Committee on Finance. - Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Wednesday, 23 Feb 1955

Committee on Finance. - Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Kyne

When I spoke on Thursday evening last I indicated that the Labour Party were agreeable to support this Bill. I also said that I felt the Labour Party would support any move made by the Minister for a scheme of permanent legislation to provide for price control and the various other controls that are now being authorised by the continuation of this Bill I indicated that the mere fact that five Departments depended on this Bill to a varying degree for many of their powers of control and initiative showed quite clearly the need for that permanent legislation. The fact that practically ten years after the introduction of the principal Bill it had to be continued, indicated to us in the Labour Party there was need and likely to be need for a long time to come for some scheme of permanent legislation where the controls and powers given by this Bill could be given to the various Departments.

In the Department of Industry and Commerce the main powers conferred by this Bill are the powers of controlling the cost of living and the various factors that contribute to that—things like import restrictions and increases of exports. I went on to speak on Thursday evening last of the Prices Advisory Body and while I did indicate that in principle the Labour Party supported the idea of a Prices Advisory Body, we felt—and I in particular felt—that a wrong attitude to their position and to their function appeared to have developed in the minds of the people constituting that body. As I said then, their actions are a reflection of their outlook. They appear to think their function is to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce on price increase applications that are referred to them by certain parties. I feel that is a wrong outlook. The Prices Advisory Body should, to my mind, be a body constituted to examine the prices of commodities, particularly the prices of essential commodities. Their function should be to act as watch-dogs of the public. They should stand between the consumer and the manufacturer or retailer who would seek to exploit the present position to make increased profits and to charge extra for their commodities. I am afraid there are such people who work on the basis of supply and demand alone.

I say that the function of the Prices Advisory Body should be to examine prices with a view to seeing that in all cases the minimum amount is being charged—that they should, as I have already suggested, act as watch-dogs for the consuming public. The body's main concern should be to see that the minimum amount of money is charged for essential commodities—not for luxuries, but for commodities that are in everyday use in the lives of the ordinary people. I am afraid that the wrong outlook has crept into this body and that as a result there has been a lot of discontent in the minds of the public.

There is another factor that to my mind lets the Prices Advisory Body into a certain amount of disfavour in the eyes of the public, and that is the fact that the manufacturers' organisations are allowed to employ highly skilled technicians such as counsel and officials to help put their cases before the body in a highly technical form. Some of these people are experts, being paid by the bodies applying to have prices of certain commodities increased. Such methods are not at the disposal of such voluntary organisations as the Irish Housewives Association or the Lower Prices Council or of the Trades Union Congress or Congress of Irish Unions. While I want to pay a special tribute to the magnificent work done by the Irish Housewives' Association and the Lower Prices Council, with the help of the two congresses, I still feel it only right to say that they are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they are unable to proffer equally expert opinion as the manufacturers' organisations. Consequently there is the danger that a completely wrong picture may go before the people constituting the Prices Advisory Body. According to the public reading of the reports of the body's sittings, it does not appear that the consumers' representatives appeared to have been able to put their cases or to be able to ask their questions as well as did the representatives of those organisations seeking increases.

I feel that this position should not be allowed to continue. I think that as the Government has gone to the expense of setting up the Prices Advisory Body they should go a little step further. They should try to provide for the organisations that are seeking to keep down prices some assistance such as a team of experts— chartered accountants maybe, or a law adviser if necessary. These people would be in a position to examine all the evidence submitted by the opposing organisation and would be able to help the consumers' representatives in presenting their case to the body. Such a team of experts would ensure that the truth and only the truth of an application would be made available to the body.

Another aspect of the matter that comes to my mind is the difficulty of the consumers' organisations in getting a copy of the proposed evidence by the organisations seeking increases in prices. Copies of such evidence are available only on the day of the application so that the consumers' organisations are unable to sift the evidence properly and form a basis for the framing of proper questions. My point is that such evidence should be made available several weeks before being offered to the Prices Advisory Body in order that the bodies representing the consuming public might be given a chance to present their case. If such were allowed to happen it might be possible to have certain prices stabilised if not reduced. Just as the Fair Trade Commission have a staff of experts and are permitted to take evidence on oath and if necessary to subpoena people from different organisations, I believe the Prices Advisory Body, a much more important body, should also have such a staff appointed by the Minister.

It is quite true he does not have to accept their recommendation, but he will be a very strong Minister who will stand up to the pressure of an application from either manufacturers or retailers, with the support of the Prices Advisory Body behind it, and simply say: "I am not prepared to grant this increase." I think there should be some system whereby a thorough investigation would take place, such as the investigation which is carried out when a tariff review is sought. All the facts should be investigated. I am not at all happy that some of the increases recommended were justified. In many cases I do not think there was justification even for the level at which the prices stood when the application was made. I think a full investigation of all factors in relation to prices is absolutely necessary.

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under a regulation made by him it is compulsory on all shops to have publicly displayed on their premises notices indicating the controlled prices of various commodities; that notice must be displayed in such manner as to be clearly visible from outside the shop so that a prospective customer is not even compelled to go inside to find out if a particular establishment is trading lawfully. During the last session I had occasion to table a question asking the Minister if he would take steps to ensure that the Gardaí would have power to enforce that particular Order. He stated in reply that he had that power, and he would use it if necessary. I suggest to the Minister that now is the time to use it. Certainly in my constituency these notices are conspicuous by their absence.

Despite anything I might say about the Gardaí in connection with other matters, I can pay them this tribute: if a job is given to them, together with clear indications as to what that job constitutes by the responsible authorities, the Gardaí will do their work. The regulation is being ignored at the moment to the detriment of the ordinary working people and the man who refuses to obey is more than likely to be the man who is over-charging. If the Gardaí were empowered to take steps the people who are exploiting the public would soon be brought to a proper sense of their responsibilities and they would have warning that a watchful eye was being kept upon them.

All of us know that here and elsewhere combines, rings and sectional groups are attempting by one means or another to stop any steps taken to sell commodities at less than a particular price. Read the daily and weekly newspapers: even the conservative English newspapers and the conservative Irish newspapers have shown strongly within the past two weeks, and indeed no later than yesterday, that they take serious objection to international combines and groups of manufacturers clubbing together in such manner as to compel their products to be sold at the same price when it is quite clear that, if they were not in a combine, the products could be sold more cheaply. Reference was made recently in an English newspaper to valves for television. We all know the story of the International Labour Office report where the oil companies used pressure to ensure that not even the report would be permitted publication in the International Labour Office papers. It is quite clear that combine is deliberately keeping up the price of petrol and oils. All sorts of excuses are made, such as communism and so forth.

