Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Nov 1928

Vol. 27 No. 6

APPROPRIATION BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The Minister for Finance may borrow from any person and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister for Finance on the credit of the said sum any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole seven million, one hundred and one thousand, three hundred and twenty-three pounds, and for the purpose of such borrowing the Minister for Finance may create and issue any securities bearing such rate of interest and subject to such conditions as to repayments, redemption or otherwise as he thinks fit.

I beg to move the amendment which stands in the name of Deputy Flinn. It is to insert in subsection (1) of Section 2, in line 22, after the words "Bank of Ireland," the words "or other approved bank having its headquarters in Saorstat Eireann."

I think a better justification for that amendment could not be found than is expressed on page 39 of the Fourth Interim Report of the Banking Commission, where the members of that Commission who signed the majority report stated a point of view which was expressed by some members of the Commission. Dealing with the question of the holding of public funds certain members of the Banking Commission stated that there was, in their opinion, no reason why some distribution of Government funds at least could not be made as between the different banks. This fact, they go on to say, is attested by the Government attitude or action in dividing the public deposits between the Bank of Ireland, on the one hand, and the National Land Bank on the other hand, when these were independent concerns. They state that the other commercial banks are justly desirous of having a share in the Government accounts, not alone because the custody of such funds may be a source of possible profit, but because it does confer a certain prestige on the bank, and the other commercial banks in this country who are doing a good deal, possibly more even than the Bank of Ireland, to build up industry and agriculture in this country feel that it is unfair to them that a monopoly in this matter should be reserved to the one institution.

If the Deputy will allow me to intervene for a moment, I want to say that this is the phraseology that has been used in the Appropriation Bills up to this, the reason for that being that the Bank of Ireland is the one bank which, unless it was specifically mentioned in the Appropriation Act could not lend to the Government. Sums of money have been borrowed from the other banks, on the wording which is already in the Appropriation Act up to this, and this money has been borrowed on many occasions during the last few years. This shows that there is no necessity for the insertion of these words in the Bill. There is power already, so far as these banks are concerned, to lend money. The reason for mentioning the Bank of Ireland is because the bank, under its Charter, could not lend money to us, and we could not borrow from them, unless it was mentioned in the Appropriation Act.

It relates only then to this disability which the Bank of Ireland labours under?

Well, of course, the explanation which the President has given puts a rather different complexion on the matter. One would be inclined to think that the purpose of the section was to reserve a monopoly to the Bank of Ireland, and it was with a view rather to have from the Government a statement of their reasons as to why such a monopoly had been reserved that we put down this amendment. At the same time, I think it is advisable to point out that at the present moment the Government does, I think, deposit all its moneys with the Bank of Ireland except in so far as certain statutes compel them to deposit these moneys elsewhere.

That is another matter. This is simply borrowing. The insertion of this would not affect the other question at all.

But there is a certain relationship between them.

None whatever.

After all, it is not the custom of a bank to lend money to people who do not normally deposit money with it. The customary relationship between a bank and its clients must be established generally before a bank is prepared to lend money.

If that be so we are an exception, having borrowed money from the other banks.

The other banks, however, are not entitled or do not desire a pro tanto consideration.

The Deputy will find this is a question of borrowing. It is another question he is now raising which is, of course, a question that could be raised at any time, but it is a question that does not affect this one.

But it does affect it. I say that the question of borrowing and depositing are not dissociated entirely. We do know that the Government from time to time have borrowed from other banks, but we do know also, at the same time, that the other banks are not entirely satisfied with the situation. The fact that certain representatives of the other banks on the Banking Commission did make a statement that they thought the Government funds should be deposited equitably—that the public deposits should be divided equitably between not only the Bank of Ireland and the other banks——

Would the Deputy keep to the amendment and not deal with deposits.

I know the word "deposit" is not mentioned, but it arises out of borrowing. Unless a deposit is made——

It does not arise out of this amendment at all.

But they are cognate subjects, and——

It does not arise on this amendment. The Deputy will have to accept that.

The point about it is this——

It does not arise, and the Deputy cannot pursue the matter any further.

Am I to understand that simply because the word "deposit" is not mentioned in this Bill, Deputy Hugo Flinn's amendment cannot be discussed?

Deputy MacEntee is quite wrong in this matter. There is no suggestion whatever about ruling out Deputy Flinn's amendment. The Deputy is quite well aware of that. The Deputy will be allowed to discuss the amendment, but nothing else.

