asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the reason given by the banks for increasing their charges to the public by a possible three thousand per cent. is based on the allegation that they have to pay their staffs higher salaries and will he have inquiries made into this matter so as to ascertain (1) if the settlement with their staffs recently made by arbitration was not more favourable to the banks than the conditions previously prevailing, and (2) if the resources and reserves held by the banks are sufficiently strong to enable them to go through the present crisis without imposing this increased burden on a public at present so financially enfeebled.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bank Charges.
asked the Minister for Finance if he has made any representations to the banks with reference to the additional charges to customers which the banks propose to enforce at a time when traders in the country are in extreme difficulties.
asked the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been directed to the proposed increased charges which the joint stock banks in Eire intend to levy on citizens of the State, and, if so, whether he will take effective steps forthwith to prevent the enforcement of the proposed levy or any other additional charges which the banks may have in mind.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will say whether the Irish banks before increasing their charges for keeping accounts consulted him in the matter; whether he anticipates a considerable reduction in revenue from stamps due to the increase in the number of cash payments, and if it is his intention to take any action to ensure that a more equitable adjustment in the charge will be made.
I propose to take questions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 together. I was not consulted before the decision was taken by the Irish Banks' Standing Committee to increase their charges to customers for keeping accounts, but since the announcement was made I have been in correspondence with the committee and have received a deputation from them. The matter is rather complicated and can hardly be dealt with in the scope of parliamentary question and answer, but I may state that my discussions with the Banks' Standing Committee are continuing. What the outcome of these is likely to be I cannot at the moment venture to say. Deputies may rest assured that the question of the public interest will not be lost to sight, as I recognise that these changes come at a time of exceeding difficulty for the trading community and for others affected by them.
As to the loss in revenue from stamps, due to possible increase in the number of cash payments, Deputies will understand that I also derive revenue from any increase in note circulation and the effect on Exchequer finances so far as I can estimate at the moment will not be considerable.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, is it conceivable that this Government will enforce the provisions of Emergency Order 83 against persons who are earning 30/- a week, and at the same time allow the joint stock banks of this country to increase their revenues by the proposed imposition of which they have notified their customers?
Seeing that the Emergency Powers Act has been invoked against the workers to prevent them securing any increase in wages, notwithstanding a very substantial increase in prices, will the Minister give the House an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to invoke the Act also against the bankers, or are they going to be allowed to get away with the swag while the workers will be allowed to suffer?
I may assure the House that all the relevant matters connected with the points raised will be borne in mind, and the question of public interest in the matter will not be lost sight of.
Surely, the Minister will be prepared to go somewhat further than he has gone. Here is a proposal in flagrant defiance of Government policy to restrict increased profits or a raising of charges, a proposal to raise charges in some cases by several hundred per cent., a proposal by the banks to burden individual customers with a charge of as high as 30 guineas per annum, while at the same time the Government prohibits an increase of wages in the case of a man with 32/-a week. Surely the Government will go further than the extremely reserved statement of the Minister to-day, and reassure the public that this outrage will not be permitted, no matter how influential the persons behind this proposed prepetration may be?
Pending the detailed consideration of the matter by the Government, will the Minister assure the House—because it may not be in session when this increase is put into operation—that the Emergency Powers Act will be operated to prevent the banks increasing charges until such time as the Government have considered the matter, and the House has had an opportunity of hearing a statement of Government policy on the subject?
In my question I have asked the Minister if he is aware that the excuse given by the banks for the increased charge is that the new arrangement with their staffs compels them to pay higher salaries. I understand that the contrary is the case, and that from the point of view of remuneration the staffs will not be any better off; in fact, they will be worse off under the new arrangement arrived at following the arbitration than they were before.
With regard to the question raised by Deputy O'Neill, it is true that the salaries of the bank officials will not be raised as a result of the arbitration, but it is also true that arising out of the recent arbitration, and the arbitration of 1920, certain heavy additional charges have to be borne by the banks in respect of salaries and pensions. This year the heavy additional charges will be close on £200,000, while next year the additional charges will be over £300,000.
With regard to the point about the stand-still order, I am at present negotiating with the banks and I regard the matter as sub judice at the moment. I should like to have an opportunity of examining the matter fully and hearing all sides, because the Minister has to act in these matters in a kind of judicial capacity. I would like to give the banks an opportunity of having their case put to me in full. I have heard the other case by way of letter and resolution. I would like to hear both sides before coming to any conclusion or arriving at any decision.
Can we have a guarantee from the Minister that the fraudulent propaganda of the banks, seeking to establish——
I do not think it is proper to make a statement of that kind.
The Deputy is making a speech.
I think the statement that these charges are rendered necessary by extra payments to bank clerks may be disposed of in view of the fact that the surplus profits of the banks are abundantly ample to pay any increased charges that may arise— whether such increased charges have materialised or not. It might be well to remember that hundreds of people in this country have had to meet increased charges and they have gladly done so because they believed they were doing something to help the State in a time of unprecedented difficulty. It would not be unreasonable to ask the banks to adopt a similar attitude.
The banks have been able to maintain a dividend of 12 and 14 per cent., and I do not think it is desirable that they should be allowed to maintain that dividend while at the same time increasing charges to their customers.
I will bear that point in mind.
The Minister has indicated his anxiety to consult with the banks on this matter. He did not consult with the workers or with the trade unions when he introduced the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order. He did not receive any deputations.
I was not asked to receive them.
Because they were not bankers?
They did not ask me to receive them.
Not being bankers, they probably would not have been received by you.