Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 seem to be introductory to No. 5.
Central Bank Bill, 1942—From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
Section 7. In page 5, paragraph (b), line 43, before the word "any" the words "a Minister of State or" inserted; and in line 44 the words and brackets "(whether of general or local jurisdiction)" deleted.
The first five amendments I suggest might with advantage be taken together. The kernel of the amendment to which the first five amendments refer is contained in No. 5, which is an attempt to define the meaning of "public authority." We did not attempt to define "public authority" originally in the Bill as drafted, and questions have been asked as to what definition we propose to give to it. Of course, if there were any difficulty, about it, the question might have to go to the courts, and my personal attitude was that "public authority" as set out in Section 7 of the Act should be interpreted as widely as possible. I was not anxious to exclude any public authority or any body that could possibly be regarded as a public authority from the section, but I was informed by legal authority that there are Acts in existence where "public authority" is defined for specific purposes—housing and other things—and that, if the matter were raised and brought to the courts, the courts might feel that they were bound by the definitions already in existence and the object I had in view, that is, to give it a wide and liberal interpretation, might not be achieved. I was advised that the wisest thing, if I wanted a liberal and wide interpretation, would be to define "public authority" and that I have attempted to do in the amendment that is down here from the Seanad— No. 5. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are consequential on that.
How does the Minister propose to bring in "including the provision of credit" as a function of a public authority?
That is amendment No. 5.
Are you taking them in order?
The main principle is in No. 5, but they will be put separately eventually, and seriatim.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
Section 7. In page 6, paragraph (i), line 18, the words and brackets "(whether of general or local jurisdiction)" and also the words "in the State" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
Section 7. In page 6, before paragraph (k), a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
(k) keep registers of securities of the State.
What is intended to be the effect of this amendment?
In case local authorities do use the section, there would have to be registers kept.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
Section 7. In page 6, paragraph (k), lines 31 and 32, the words "or statutory body" deleted; and in lines 32 and 33 the words "or body" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
Section 7. In page 6, at the end of the section a new sub-section added as follows:—
(2) Each of the following bodies shall be a public authority for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section, and the expression "public authority" shall in that sub-section be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—
(a) a commission, board, or other body (whether corporate or unincorporated) charged by law with the execution throughout the State of functions of government or public administration or with the administration throughout the State of any public service (including the provision of credit but excluding transport), and
(b) a corporation, council, committee, or other body (whether corporate or incorporated) charged by law with the execution of functions of local government within a defined area of the State or the execution of functions of public administration or public service (other than transport) of a local character.
Will the Minister explain what is intended to be the interpretation of "public authority"? The sentence in brackets in the latter part of paragraph (a) states "including the provision of credit but excluding transport."
The Agricultural Credit Corporation is a body that it is intended to include, as also the Industrial Credit Corporation.
I am afraid the Minister is libelling that institution. Restricting credit would more adequately describe it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—
New section. In page 10, before Section 16, a new section inserted as follows:—
16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section of this section, every appointment under sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Currency Act of an officer or servant of the bank shall be made by competition (including a qualifying or competitive test in Irish) to be conducted according to regulations to be made by the board, and the board may, in relation to any such competition, impose such conditions of entry, limitations, and safeguards as it thinks proper.
(2) The foregoing sub-section of this section shall not apply to appointment to a position in respect of which appointment by competition is, in the opinion of the board, unsuitable.
I move:—
In line 6 of the amendment, before the word "competition" to insert the word "open", and in line 10, after the word "proper", to add the words "provided that no condition shall be imposed prescribing a restricted method of nomination for entry to any such competition".
When the Central Bank Bill was going through I put down an amendment to the effect that examinations for the clerical staff should be by open competition, with Irish as one of the subjects in the syllabus. For reasons that I need not go into now, I was unable to put it before the Dáil. The matter was, however, reopened in the Seanad and there the Minister accepted the principle, at all events, that Irish was to be one of the necessary subjects for competitive examinations for the clerical staff. I think the Minister went further with regard to what he called the class of positions for which competition would be open and rather extended that beyond the clerical staff. In my original amendment I wanted to eliminate what I call the very pernicious element of nomination which prevails at present in the banks. While at the present time positions in the banks are nominally open to competition, there is also a pernicious system of nomination, which permits those in control to handpick their staff according to their own prejudices, likes or dislikes.
I do not think in the amendment that came from the Seanad the Minister has accepted unreservedly the principle of doing away with nomination and it is on that account that I have put down my amendment. I think it necessary to emphasise that in a measure like the Central Bank Bill if we are to have any sort of democratic control at all. This question of nomination with regard to banks is very pernicious, and as the central bank, with the development of things, will probably be the people's bank— though as the Bill passed this House we are keeping very little control—I foresee the time when we will have control. I say that it would not be in keeping with democratic principles if we allowed nomination to stand for the clerical staff. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment and to do away with the possibility of nomination for clerical appointments.
I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment. The amendment that has come from the Seanad, which was moved by myself, is possibly not in the exact form in which it was moved by the Senator who moved the other amendment. I had some discussion with the Senator who moved an amendment and I think he accepted the point of view that I was anxious for competition, and keenly anxious, of course, that Irish should get a proper place. The Senator accepted an amended form of the amendment put down by him. I am all out for competition, open competition in suitable places.
