along that would say they were prepared to take this on—to reorganise the whole building industry, and I would like to know to what extent they were convinced that, having reorganised the whole building industry, they could stop at that in their interference in the general reorganisation of industry. So that on that point, in a country where the normal worker cannot pay the price for his house that he is expected to pay for his clothing and his food and other commodities, it is no use to say that you can solve the slum problem. The question arises whether Bills of this kind are going to come before the Seanad for the next twenty-five years. I think I can say "No," because in the main houses built under Bills that come before the Seanad in this particular way are houses built by private persons with the aid of subsidies.

If we were convinced that the building costs could not be further reduced than they are to-day, then I do not think there would be any case for your giving a subsidy to private persons to build their own houses. You, perhaps, can look at it that the subsidy given to private persons to build houses to-day is a subsidy in contemplation of the depreciation in the value of the property in which they are putting actual capital of their own at the present time. I do not think that the subsidising of private persons can continue very much longer, and for that reason I do not think that the Seanad can expect this particular class of Bill to come before them for the next twenty-five years. There is a greater move on the part of local authorities to build houses, arising out of the fact that we are now providing them with money from the Local Loans Fund at 5¾ per cent. for thirty-five years. I do not contemplate with what is proceeding at the present moment with local authorities using this money building houses for the working class that that can continue.

What is happening at the present moment may be understood from an instance like this. A local authority, building houses, takes £60 from the State as a subsidy for a house, and the local authority commits itself to what amounts to an expenditure of £118 or so of the local ratepayers' money. It builds houses, which it proposes to let at a rent of 5s. a week approximately, this rent to include rates as well as what is supposed to go to rent. To some extent that is happening at the present moment, and I do not contemplate that that system can continue by which the local authority built houses by the aid, let us say, of the credit or capital of the State or the local people; that they can build houses and rent them for the normal workers at a rent that is not economic. Because if that is done by the State or by the local ratepayers' money, then you cannot deal with the housing of the very poor. If local authorities get into the position that they are going to supply to the normal workers in urban areas houses at a rent less than an economic rent, then the local authorities are going to become not only the landlords but the subsidisers of the whole working-class in the country. Where is the money going to come from in the country, because it must either come from industry in the country or from investments outside the country? I think we have to rely on industry in the country to keep this country going. If the money is going to come from industry to pay the rents of our houses, then it had better come from industry in wages. The only safeguard I see upon which we can solve the housing problem here is on the grounds of getting our workers to pay a proper rent for the houses. That is, to get them normal houses. If wages, or any other factor in our industrial life, requires to be reset, that has to be reset. But I think we are simply embarking on a social morass if we accept the position that our working-class, as a whole, have to be provided first with houses. I think every section of the people hope, and every Party is perfectly satisfied that this question of housing is a non-Party business, and a business that will be treated by everybody in a non-Party way.

But before we go further on the road which is apparently accepted by so many, that the normal workers of the country must be provided with subsidised houses, we must stop and think. Senator Johnson asked for more information than I gave him as to how the position was arrived at in Holland, as shown by the figures which I quoted. I did give some information, and I quoted those figures. They are the actual official figures in response to a situation that we are to sit up and take notice of and act in a way in which the City of Vienna acted. I do not know that this is the proper time or place to elaborate what has been done in any one or two or three other countries. The position I quoted to Senator Johnson is really the fact as far as Holland is concerned. It has been for a period of five or six years subsidising housing, houses built by the normal building industry. The result of that has been that in consequence of the system they pursued they are now able to deal with the slum problem. Whether the principles upon which they are dealing with the slum problem will be accepted here or not is another matter. But they are dealing with that problem now. That position has been brought about there by insisting on the payment of economic rents in a gradual and controlled way, doing away with the restriction of rents. There is there the complete acceptance of the position that the building industry must supply the housing of the people. There was a time when that Government had to come to the conclusion that they could not hope to deal with the housing question until they accepted that position—that the normal building industry of the country must supply the needs of the country. The principle was the payment of an economic rent by the working classes and the complete withdrawal of rent restrictions. In spite of the fact that the wages in the building industry in Holland have been two or three times what they were in pre-war days, the index figure for the cost of building is the index figure for the scale of the cost of living in the country. That was brought about by reorganisation in the building industry and the reduction in the cost of building material.