I suggest the actions of these outside bodies are very strongly reflected here at home. They are certainly reflected to an extent which is having a very appreciable effect on the cost of living. To me the cost of living does not merely connote the bare essentials of life. It does not even connote to me the things which are included in the index because the cost of living to a worker may be reflected quite extensively in the price of razor blades and other small items of that kind which, while of themselves perhaps insignificant, represent a goodly cut into the worker's wages when the sum total is arrived at. Because of these things, sometimes at the end of the week the worker is unable to provide essential foodstuffs for himself and his family.

It has been suggested that this can be counteracted by a wage increase. That is quite true. Those of us in the trade union movement are very conscious of the power we have to adjust that position by making a further demand. In fact, it has been suggested that such a demand is practically under way. Even if the working classes and their dependents secure relief by way of further wage increases, what will be the position of those in the fixed income groups, those who are dependent on a certain fixed sum out of investments, those who are dependent—and these are possibly the most miserable of all—on the social welfare benefits provided by this State? Any further wage increases will be reflected in an increased charge for various commodities. That should not be so, but it is one of those capitalistic claims that when wages go up prices must go up also. We know from experience that wages never go up until six or 12 months after prices go up because a claim cannot be brought before the Labour Court unless there is proof, either through the index figure or in some other way, that the cost of living has increased. The cost of living has to go up, therefore, before a wages claim can be made. Even if we avail of the increase in the cost of living and secure a wage increase we simply provide a further pretext for yet another increase in the cost of living. A wage increase, while desirable and necessary, will have the effect of worsening the position of those in the fixed income group and those who have the misfortune to depend on our social services.

It is the Minister's duty to take the position very seriously. I do not agree we are in a much better position than heretofore. We have heard a good deal from the Opposition Benches about the promises made by Labour and what Labour has done. I, as a Labour Deputy who supported and continues to support this Government, am not afraid to face up to the promises the Labour Party made prior to the election. I know exactly the promises that were made. I was the instrument of the Party here in relation to certain essential promises. I remember quite well what was said: We would not take part in any Government, and neither would we support a Government, which would not undertake to bring down the prices of essential commodities to the level of the 1952 Budget. We will not fall down on that promise. That promise was firmly made. We have indicated that should subsidies be required they would be made available. We are of that opinion still. Rome was not built in a day and we do not expect this, or any other Government, to do all that was promised, within eight months. Labour Party influence in this Government has shown results. Now I do not want to differentiate between Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Talmhan or Clann na Poblachta in this Government: we are all equally guilty or we must all get the credit for whatever action this Government takes. We are part of it and we are making no apology for that. We form part of this Government and we take the credit, whether it goes up or down. We stand by that, but thanks be to God, in case I am giving false hopes, I see no reason why this Government should not run its full lifetime.

The Labour Party is not ashamed of its promises. Within two months the Government brought down the price of butter by 5d. per lb. and this meant a lot to the ordinary worker and his family. If Fianna Fáil had been in power it would have meant butter at 4/1 per lb. As I stated in my previous speeches, it is some indication of the practical realisation of some of the Parties' promises.

So much has been said on this tea commodity that it is scarcely necessary for me to go any further. It is sufficient to say that the Labour Party was instrumental in putting as much pressure as possible on the whole Cabinet and to say to them: "We feel it is essential that the public should not receive the full impact of an increase in the price of tea which may be necessary as the result of world prices." The Government decided that they would postpone doing anything on that question until September. It looks like—and I hope it is true—that that policy is going to pay dividends. At least the outlook is much better now than it was three or four weeks ago. I hope when September comes there will be no need for a further increase in the price of tea— in fact, I hope there will be a gradual reduction—because tea is an essential commodity for the ordinary working man. If we were not in charge of the Government of this country this commodity would be at least 1/8 more than it is. Certainly, even if we only succeeded in carrying it over until September we will have gained for the working people at least that much of a concession, compared to what they would have got.

We still think that bread and sugar are too dear, and that the wages of the ordinary worker do little to permit him to enjoy as much as he should of these commodities. It is also clear to anyone who has had an opportunity of examining the position, that there are factors outside the control of this Government which precluded any change up to the present moment. Certainly the wheat price was guaranteed for last year, and that wheat has to be bought at that price. The disastrous harvest affected not only the quantity but the quality of the beet grown. In fact, I think it is true to say that were it not for the refining of the imported sugar, the price of home-produced sugar would have to be increased, or at least a substantial loss shown.

As I say, we are the Government, not for these eight months, but we hope for a further four years. We will have an opportunity during that time of proving our sincerity. One most interesting point to me, at any rate, was a newspaper report which stated that Deputy Lemass taunted the Fine Gael members of the Government for yielding to the irresponsible demands of the Labour Party by not increasing the price of tea. If that is an irresponsible action—increasing the essential commodities of the working people— then I am very glad to be considered irresponsible, or half mental. If Fianna Fáil had any influence on this Government, then they would have told it: "Shove it on to the ordinary man and make him pay." Thank God wiser counsels prevailed. Thank God the outlook is such that we hope in September to be able to confound the Fianna Fáil Party on that matter.

I would like to say a few words on unemployment. It is very little satisfaction to me as a Labour man to hear An Tánaiste say that there were 7,000 more men employed this year compared to this time 12 months. I am glad that there are 7,000 less unemployed, but as a measure of protest, with practically 80,000 unemployed, I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that there is very little use for complacency or clapping one another on the back. That is a serious position which must not be allowed to continue. No Government, be it inter-Party, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, which has tied on to it 80,000 unemployed men and women, boys and girls, with their dependents, has any cause for self-congratulation. We in the Labour Party hope that before this time 12 months a considerable improvement will have taken place.

