asked the Minister for Finance if he will state for the period of eight years ended 31st March, 1951, the total amount paid by the Central Bank of Ireland to the Exchequer in respect of surplus income, and give an estimate of the total amount so payable over the same period if, following the normal bank liquidity ratio, only one-third of the assets of the Legal Tender Note Fund had been held in securities yielding the average rate of interest in fact earned by the Central Bank on its securities, and the remaining two-thirds of the said assets had been held in securities yielding an average 3 per cent.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Surplus Income of Central Bank.
The answer to the first part of the question is £2,880,000. The "normal bank liquidity ratio" mentioned in the second part of the question has no relation to any recognised liquidity standard of a central bank. The earning of profit forms no part of the primary functions of central banks which may forgo revenue in pursuance of their obligations to protect the monetary situation. Accordingly, there would be no rational or factual basis for endeavouring to make an estimate on the lines mentioned.
The Minister was not asked to give us a lecture on the powers and the responsibilities of the Central Bank. He was asked to give a figure. Is he not capable of making up a figure?
I am not capable of making up a figure because I do not do that. I tell the truth.
Is the Minister not capable of reading out a figure because he is certainly capable of making it up?
May I inquire is there not provision in the Central Bank Act to permit the Central Bank to take the initiative in getting approval from the Government to pursue the very course adumbrated as possible in the last part of the question?
I think the Deputy had better read the question.
Is that not so?
If the Deputy reads the question he will find that the supplementary is completely irrelevant.
No, no.
Is the Minister not able to produce the estimate asked for?
I am not going to enter upon such a silly and futile surmise as is suggested here.
Is it not a fact that the figure would be £8,000,000 and not the £2,800,000 which the Minister stated?