I think the Deputy is mixing up this bank with the ordinary commercial banks, and seems to imagine that we will have dealings here somewhat like those of commercial banks. We will not have any branches at all. We will have one office and a relatively small staff. The basis of the staff will be the present Currency Commission staff. I do not think it is going to be very much enlarged in the beginning. The Currency Commission staff has not had a vacancy for a male employee for five years, and has not had a vacancy for a female employee in two years. If we adopt the Deputy's suggestion, and have to advertise open competition for perhaps one vacancy in two years, according to my experience—and I think it is the experience of the House —we will probably have 1,000 applicants for one clerical appointment, after expending several hundred pounds in hiring examination halls, engaging examiners, for perhaps one or two vacancies that might occur within two years. I think that would be wasteful expenditure. What is required is in the amendment that I have asked the House to accept from the Seanad. It secures competition, and that proper regulations will be made for the subjects, including Irish, that applicants will have to be examined in.
I am also advised that open competition would mean that we would not be in a position to have an interview board as part of the examination system. I think for a bank, even for commercial banks, and for the central bank, an interview board is essential. It is not necessarily the person who has the highest intellectual qualifications—although they are very desirable —that would be the best possible person for the staff of a bank or for the staff of the central bank. In the central bank staff every individual, the most junior clerical officer or typist will probably have to deal with currency and to handle currency in the ordinary daily duties, and it would be most important that the character of every person going into the service of the bank should be very thoroughly examined. The Civil Service is a big organisation and some other place could be found for a person not found suitable, but you cannot do that with a small staff. Therefore, you have to be careful in selecting a staff. I think the amendment I proposed meets the situation, indicating as it does that the House would like to secure that there would not be any suggestion of any impropriety in the way people from any part of the country would be chosen as members of that staff. I think the amendment secures that that will not be the case. As far as the commercial banks are concerned, my experience has been—though I have not known the directors—that if I asked for a nomination for anybody I had not any difficulty in getting it for people who wrote to me from different parts of the country. I was facilitated. I think it will be the same here.
I am not confusing the commercial banks with the central bank. I am afraid the Minister is trying to adopt the worst principle of the commercial banks, of which I complain, whereby appointments are going to be made by prejudice and patronage. The Minister seems to have had the same experience as I have had. It is very easy to get a nomination, but you have very little chance of getting your nominee any place on the staff, when it comes to be chosen afterwards, if he is of a particular kind. The whole financial activities of this country are confined practically to three out of the eight or nine banks that we have operating here, and these banks are, in the main, manned by people whose sympathies and whose loyalties are given to a country other than their own. I do not want that sort of principle, or that sort of element, to come into the central bank in its principles of administration. I quite realise that the central bank is only another name for the Currency Commission. The basis of its operations, it seems to me, has not been extended much beyond that of the Currency Commission which we have operating at the moment.
If the Minister is not going to accept my point of view, I suppose there is no use pushing this amendment to a division. I am very sorry that the Minister, with his sound Irish democratic ideas, is not prepared to fall in with my point of view, and with what I am aiming at. In this amendment I am trying to kill the old pernicious system of patronage and prejudice, and I am sorry that the Minister is not going to help me out. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10:—
7. Section 36. In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), page 19, lines 2 and 3 the words "the rate of not more than two and one-half per cent. per annum" deleted and the words "such rate, not exceeding two and one-half per cent. per annum, as shall from time to time be appointed in that behalf by the Minister" substituted therefor.
8. Section 36. In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), page 19, lines 9 and 10, the words "the rate of not more than two and one-half per cent. per annum" deleted and the words "such rate, not exceeding two and one-half per cent. per annum, as shall from time to time be appointed in that behalf by the Minister" substituted therefor.
9. Section 36. In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), page 19, lines 16 and 17, the words "the rate of not more than three per cent. per annum" deleted and the words "such rate, not exceeding three per cent. per annum, as shall from time to time be appointed in that behalf by the Minister" substituted therefor.
10. Section 38. In sub-section (2), page 20, line 9, the words "two and one-half per cent. per annum" deleted and the words "such rate, not exceeding two and one-half per cent. per annum, as shall from time to time be appointed by the Minister" substituted therefor.
These amendments were put down by myself to the Bill when it went to the Seanad. The object of them is to implement an amendment that was put on the Dáil Order Paper by Deputy Mulcahy. The full implementation of that amendment had not been achieved before the Bill left the Dáil. On a further examination we found that the principle I agreed to accept in Deputy Mulcahy's amendment should be carried further in Sections 36 and 38 of the Bill. I am proposing in these amendments to carry out the full principle of his amendment in these sections.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:—
Section 48. In page 26, sub-section (1), line 36, the words "with the concurrence of" deleted and the words "after consultation with" substituted therefor.
This amendment makes a change that some members of the Seanad desired to have made. The words "with the concurrence of the Board", in Section 48, were objected to. I suggested instead the words "after consultation with", and my suggestion was accepted by the Seanad. I am now proposing its acceptance here.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:—
In page 27, Section 50, sub-section (1), to delete all words after the word "such" in line 22 to the end of the sub-section, and to insert the words "balances as may be necessary for the purpose".
This is an amendment to meet certain objections that were made by people speaking on behalf of the banks, that in Section 50 the words in the section, as passed by the Dáil, might make the section more difficult to operate. I agreed in the Seanad to accept the words set out in the amendment, "balances as may be necessary for the purpose", and I am now asking the Committee to agree to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
The Seanad will be notified of the agreement of the Dáil to all these amendments.