As I said, we entered this Government and we accept responsibility, but we must have our say. I would say to the Minister for Local Government when he went round the various local authorities interviewing them and asking for their views on the County Management Act, that he could well have inquired what need there was for housing, and how many unemployed men there were in the area. Surely, with materials, craftsmen and labourers unemployed, and with a demand for houses in my constituency, what was the reason for their having to go on the dole or cross to Britain? I would have thought more of it had the Minister not sought the views of either the chairman or the views of the local authorities on the County Management Bill, but had done what T.G. Murphy did, to consult with the local authorities and ask them how he could help further.

If we are in the Government we must take the responsibility for what is happening. Until the unemployment problem is tackled earnestly and properly I feel we cannot rest. To my mind it is not such a problem as it appears. At least 25 per cent. of the 80,000 unemployed on the live register are unemployable. They should be transferred to the national health side, or some other side. No man, after he reaches the age of 65, or at least the average man, is employable under present-day conditions. He should be put as a dependent on the welfare side instead of being an applicant for work. Under the present system of legislation he must appear to seek work even though he would not be able to undertake it if he got it. If the register was cleared out, if we got a practical knowledge of who was actually seeking work, then I suggest we would be able to examine the problem in a better way.

A figure of 50,000 is the highest this country, at any one time, can have unemployed. It is a seasonal problem for a period of about four months in each year. The Government in their wisdom should have a national plan prepared which could be put into operation in the various counties where seasonal unemployment developed. That would provide employment during those four months and would result in continuous employment for all our people. Schemes should be prepared on a national scale for the relief of flooding, drainage of all sorts, and other projects. They should be documented and held in readiness for a seasonal unemployment emergency.

I speak as one who has a knowledge of this problem. In the trade union movement we keep statistics as to how our members are employed and the periods for which they are unemployed. A close examination of these figures would indicate that a figure of four months per year is the average period of unemployment for employable workers. The inclusion on the live register of persons who are unemployable either through physical disability or age completely distorts the picture.

I have said all I wanted to say on this Bill. I would appeal to the Minister to use his position. He is undertaking a difficult task in trying to keep down the cost of living in present conditions. He is undertaking a difficult task in trying to provide employment in present conditions. He is trying to perform the difficult task of making a capitalist system work with socialist methods. To my mind the day of capitalism is finished. Whatever relief was obtained through the competitive market has been choked up by the combines, by the international and national groups which refuse to compete with one another. Therefore, prices do not reach the low level that would be expected in conditions of free competition. Capitalism is on its way out. The Minister must work within the system as he finds it. He has a difficult task and I would say to him that those of us in the Labour Party who are supporting this Bill, who are willing to take the responsibility with this Government, are demanding that everything and anything necessary will be done within the next four years to ensure that the ordinary human beings get a living in this country for themselves and their dependents.

Mr. Colley

Last week in this House we were met with a denial from the Fine Gael Benches that any promises to reduce the cost of living had been made by them during the recent election. I would like some of them to tell us what was the meaning of the pamphlets that were issued throughout the country showing diagrams of various goods and prices in 1951 and 1954. What did that propaganda mean? What was it meant to mean or what could it mean to the ordinary housewife? I say nothing of the fact that in several cases and in some cases in public advertisements the cost of living was represented as being the deliberate result of the Fianna Fáil policy. If it did not mean a promise to reduce the cost of living, it must have meant what I do not like to accuse the people opposite of, namely, that they were trying to achieve power by false pretences. It could only mean that they were promising to reduce prices to the 1951 prices.

If further proof is necessary that that is what it meant, let us take the statement of the 1st June, issued officially from the Parties when they had decided to coalesce and form a Government. I quote from paragraph 2 of the statement that appeared in all the papers of the 1st June:—

"Recognising that the main issue of the general election was the question of prices, the Parties forming the Government are determined to reduce the cost of living in relation to the people's income and in particular to effect the reduction in the prices of essential foodstuffs."

Is that not sufficient proof that those documents meant that the cost of living was to be reduced? There is only one alternative. Those leaflets did not mention that the cost of living went up seven points in three months, the last three months of the previous Coalition. As Deputy Larkin pointed out here the other night, when the cost of living starts to rise, it keeps on rising. That is what the people are afraid of. Before wages and salaries overtake an increase in the cost of living, a big loss is incurred. That actually happened in the last Coalition.

The cost of living had increased from 102 to 109 between February and June, 1951. It is my personal belief that that was one of the chief reasons why the Coalition Government went out. They saw the position coming and would not face it. It had to be faced by other people and the unpopularity accruing from it had to be borne by us because, whether it meant political doom or not, the country had to be saved as far as possible.

I shall not go into all the promises made by everybody, including some of the Labour Deputies. I will say for Labour Deputies that they made their promises quite clearly. They did not attempt to add that they would reduce expenditure at the same time. They are standing boldly for the policy of reducing prices, no matter what the cost may be.

Let me ask Deputy Kyne, who has just spoken and who kept away from this subject all the time, who will pay the price necessary to keep down the price of tea and to reduce the price of butter? Somebody has to pay for it. There is no use in saying that subsidies can be provided without their being paid for by the people. If repayment is put on the long finger, we are heading for disaster. One does not need to be an economist to know that. Subsidies must be paid for. In 1947, when we introduced subsidies and reduced the cost of living by three points in the Supplementary Budget, Labour and Fine Gael would not have subsidies at any price. They were not worthwhile; they were laughable, because we brought in the means of paying for them, but they did achieve a reduction of three points in the cost of living.

Labour and Fine Gael went all out against them and used that argument with the people to achieve power. To-day Labour is all out for subsidies —what Fine Gael is out for I do not know yet. But Labour is all out for subsidies but will not tell us how they are going to be paid for. Paid for they must be. It is a vital point to know how they are going to be paid for. We did not run away from it when we brought them in; we brought in extra taxation to pay for them. Fine Gael are keeping silent on that point. I recall that here in the last Dáil when the question of subsidies arose and the question of the attitude of Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll towards subsidies arose, I remember him standing up and asking the present Taoiseach if he would give Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll an undertaking that if returned to power he would restore the subsidies. Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll got no answer. He gave an undertaking that if the present Taoiseach would give that undertaking he would vote with him, but he got no answer.