There may be another time and a form to enter in which more detailed information as to what has taken place in other countries in this respect may be provided. I only refer to the situation in Holland as a reaction to the suggestion that we are to provide for the matter in a different way. I do not think I have any more information with regard to this position. We have a general idea as to what has been the condition in the building industry in Vienna since the war, and what has been the condition of Holland both during and since the war. If the results that have been obtained in Holland can be achieved by the same methods as against the results which have been obtained in Vienna, I would prefer the Holland idea to the Viennese idea as being much sounder socially and industrially. If we go along the lines that the people in Holland have been enabled to go, rather than along the lines that the Viennese people have been forced to go, it will be all the better for the solution of the housing problem in this country.

Mr. Johnson

Is it possible for the Minister to institute a close inquiry into that position and to have the facts made known? Of course the building of 398,000 houses in Holland in a period of seven years has been an achievement of enormous work. A great deal more details are required as to how that has been brought about than the Minister has given us.

General Mulcahy

As far as that is concerned, I am speaking for my colleagues and myself in the Executive Council. We are examining these matters in the closest possible way, because we realise, in the first place, that there is a housing problem, and in the second place we realise the easy attitude that has been taken up by so many people of saying that the working class producers in this country need not, and ought not be expected, to pay economic rents. We realise the terrible seriousness of allowing that to become a completely accepted principle of mind and to be used as the foundation-stone of this problem. We realise the seriousness of that, too. There are certain schools of thought in connection with this problem of providing houses. It would be most desirable that the different schools of thought in the matter would drive their thinking to a definite conclusion with definite facts. The time will come, as far as we are concerned, when we are prepared to put our definite conclusions in this matter in a definite, concrete and cogent way. It would be much more satisfactory when we come to do that, or, if necessary, with a view to hastening it, that we take that view, and those who believe in another school of thought should clear their minds so that they would have much more straight and exact thinking on the matter than if we start by half-baked conclusions and with no general and comprehensive idea on the matter. I quite realise how unsatisfactory it is for the different schools of thought that we do not come before the Seanad and Dáil with different proposals from what are here. I think I can see that the critics of our proposals and our policy feel a lot of dissatisfaction with our methods, but we have a similar kind of dissatisfaction about their failure to put forward definite views on this matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further on the matter. There is no good in taking the census of population and social conditions and building up arguments leading us to the production of more houses by taking, say, the example that Senator Johnson took last night. Because if you build on that you go through the same ground, you have to add a few more figures and a few more ideas than he put before us. I do not think that such arguments would lead us anywhere. The present proposals continue to give private persons who start to build before 1st April next, or who build before 1st October, the same kind of grant as in the Housing Act of 1929.

[Mr. Counihan took the Chair.]

Senator Comyn raised a point with regard to the Soldiers and Sailors' Trust. I do not think that that could come up for discussion under this particular Bill for this reason—we are giving the Trust the same kind of terms that we give to private persons. We do not ask who the private person is. We do not ask what is to become of the houses when the private person who gets the grant dies. The Trust is controlled by three representatives of the British Government, one representative of the Northern Ireland Government, and one representative of the Saorstát.

If there are any questions which the Senator raised yesterday that require discussion or consideration I think, in the first place, they might be addressed to the Trust as a whole. Failing a satisfactory answer the questions might be addressed to the representative of the Free State, and failing that they might be addressed to the Secretary of the Executive Council. I think the Senator will understand that there are very many aspects of the Trust that could be given consideration, but that could not be satisfactorily answered at the moment, or perhaps for some time. Nevertheless they must in some shape or form be under consideration, and some finality must be brought about. But there are three Governments interested in the matter. For that reason the property of the Trust cannot evaporate or go to some unknown person's pocket. We include the Trust to help them to speed up and to build an additional number of houses. We are treating them entirely as we would treat a private person. It would be impossible for us to do otherwise or to require any other conditions than the conditions we require from a private person.

Colonel Moore

I would not have said anything on this matter only the Minister has challenged us to say where the money is to come from. He has asked any Party in this House to say how the money can be produced. He says that there is no money and I quite sympathise with him in the fact——

General Mulcahy

I did not say that.

