asked the Minister for Supplies whether he intends to inform Dáil Eireann of the grounds on which he consented to the increased bank charges now in operation and whether in approving of these increases he adverted to the principle underlying Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, 1941.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bank Charges.
asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state the grounds on which the joint stock banks were permitted to increase to their customers the fee charged for keeping current accounts.
I propose to take questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
It is not my intention to enter into a detailed explanation of the grounds upon which the recent increase in bank charges was approved by me since to do so would involve the disclosure of matters of a highly confidential nature, affecting the affairs of the banks concerned, which were made available only for the purpose of the investigation carried out in my Department. This decision is in accordance with the practice hitherto observed by my Department in connection with price investigations.
In the course of the public announcement made following the decision it was pointed out that, making due allowance for all relevant factors including on the one hand the increase in the cost of carrying on the banks' operations and on the other the general reduction in the rates of interest which may be earned on the banks' assets, I had come to the conclusion, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, that I would not be justified in refusing to sanction the increased bank charges.
In taking this decision the principle underlying the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, 1941, was borne in mind, but in the special circumstances of the case due regard had to be given to the terms and conditions of employment in the banks which, until February, 1941, were largely covered by the Arbitration Award of 1920, and since February, 1941, by the Wylie Arbitration Award.
In view of the fact that the joint stock banks have all paid large dividends in respect of the last 12 months, how does the Minister consider it just that employers, who are very often at the present time going virtually without profit to keep their own men in employment, should be saddled with additional charges on their bank accounts by institutions which are earning at the present time higher profits than almost any other institution in this country? Will he tell the House how he can justify the wage-earner with £2 10/- per week being forbidden to get any increase whatever, except by his licence, and then a very small percentage, when he permits the banks of the country substantially to add to their revenues by imposing a new charge in this time of unprecedented difficulty on the mercantile community of the country?
I think I have answered the Deputy's supplementary question already.
Surely the Minister will tell the House some reason why he forbids, under the excess profits provisions of the Finance Act, individual merchants and business men from making more than 7 per cent. on their issued capital, why he forbids the working man who is in receipt of £2 or £2 5/- per week from getting any increase in wages, while he permits the banks to put a new burden on their customers, when they are in fact paying larger dividends than almost any other mercantile enterprise in the country?
I am not accepting that the facts are as stated by the Deputy. I think they are all incorrect but, in reply to the general question, I can add nothing to what I have already said, that, having examined all the facts, I came to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to refuse consent in this case.
Would the Minister say that it would be unreasonable for the banks to bear any part of this charge out of the large profits which they are at present making, although every body else is put to the pin of their collar? Surely these charges, if they did amount to £150,000 per year, could be met out of the very substantial profits the banks are making?
The Deputy should find out something more about it.
Surely the Minister has seen the reports of the banks in respect of their 12 months' working, showing the volume of profits and the size of the dividends they propose to distribute to their shareholders? Out of that fund, surely this money could have been found, without blistering the unfortunate citizens who are struggling with adversity at the present time, as the Minister well knows?
Is the Minister aware of the effect of this increase on some struggling firms? For instance, in the case of a creamery in my district, its charges have been multiplied 30 times by this change.
Would the Minister say why this principle was not adopted in the case of road workers in Cork County who got an increase of 2/6 a week and which increase his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, refused to sanction, although the chairman of the county council, who is also a member of this House, said that their average wages did not exceed 24/- per week, considering the number of weeks for which they were employed?
That is a separate question.
There is a part of this question which refers deliberately to Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, and which asks the Minister, for the benefit of the House and the country, to compare the attitude of the Government in regard to the joint stock banks and in regard to the 24/- a week labourer. Surely the House ought to be given the grounds on which the Minister permits an increase in the joint stock banks revenues, but prohibits, under Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, the 24/- a week labourer from getting an increase? If the people are to go mad, they should be told that. It is certainly enough to madden men who are getting 24/- a week.
Without disclosing the confidential matters which must, in the public interest, not be disclosed, could he not tell us on what grounds the Government departed from the principle upon which Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order was based in sanctioning this increase of bank charges?
It has not been departed from.
It has not? That is a very effective reply.