Now we are hearing all about subsidies from the Labour Party, and that they are going to force them. We have had a subsidy on butter for which the Minister for Finance told us he hoped to pay out of economies, but the last statement we had from him shows that instead of economies there is a £6,000,000 gap, £6,000,000 unaccounted for under the present Budget and that does not look as if there were many economies. Where is the cost of the subsidy for butter coming from? It is something that the people of this country should know because it is vital. We should know whether the future generations will be left to pay for our butter, if it is going to be paid for with borrowed money. If we are going to have to pay for our present day butter by borrowing money, it is something which should wake us all up to the state of the country. But we have not yet been told, and I want to insist that somebody tells us how it is to be paid for. We were straightforward about it. When we brought in subsidies, we saw that subsidies were paid for, but we found it was a dear policy, much the dearest, and we tried to get away from it, and I think any sensible man with the experience of the years behind him would take the same line.

We have been hearing a lot about prices. We heard a lot about them in the last Dáil, too, and we were told our system was inefficient and ineffective and we were told it over and over again. We were told there would be no trouble about bringing in a proper system and controlling prices. We do not seem to have a proper control or a better system now. There has been no real suggestion yet as to what should be done about it. We never claimed that our system was perfect—as a matter of fact we complained of the lack of support for it and it could not be worked without support from the people. I do not think any system of price control can be worked without support from the people. We complained over and over again that we did not get that support, but now it seems that all we were told in the last Dáil about having a perfect system ready to go into operation was all bluff.

There is no system. There is nothing better than the Fianna Fáil system. The Minister himself apparently is going on with it for at least 12 months before he introduces legislation to make even parts of it permanent. Presumably in that legislation he will bring in any changes he wants to make. But he is going on with this present legislation for at least another 12 months and he did not promise it would even then be out of the way at that time. So that several months after the election, so far as price control is concerned, there is no alternative to the "ineffective" and "inefficient" system of Fianna Fáil. That is another bluff that was put over on the people.

The Tánaiste pledged himself to introduce an efficient and effective system. Well, we will see whether he will or not. He has not done it so far. At the present moment, he is busy explaining that the price rises are outside his control. I do not know how he can reconcile that with the line he took when he was in opposition. We did not hear anything at that time on the lines on which Deputy Larkin was talking the other night—that some prices go up—and we admit it—and no Government here could control them because they are outside our control, prices of foreign articles.

We did not hear anything like that when these people were in opposition. We did not hear anything about it in the leaflets, but now we have the Taoiseach telling the Fine Gael Ard Fheis that he was fully conscious of the limitations of the power of the Government to regulate prices—he has learned that now apparently—"particularly increases due to world economic factors or conditions beyond our control." There was no regard for that when we were in power. We were prepared to admit that there are things which no Government in this country could control. There are other things that can be well-controlled in spite of what has been said, and I make bold to say that when it comes to any new prices commission that may be set up, similar results will emanate from it.

I want to stress the fact that subsidies must be paid for by somebody, and it is very important that we know how they are being paid for. It is very important in the interests of democracy that we know how it is being paid for before we find ourselves in such a state that democracy will not have any say in the matter. That is what will come if we proceed on the lines of piling up debts to pay for our present cost of living.

Now, the Minister for Finance also promised to reduce expenditure. I have said from public platforms several times that far from promising to reduce the cost of living no Government could directly reduce the cost of living without putting on taxation. They could only by other efforts and increased production try to lower prices. Only by increased production and other efforts could they try to lower prices. They could not directly reduce the cost of living without subsidies or some equivalent and they have to be paid for. However, Fine Gael promised, at the same time as reducing the cost of living, to reduce expenditure. I would very much like to know how that was to be achieved. What we have heard so far from the Minister for Finance does not indicate that it is being achieved. Of course, during the last Dáil there was £10,000,000 in the Budget—in fact, I think it was £15,000,000—that could be lopped off in ten minutes by any Minister for Finance. It does not seem as if it could be lopped off now, as was suggested by Deputy McGilligan at that time.

Deputy O'Higgins spoke here the other night about being burdened by our Budget under which the Government were working. There was nothing to prevent them bringing in another one, any Budget they wanted to, instead of carrying on with ours. They could have done that within a few weeks if they wanted to do it. Trying to put up a case like that is quite ridiculous and does not show much regard for the intelligence of the people.

The Deputy also spoke about the extravagance of Fianna Fáil and about our schemes for new Government buildings running, I think, into £11,000,000 or £12,000,000. There has never been such a scheme proposed in this House. The only man who ever mentioned about new Government buildings in this House was the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, away back in 1945. Deputy O'Higgins also referred to Dublin Castle and the extravagance in that respect. The figures for Dublin Castle were growing with every member opposite that mentioned it. Actually it was a scheme to spend £200,000 over a 20-year period on Dublin Castle to keep it from falling. The people opposite said it was all extravagance and that it was unnecessary. It was mentioned in the presence of the Tánaiste who had just before that been introducing a Tourist Bill here. It is rather amusing because if you go up and look at Dublin Castle, see right on the way up to the State apartments where thousands of tourists go and where they are sent particularly, you will see the buildings where the work was not necessary a few months ago shored up like a falling tenement or like a ruin after a fire. It is excellent for the tourists we are bringing to the country to see the lovely state in which our Government buildings are kept.

Mr. Glynn

It would be far better if the tourists were sent down to Roscommon, Galway and other places in the West of Ireland. That is where the money should be spent.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Higgins also told us that Fianna Fáil were not wanted for years. But what the Deputies opposite forget is that Fianna Fáil is still much the biggest Party and has a long way to go before it is not wanted.

Mr. O'Donovan

Not so much now.

Captain Giles

They are getting very old.

Mr. Colley

We were told during the election about the terrible state in which the country was, all due of course to the iniquities of Fianna Fáil and the terrible burdens that were grinding the people down. It is an extraordinary thing that the statistical survey now issued by the Government itself shows that as much food was consumed in 1953 as was ever consumed, that personal expenditure was higher and that savings were four times what they were in 1951. It is strange that all these things could happen when the country was in such an impoverished state. I would like the people opposite, who made both of these statements, to explain them.