Colonel Moore

He challenges us to say where that money is to come from. He says that any Party in the State who can suggest where the money is to come from will be doing a great benefit to the country. For several months we have been pointing that out in the country. We pointed out that the Government is sending away five millions of money every year. The result of sending away that five millions of money is that no money is left practically. The workers' expenses and the employers' expenses are increased because they have to pay that money. The whole social system is being degraded by sending away that money from this country to another country. The Seanad has had on several former occasions this matter before them. On one occasion it was almost agreed to hold an inquiry into the matter, but, unlike the Minister who challenges us now, the Minister who was then present—the Minister for Finance—declined to have anything to do with the inquiry and declared that he would not go before the Committee or that he would not allow his officials to go before it. How can we prove anything except in that sort of way? I do not want to continue this matter. It has passed far away now from the Seanad and the Dáil. It is in the hands of the country, which will settle all these matters in quite a different way before long, I hope. I only say this because of the Minister's and other Ministers' challenges as to how the money is to be produced for various purposes in this country. I agree that it cannot be produced as long as they are sending away these five millions.

Mr. Comyn

In reference to the last portion of the Minister's speech dealing with the Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust, my submission was that inasmuch as the Minister was giving away something substantial to the Land Trust, he was in a very fine position to bargain with them.

Acting Chairman

You have already spoken, Senator.

Mr. Comyn

On a matter of explanation, I merely desire to say that he was in a very fine position to bargain and that he could very easily have the control of that Trust clarified so as to give security to the wives and children of soldiers.

General Mulcahy

In reply to that point it is possible, but if there are any things in the Trust that require review and correction, Senators should approach the Trust to see whether they can get these things settled. This Bill merely provides that the Trust will get the same grants in respect of houses begun before 1st April, so that those who are interested in the matter can deal with the question after 1st April. If they do not get any further satisfaction, and if there are any further grants of this kind——

Mr. Comyn

Could not we deal with it through the Minister, who is in the strongest position at the moment?

General Mulcahy

I would not undertake to withhold these grants or to hold up the Bill until all these matters have been settled. I think that would be unreasonable. This matter has been before the Dáil, and I have received no representations since, that there is any settlement that requires examination. The Senator was the first to call attention to it. In regard to the statement of Senator Colonel Moore, of course if we are going to solve our housing question in that way, there is one other method by which we could completely solve it. A representative of the Senator's Party has estimated that the United States owes us £1,000 for every emigrant who goes there from this country. We could send a bill to the United States for £1,000 in respect of every emigrant sent there.

Mr. Comyn

You have sent enough of them there for the last ten years, anyway.

Mr. Foran

I have a certain impression from the Minister's remarks, but I would like to be clear. He told us that the Executive had no way of solving the slum problem, and further that the Executive had made up their minds that the time had come that the subsidy for houses of the working-class should be abolished, and that these people should be made to pay economic rents. That was the impression left in my mind after listening very carefully to the Minister. I would like to put it to the Minister if it is his case that the unemployed men and the lowly-paid worker should be expected to pay what are recognised as economic rents at the present time, 14s. or 15s. per week. Is that the mind of the Executive? The Minister further asks was there any possible suggestion as to how money could be got cheaply. I am going to suggest that he should authorise local authorities, particularly in areas where there is a slum problem, to have a direct housing rate. Certainly it is the responsibility of all citizens to provide healthy and reasonable housing conditions for the workers, and to my mind a direct housing rate would make building costs and house rents very much cheaper when you abolish the interests which Senator Connolly has elaborated so ably in the House —that is, the banking interest. That is the means by which cheap money can be got to reduce rent, and make it possible for workers to pay what he considers and what might reasonably be considered an economic rent. I hope if the Minister cares to reply that he will make the matter clear, because the impression left in my mind was that the Executive Council had made up their minds that there was no solution for the slum problem, and further that they had come to a point of agreement not to subsidise the housing of the working classes. I want to tell the Minister that things are coming to a bad end in this country if the working classes are expected to pay what is considered an economic rent in the country.

[An Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

General Mulcahy

I hope I was more explicit than the Senator. The Senator started off by asking if I had said that the Executive Council had given up any hope of solving the slum problem. He also said that I stated that the Executive Council had decided that the unemployed man and the poorly paid worker should be made pay an economic rent of 14/-. He then passed on to talk of the worker. My reply to the first of these questions is that I made no such statement; but I made this statement, that the country in which it is to be expected that the ordinary worker in industry must be provided with a house which is subsidised, cannot afford to solve its slum problems.

Mr. Johnson

That way lies revolution.

General Mulcahy

In the other way there lies revolution, too, because where is the money going to come from for subsidising the normal well-paid worker's house except it comes from industry itself? Where is it going to come from? Are we going to accept the position here that industry should pay a certain amount of pocket-money to men and women and that in some other way there would be taken from industry the additional amount of money which is required to provide houses to-day, with possibly food and clothing to-morrow?

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th June.