I would like, if I could, to see why I am precluded from mentioning the word "deposit," because that is what it comes to, simply because it is not included in this Bill. Now, I would like to point out——

I will not hear the Deputy any further on that. I will hear the Deputy on the amendment and on nothing else.

Very well. Now, the question is how will the Minister for Finance be able to borrow from the Bank of Ireland? How will the Bank of Ireland be able to make that loan unless in some way or another a deposit is made? As a matter of fact, it is one of the controversial points in the theory of banking as to whether, when the Government borrows money, or when a loan is made, a deposit is created, or whether the deposit creates the loan.

This is a very simple amendment. I will hear the Deputy on that amendment and on nothing else.

I am dealing with the amendment.

You are not dealing with the amendment.

I am dealing with the amendment on this ground, that if the words "or other approved bank having its headquarters in Saorstát Eireann" are inserted in this Bill it will be a direction from the House to the Government that the practice which has hitherto prevailed of depositing public moneys with one banking institution in this country should be reconsidered and possibly departed from.

The Deputy himself knows quite well he is not dealing with the amendment. He must either deal with the amendment or else discontinue his speech.

If I am not entitled to argue as to what these words may mean, very well. The words were put down for a definite purpose. We think they do imply a corresponding obligation upon the Government that if they borrow money from other banks then they ought to deposit money with other banks. If they do enter into this particular relationship of a borrower with banks they ought to enter into the complementary relationship of a depositor with those banks.

The Deputy is still trying to pursue the subject I warned him not to pursue.

Yes, because it was with the express purpose of having the terms of the majority report of the Banking Commission discussed that this amendment was put down.

That is not in the amendment.

It should not be. One could not simply say that this particular section should not be proceeded with. We did not wish to put down an amendment stating that the Bill should be referred back.

The Deputy must not pursue this matter any further.

In view of the ruling of the Chair, I think I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I was not here for part of the explanation given by the President. Is the explanation that the Bank of Ireland has not power to lend unless it is specifically mentioned here?

In their Charter there is a condition which can only be got over by having it expressly prescribed that the bank may lend to the State. The other banks are not precluded, and have already advanced sums, although the wording of the sections of other Appropriation Acts was the same as this. The Bank of Ireland is the only one of which specific mention should be made in order to qualify it to make advances.

Might I ask the President what specific condition in the Charter has had to be got over? Is it the one which prevents the Bank of Ireland from lending money at more than a certain rate of interest? I have not the whole Charter in mind, but I do not recollect that there is any condition which prevents the bank lending money to the Government. In view of the President's explanation, we ought to be told what is the special condition in the Charter which this section is intended to override.

I do not know, but the condition is something like this, that unless expressly authorised by Parliament no money shall be advanced. It is something to that effect.

Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.

I move: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Question put and agreed to.

I move: "That the Bill do now pass."

We will vote against it.

I would just say it was not really as an act of discourtesy that Ministers did not speak. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce explained that point to some extent, but in a review of the Appropriation Bill, which is a very large Bill, it would be utterly impossible to traverse the same ground already gone over in connection with the Estimates. But I would be sorry if Deputies would jump to the conclusion that there was any discourtesy intended.

Arising out of that, I think I should make it clear that in my opinion the words objected to were directed against the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was asked to speak yesterday. On his refusal some of us on these benches felt that he was unwilling to give us an opportunity of replying to what he would say, and that therefore he was using the privilege which the Government have of concluding a debate for making an attack on us. I think if that were generally known the incident which happened to-day could have been to some extent undone.

May I say that after having had something like 100 hours' discussion on the Estimates, for Deputies to get up and speak about such a thing as that some person was refused a pension and so on appears to me to be to some extent not giving to the House that sense of responsibility that it certainly deserves, and that it is not an occasion which afforded, or which ought to afford, Deputies an opportunity of introducing matters without notice. I do not regard the business of the House as being properly discharged by merely scoring debating points. Unquestionably that is what happens when matters are introduced without notice, and when Ministers are asked to explain across the floor some of the countless details of administration that pass through their hands in the course of the year. I think it is unreasonable to expect that, and that it is not in accordance with the very responsible duties we have to perform. As regards the other matter, it is one which ought to be dealt with at the moment. It is one of a number of matters which a little more generous consideration of the circumstances might prevent occuring.

Does the President suggest that no debate should take place on the Appropriation Bill, and that if a debate should take place it should be all on one side?

Certainly not.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 53.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Conlan, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davin, William.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killane, James Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.

The Ceann Comhairle has certified the Appropriation Bill as a Money Bill.

Top
Share