Deputy Larkin mentioned the other night that subsidies were justified. I am not saying they are not in some circumstances, but it is a pity he did not wake up to that fact in 1947. It would have saved this country a great deal of hardship that it has since gone through if Deputy Larkin and his colleagues had then realised that subsidies were justified. Those subsidies were real subsidies. They did good work and actually reduced the cost of living by three points. But means of paying for them had to be shown as any honest Government would do. We showed how we were going to pay for them by extra taxation and, of course, it was all wrong; apparently we were to get them out of the air. Labour to-day when they support subsidies so strongly ought to try to think back to their attitude to the Supplementary Budget in 1947 and their attitude to the subsidies then. Let them tell us now what has made them change so completely their attitude to subsidies. He told us that we did not believe in price control in Fianna Fáil. I should like to tell him that we were the only people who did anything at all about price control and that we were not the people who called the inspectors who tried to enforce price control by the name of pipsqueaks.

A Minister of the Coalition Government, Deputy Morrissey was the man who called them that. He called that to the men who were appointed to try and keep a check on prices. According to him they were pipsqueaks. That was not a policy calculated to encourage price controls. I wonder if the Labour Party remember these things. Deputy Kyne has been telling us what they are going to do in the next few years, and Deputy Larkin was silent as to how the subsidies are to be paid for. Perhaps they would now indicate the lines on which we are to proceed. Is it their policy to pile up debts? Is it to be their policy that we shall pay for the food we consume after we have first piled it up in debts and that that policy is to go on as long as it can be allowed to proceed and that this country is to take the natural consequences of it?

It is vital in the interests of democracy that we know how these things are to be paid for, and my main concern at the moment is for the effect of this piling up of our debts which is apparently the policy of the Labour Party as far as I can gather. It was also interesting to hear Deputy O'Higgins the other night trying to justify subsidies. It was interesting to hear him in view of the line taken by Fine Gael in 1947. But I cannot see where the money is to come from. All these statements that have been made here about reducing prices and reducing taxation are only on a par with other statements that were made. For instance, the present Tánaiste was very strong himself about reducing prices but we have not seen much evidence of his efforts to reduce prices so far. But as I said it is all on a par with the statements made in 1947 about emigration.

Mr. Donnellan

And in 1932.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Norton said in 1947 that the people were flying from the country as never since the Famine and when the figures came out they were something like 10,000, whereas the average figures during the régime of the Coalition Government were 30,000. To-day they are flying just as much as ever. We do not know the figures but there is no question at all about the great numbers emigrating at the moment. Before I sit down I should like to find out from the people opposite how these subsidies are going to be paid. It is a thing the country is entitled to know. The country is also entitled to know how taxation is to be reduced at a time when subsidies are being paid for.

Mr. D. Costello

In this debate a number of uses have been made of figures. The Opposition have made use of many figures and I think it would be as well now to bring some reality into the discussion. This debate, traditionally on the Second Reading of the Bill, takes the form of a discussion on prices and in most years has taken also the form of a discussion on the level of unemployment. The Opposition this year have been very silent about the unemployment figures and I propose to point out the reasons for that silence. But they have been vociferous on the question of prices and I think it sounds rather strange to have members of the Opposition coming in here complaining about high prices in view of the record which their Government had during the three years in which they were in office.

I do not think we should forget what happened under the last Government and I do not think the people will forget what happened during their three years in office. The figures given in the Trade Journal show that between May, 1951, and May, 1954, the cost of living rose from 109 to 124 points. Now there have been some explanations—some suggested explanations—for that increase, notably by Deputy Childers. Deputy Childers referred at some length to the Korean war and to the post-Korean boom and endeavoured to explain the great rise in living costs that resulted from increased import prices during that period.

Now, I think it must be agreed by all reasonable persons considering the question that it must be very difficult for a Government to keep the cost of living down when import prices are rising. At a period of rising import prices I think it is natural to assume it would be impossible for a Government to subsidise every article likely to be the subject of rising prices. We, like other countries, did experience for some time a deterioration in our terms of trade during which import prices went up and the prices of our exports went down, but I should like to point out this very significant fact. It is that the highest peak of our import prices was reached in September, 1951—a couple of months after the last Government got into office in 1951—and that from that time, steadily month by month, import prices have been descending and from the peak figure of 324 in September, 1951, import prices declined to 289.5 in June of this year. It is true that since that time they have shown a slight tendency to increase again but we cannot get away from the fact that there has been a very startling decline of over 25 points in the import price index figure. It demonstrates quite clearly that during that time the prices we had to pay for imported articles had declined by over 25 points.

One would have expected from that to see a decline in the cost of living, or at least a maintenance of the cost of living at the figure at which it was in 1951. Instead of that, the cost of living went up by 15 points to 124 in these three years. The blame which we laid to the door of the last Government was based not on the fact that external prices went up but on the fact that external prices went down and, yet, our cost of living went up; and the cost of living went up here as a result of deliberate, calculated Government action. Other countries experienced rising living costs after the Korean was but no country in Europe, with the exception of Greece, experienced the same rise that we did in the cost of living between 1951 and 1954, and during that period our import prices were declining.

Those were the charges that we made against the last Government and it seems strange to hear spokesmen who supported that Government now complaining, within a few months of their leaving office, of the present Government's alleged failure in relation to the prices level in the country generally. Again, in relation to the prices level here in the last few months, I would like to give a few more figures which have been ignored by Opposition spokesmen. The most up-to-date method of compiling our cost-of-living index figure is what is known as the consumer price index with a base on August, 1953. If Deputies go to the trouble of seeing the manner in which that figure has fluctuated between August and November of last year, it will be observed that there has been a decline of two points in the consumer price index between August and November of last year. That was brought about by deliberate Government action, and principally by increasing the subsidy on butter.

I do not think this Government has anything to be ashamed of in relation to its record up to date where prices are concerned. I do not know what the Opposition suggests should have been done. They have not suggested that we should not have put on the extra subsidy on butter, although they have said they would not have done that themselves. They have not suggested that we were wrong in keeping the price of tea at its present level, although they have criticised us for the method we have adopted; but they have not suggested the alternative method that they might have adopted.

The most up-to-date figures show, based on the consumer price index, that between August and November of last year the cost of living in fact went down by two points. That is a very significant fact because it was brought about by deliberate Government action. The figure for August was 102.3. That was higher than it was in June. I would like to comment on that: that figure was reached before the present Government had taken any action good, bad or indifferent with regard to prices. It had been in office only a few weeks and in that period as caretaker, as it were, and before it was able to formulate and implement its own policy, the cost of living went up to 102.3. As I suggested, it would have gone up had there been no change of Government, but since that time there has been a decline of over two points. These facts clearly demonstrate that when we fought the last general election on the basis that the Government then in office had failed in its obligations to the people to maintain a reasonable price level, the people were right in putting their confidence in us, believing that we would administer the affairs of State well. But the last general election was not fought only on the question of prices. In the city constituencies one of the principal grievances, a very justifiable grievance, which the people had over the record of the Fianna Fáil Government and which was displayed by the manner in which they voted, was the record of the last Government in relation to unemployment.

In debating this Bill in the past we have criticised the Fianna Fáil Government for its failure to bring about conditions of full employment. One of the principal planks in our policy was to try to bring about conditions of full employment and we pointed out the lamentable failure of the last Government in that regard. When the inter-Party Government left office in 1951 we had reached a position very nearly approaching full employment. Taking the comparable figure for February, 1951, and comparing it with the figures for each of the three years that the last Government was in office, the lamentable failure of that Government in its handling of the unemployment situation can be clearly seen. At the end of February, 1951, there were 63,000 unemployed; at the end of February, 1952, there were 74.1 thousand and at the end of February, 1953, there were 89.6 thousand. In three years there was an increase of 26,000 unemployed. Last year there was a decline. The figure went down by 12,000 and the Government of the day then claimed that the unemployment problem was solved, or nearly solved, forgetting that though the figure had declined by 12,000 it was still many thousands greater than it had been before they entered office in February, 1951. I think the fact is not fully appreciated that in the last year unemployment has declined by over 7,000. I think this Government is entitled to take credit for a good number of the 7,000 more people who now have jobs and who were jobless last year.

The unemployment figures show that on the 12th February this year there were over 7,000 more people employed than there were last year. Now this Government, like the last Government, will be judged by results. We have now come to a time in our political development when Governments are judged by the economic consequences of their failure. The last Government was beaten because it let the cost of living rise by 15 points and unemployment rise by over 25,000. If this Government fails on these two important fronts it, too, will be beaten. This Government, however, realises that the cost of living and the rate of employment are the two principal things upon which it has got to keep a constant watch and it realises that, if necessary, it must subsidise foodstuffs in order to keep the cost of living down. It realises that it must maintain a high level of employment for the maintenance of the expansion of its capital investment programme. In my opinion the rise in the cost of living in this country is not because of classical cases of inflation, but principally because of cost inflation, costs of production going up and therefore forcing up prices. Under this Bill the Government have power to see that we have not inflation in this country.

There are two matters which I would like to mention briefly. The first is the level of tariffs. I want to say that I and my Government are in favour of a reasonable tariff wall. Because I asked for an inquiry into tariffs I am not to be taken as speaking against the system of granting tariffs to our industries. There had been talk in this House for the past few years, by the last Minister for Industry and Commerce in particular, of an inquiry into the tariff system, and we have heard nothing about it. I would ask the present Minister to make known to the House the knowledge which must be in his Department, and which is not available to the rest of the country. Just because something is subject to tariffs it does not mean that we must support that particular tariff. I want the searchlight of truth played on the present tariff position in order to have a full examination of whether all our tariffs are justifiable or not.

The other matter which I think vitally affects our costs, and consequently our prices, is the question of interest rates. I will not deal at length with this matter, because I think it applies principally to the financial policy of the Government. It arises on the Supplies and Services Bill in an indirect way. The Government made a start in the last loan it floated by reducing the level of interest rates. I think it is only a start on the road towards getting our rates of interest down to a substantially lower figure than they are at present. We must have regard to what is happening in England, where the bank rate was increased a few weeks ago. The signs are that it is to be increased again. We have to see that this does not happen here.

We have got to bring our rates of interest down so that the burden is less than it is at present on the Government and on private individuals who have to borrow capital for the purposes of their trade.

It seems to me that the Opposition must present a rather sorry picture to the public when they complain, as they have been doing, about our cost-of-living level. It is very significant that no mention has been made by them of the level of unemployment. I think the people still feel the confidence which they felt when they voted in the present inter-Party Government, which has done nothing so far to lose that confidence. I feel that if the policies of the present Government are continued, the answer that the people will give us in the next general election will be one of confidence.

Mrs. Crowley

One of the principal reasons why the present Government got into office was that they appealed to the housewife at the last general election; in fact, they gave people the impression that they were the housewives' choice. They circulated through the post various prices of foodstuffs from 1951 to 1954, proving that they had gone up in price. They gave the impression that if they were returned to office these food prices would be reduced immediately. In fact, some of the ways of reducing them were also told to the people, and the sale of Tulyar and Aer Lingus planes was mentioned. As I say, the impression was given that there were various methods for reducing the cost of living, and doing away with the squandermania of the Fianna Fáil Government. This appeal was principally made to the people in the cities and towns, to those people who have to pay in hard cash for everything they buy. What has happened now? In the past eight months the prices of foodstuffs have gone up, and I do not think that can be disputed.

Various prices have been mentioned in this House, so I do not think there is any necessity to go into them. The price of butter has been reduced, but only by subsidy. I remember, when subsidies were first put on in this House, and the then Minister explained that he thought it was a good way of keeping down prices, the then Opposition were very insistent that it was a dishonest way of doing it, that it did not show the real cost of the food, and it was only to cover up the ineptitude of the Government for not being able to keep down the cost of food. Now, apparently, this Government thinks it is a good idea, and so there has been a complete change in that respect. I think it may be agreed that the housewife who supported the inter-Party Government and helped to put them into power is still waiting for the Government to help her to feed and clothe her family cheaper than when the Fianna Fáil Party was in power.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

I will not detain the House much longer on this matter. It seems to me that the debate, as in former years, ranged mainly around the question of the cost of living. The Opposition are anxious to discuss the exact part that the cost of living played in the last general election. Might I say, in my opinion, that the exact part the cost of living played in the last election was the comparison in the prices which existed in this country in 1951 with the prices which existed in 1954, exactly three years later? The leaflet produced by the Fine Gael Party showed up these prices, and showed the change in the cost of living. However, what was important politically was that the change in prices was brought about entirely by action deliberately taken by the Government.

I notice that from 1948 to 1950 the then Opposition was very quiet about this question. The moment war broke out in Korea, and when wholesale prices on the world markets began to rise, they realised the political possibilities of the situation. There was a rise during subsequent months because of the rise in the import prices. As Deputy Costello pointed out a few minutes ago, at the end of the period of office of the last Government the most serious criticism which could be made of them was that, although there had been a 10 per cent. drop in import prices, there was no fall whatsoever in prices here.

On various occasions during this debate the question of the price of tea has come into the picture. I think that the present Government were quite right in maintaining the price of tea as it has been for some time back. Deputy Cunningham mentioned "tea on tick." Might I say this—if the Opposition really wish to deal with this subject, are they suggesting that we should have put up the price of tea by 3/- a lb., that being the cost of replacement of the present stocks of tea? In Britain at present the retail price of tea is 8/4 a lb. According to last Saturday's Economist, the cost of replacement there at the moment on the markets is 8/8. Is it seriously suggested that the Government should have put up the price of tea by 3/- a lb.

Since the Government decision was taken, the price of tea has dropped about 1/- a lb., perhaps. It is now being suggested, of course, that this trend is a lucky break for the Government. There is not so much luck about it. Any commodity which rises rapidly in price tends, as observation may lead one to believe, to come down rapidly once it has reached the top level to which it will go. It may not be that tea will come down a great deal further but, on the whole, tea is likely to decline in price during the coming months and that was one serious economic reason why the Government took the decision not to increase the price of tea.

I was very interested in one aspect of the last Government's activities in connection with the cost of services. I mean the increase in the price of money at which the Government borrowed. The fact is that the cost of money in this country and the cost of money in any country is related pretty closely to the cost at which the Government borrows. It was put up from 3½ per cent. to 5 per cent. The fact is that the cost of money enters over and over again into the cost of production. You have only to trace, say, the manner in which the interest enters into the price of finished clothing from the time when the wool is shorn off the sheep and turned into yarn, from yarn to cloth and until the cloth moves from the manufacturer's factory on to the shelf of the clothing manufacturer and from the clothing manufacturer perhaps into a wholesale house and from there into the retail trade. This is a cumulative increase. It is not like other increases, say, an increase in a retail price, which is just one increase.

It is the policy of the new Government in this country—and they are still very much the new Government—to bring down, if at all possible, the cost of money but we are told by the financial experts that it can only be brought down slowly. Now, on the whole, much though one might like to see it being brought down very rapidly to what we would regard as a more reasonable level, there is a great deal to be said for slowness of movement in a matter of the sort. Certainly, a jump of the kind from 3½ to 5 per cent. is open to the most serious objections from the stresses and strains it creates in the economy.

The final point to which I would like to make reference is the evidence, which has been noticeable in recent months, of inflation in Britain. While our £ in this country is linked at par with sterling, inflation or an increase in prices in Britain will inevitably have repercussions here. The evidence was apparent before Christmas in the fall in British Government securities. Then, in more recent weeks, there has been the weakness of sterling on the financial markets and also, perhaps, as an indication of concern, the capital programmes which the British Government are now speaking about, the expenditure mentioned of £3,000,000,000 on railways, roads and on the application of atomic energy for industrial purposes.

If you have full employment in a country, as they have in Britain—over-full employment—is it not obvious that you cannot engage in a capital programme of that kind unless some other activities are to cease? I am now speaking about the physical problem involved. It is quite obvious that in Britain there must be some belief gaining ground that their export markets will not be as buoyant as they were last year. Once their export markets cease to be as buoyant as they were last year I believe that sterling will tend to become weak and that you will tend to have an inflation of prices in Britain.

The employment problem is such nowadays in every country that, as Deputy Declan Costello pointed out, Western Governments are judged by the degree to which they create full employment. If the British create full employment by a capital programme inside Britain, it seems to me that some degree of inflation is inevitable there. The alternative, of course, would be that they would have unemployment in Britain if their export markets decline in quantity but it seems to be the case that a decision has been taken that they are not under any circumstances going to have unemployment.

You might ask me what is the relevance of these remarks to the present Bill. The relevance is this, that if there should be necessity in Britain to indulge in an internal capital programme—"indulge", perhaps, is the wrong word—to attempt an internal capital programme of this type, it will inevitably lead to some degree of inflation and that inflation will affect us here. In other words, the monetary position in this country and the financing of Government and the financing of other operations will be less easy than it has been. I think that it sets the line, in part, which should be adopted in this country, that is to say, that the Government here should continue and attempt to develop the capital programme which, on an extensive scale, was first started here by the inter-Party Government in 1948 to 1951 and which was continued by the late Government.

I would have hoped that the debate might be on a somewhat different plane from that of the remark of Deputy Colley that savings were immensely greater in 1953 or 1954 than they were in 1952. If one speaks of the accumulation of money, it is easy enough to count savings, though the fact that money goes into many pockets may make it a difficult enough calculation, but it is very easy to count it by comparison with the manner in which, in fact, a community saves. I should like to ask the people who produce statistics of savings how they count the savings made by, say, a farmer on his farm which are put by him in work into his farm and into the products he produces or even when he applies imported materials.

These statistics have been bandied backward and forward. I should be very loath to have a large measure of regard to them in relation to any effort to consider a matter like the kind of policy that should be adopted in relation to capital investment. The fact is that it is very hard to dissociate one period from another. There may be periods, but they are certainly not likely to be periods of a year even. They are much more likely to be periods of three and a half years, or three years and five months, or maybe one year and five months. You may be able to notice a trend, but normally statistical material is calculated year by year and is normally related to a calendar year. That is just one of the facts that one has to accept, that movements of this kind do not take place according to the calendar, and I am certainly not prepared to accept any such figure as that savings in one period are four times what they were in some other period.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

I want to intervene in this debate to deal with certain matters that have been mentioned and to set the record right in regard to matters which I think are matters of consequence. I want to reiterate here to-day what I said from public platforms all through this country during the general election, that the Fine Gael Party promised the electorate of this country nothing, except to do its best. I remember speaking in most constituencies in Ireland and putting on record what Fianna Fáil had done during its period of office and saying: "I gladly concede that they were doing their best. Now, here is what we did when we were in office. That was our best and I now invite the electorate to make their choice as to which is the best best." I deliberately said "which is the best best" because there were a lot of other people putting their best forward and it was perfectly clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were the two largest Parties involved in the conflict and ultimately the electorate would have to choose between the best we had to offer and the best Fianna Fáil had to offer, in the knowledge that ours would be implemented through an inter-Party Government, in consultation with the other Parties who formed the inter-Party Government from 1948 to 1951, and that the best which I was quoting was the fruit of a policy of an inter-Party Government which Fianna Fáil had declared was impossible and could bring in its wake, according to their own leader, nothing but disaster.

Now, it was the record of such a Government that I read before the electorate and put beside it as fairly as I could the record of the Fianna Fáil Government, admitting that both were the best the two contestants could do, and invited the electorate to vote for the best best and then added: "Voters here present are entitled to ask me what do we promise the electorate, if elected" and I repeated from every platform in Ireland on which I spoke: "The answer is that we promise the electorate nothing, except to do our best." If Deputy Vivion de Valera did not hear me say it, his father certainly did, for I said it with emphasis in Bray when he was talking at one end of the town and I was talking at the other.

Having secured the verdict of the electorate, the Parties which at present constitute the inter-Party Government came together and laid before Dáil Éireann, the elected members of Dáil Éireann, a programme which they said they would undertake to work on, if chosen as Government for the next five years, and that policy is there for all to read. I think many Deputies of Fianna Fáil regarded the scope of that programme as incredibly ambitious. Maybe it was, but I do not know that there is any fault in a Government which is undertaking to do its best hitching its wagon to a star. Is there anything wrong or is there any section of the House who say it is wrong to aim to bring down the cost of living? Is there any section of the House who say it is wrong to work for an improvement in the social services available to our people, bearing in mind the comparative social services available to the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Is there anything wrong in saying that you are going to work to expand the national income so that from lower rates of tax you can get sufficient revenue to finance the services which our people require? Does anybody dissent from these objectives?

I am well aware that there are certain excessively cautious members of the Fianna Fáil Party who regard such objectives as unthinkable and unattainable and who have the obscurantist honesty to go out in the country and say: "These fellows could not do these things and it is daft to say they could"; but remember they said precisely the same thing in 1948, and we did it. I can remember Deputy Vivion de Valera declaring that the objectives we set before ourselves in 1948 were fantastic and unrealisable, but, in fact, every year we were in office, we improved the social services and we reduced the rate of taxation. Does anyone deny that?

Major de Valera

I shall have an opportunity later, Minister.

Mr. Dillon

I well remember, in 1948, the same Deputy saying to us: "You cannot bring down taxation and, at the same time, increase old age pensions," but we did it. When we came into office, the old age pension was 12/6 a week and when we left office, it was £1 a week, and we brought down the standard rate of income-tax by 6d. in the £ and made very large concessions to married people, to pensioners and others who had hitherto been liable to income-tax. Is that not true? Is it not true that Fianna Fáil said it could not be done? "You pays your money and you takes your choice"— the electorate experienced the performance of the inter-Party Government and of the ensuing Fianna Fáil Government, and they remembered the 17 ghastly years from 1931 to 1948, and, with their eyes wide open, they elected a majority of 16 in this House for an inter-Party Government. That is why we are here. It is easy to recognise the despairing tactics of the Fianna Fáil Party and I sympathise with them. Their present situation is deplorable. They are down and out, and know they are down and out. There are stresses within the Party which threaten to tear it to pieces, and they want if possible to precipitate a crisis before those stresses destroy the cohesion of the Fianna Fáil Party. Who will blame them for that?

Major de Valera

Have not people been saying that for a long time?

Mr. Dillon

No, no, no; I said it the moment Deputy Lemass proceeded to aspire to the leadership of the Fianna Fáil Party, that there would be an explosion, when he finally stretched out to grasp the sceptre—and there will be, and they know there will be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not seem to arise.

Mr. Dillon

I want to say why the hullabaloo is on now. The Fianna Fáil Party are consternated and amazed that the whole programme of the inter-Party Government has not been realised since last June. They want to know when it is going to be realised and they say that a crisis is upon the nation because it has not been realised. That is the old song. The Fianna Fáil Party came in and in 17 years they wrecked the whole country. The inter-Party Government comes in and proceeds to build it up again. The Fianna Fail Party are shocked that what has been done in 17 years cannot be undone in 17 months. They are maddened that in fact in three and a half years a great deal of the evil they wrought upon the country was repaired. By a series of inglorious manæuvres they got back again for three and a half years and, by heaven, the second time they got in they played the devil altogether, and now in seven months they want us to render an account of our stewardship because we have not put right in seven months the havoc they wrought in three and a half years.

Let us get this as clear as crystal. Let any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who wants to do so read the terms of the programme of the inter-Party Government and make up his mind on this. That is, the programme that this inter-Party Government is going to implement during the next five years. We are going to implement it during the next five years and the result will be tested at the end of the five years in a general election where the people will be the judge. There is no use in Fianna Fáil chasing hopefully round on the proposition that all that requires to be done as a result of the three and a half years' Fianna Fáil interlude can or will be done in the nine months. The explosion that pends in the Fianna Fáil Party will have taken place and the fragments will be scattered through the land long before that programme is completed. I venture to swear you will have had time to stick yourselves together again after the explosion before you are required to go to the country and contest the result of the work we propose to do in the years that lie ahead.

Now I want to deal with some of the wild statements that have been made in regard to agriculture in the course of this debate. Before that I want to deal with one or two specific points relating to the undertaking given in the programme of this Government to reduce the cost of living. Has the price of butter come down from 4/2 to 3/9 or has it not? That is something any Deputy ought to be able to answer. If it has come down to 3/9, does that represent a reduction in the cost of living of the people or does it not? That is a very simple question— let Fianna Fáil answer it. Would they have brought down the price of butter? Was it in their programme to bring it down from 4/2 to 3/9? If they had been elected a Government of this country, what would the price of butter be to-day? Is it not time they answered that question?

Deputy Vivion de Valera is going to speak after me and I want him to answer this question. If his Party constituted the Government, instead of the inter-Party Government, what would the price of butter be to-day? Now, can he be frank and open and disingenuous if he does not answer that categorical question? And if he answers that the price of butter would be 4/2 if his Party were the Government, is he not obliged to confess that some step at least is being taken to bring down the cost of living?

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 23 Feb 1955