asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the total sterling assets held by (a) the Central Bank, (b) the Government (including the Post Office, Law Courts, the Department of Social Welfare and all other Government Departments and agencies), (c) associated banks, and (d) other persons, firms or corporations, on the 18th February, 1948, and the 13th June, 1951, showing in each case the nominal value and the market value of such assets.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sterling Assets.
The available information regarding (a), (b) and (c) is as follows for the nearest convenient dates to those mentioned by the Deputy:—
|
1948 |
1951 |
|
|
£ million |
£ million |
|
|
(a) Central Bank (31 March) |
44.1 |
80.1 |
|
That is an additional £36,000,000. |
||
|
(b) Government (includ- ing the Courts of Justice) (31 March) |
||
|
(1) Nominal Amount |
49.7 |
56.8 |
|
That is an additional 7.1 millions. |
||
|
(2) Market value |
50.6 |
53.8 |
|
(c) Associated Banks (March Quarter) |
138.6 |
119.8 |
Particulars of the nominal amount of the sterling holdings of the Central Bank and the associated banks are not available.
As regards (d) there is no official estimate of the sterling holdings of private persons, firms and corporations.
Would the Minister state why the last Government increased the amount of investments through the Central Bank and through Government controlled funds by over £43,000,000? Further, can the Minister say was there an additional percentage and at what percentage was that money given.
Would the Minister state if these assets form part of our standing army in Britain, and in view of the shake-up which the home front has got recently, would it be a good job to withdraw them?
In answer to Deputy Briscoe, I take it that the interest on this additional £43,000,000 which the last Government put into sterling assets, was the same amount as was normal. I have not got the exact particulars, but I think there were answers on that subject given to Deputy MacBride when he accused the present Government of keeping the assets over there instead of investing them in houses here.
In answer to Deputy O'Donnell, I am afraid that Deputy O'Donnell, being a latecomer into Fine Gael, does not realise that the criticism of the present Government in relation to our external assets is that we have not spent them all. He does not realise that this particular answer shows that while the Coalition groups are criticising the Government for keeping any money in external assets they in fact increased them through the Central Bank and through Government funds by £43,000,000 during the three years they were in office.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, would the Taoiseach solve the difference of opinion that is quite clear between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for External Affairs, because the Minister for Finance says that the previous Government spent all the external assets and the Minister for External Affairs now says that they increased the external assets?
The Minister has not quite answered the question I put to him. Is the Minister aware that, on the one hand, Deputy McGilligan kept indicating to this House that investment in British securities or in British paper was investment in waste paper, and can he say why, holding that view, the Minister for Finance for the Coalition Government increased by £43,000,000 the investment of State-controlled money?
Surely that is a separate question.
Further, is the Minister aware that only last night Deputy MacBride in this House accused this Government of withholding from this nation money that could be used for housing, and so on, and that we were, in fact, conducting treasonable activity in giving this money to Britain for war purposes instead of using it for homes and for our own economy?
What is the question?
The question is: Can the Minister state why the previous administration took this step?
That is a separate question.
Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the prosperity which ensued during the régime of the inter-Party Government, our assets increased?
(Interruptions).
In answer to Deputy Dockrell——
The question was not relevant to the question on the Paper. I cannot allow it.
I would like to say in answer to Deputy Dockrell——
I have already ruled that the question is not relevant and the Minister's answer is, therefore, equally irrelevant.
Deputy Dockrell put a supplementary.
May I give due notice that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
Is it now clear that all the sterling assets have not been dissipated? We have more than ever. There is no need to lament in Mayo next week.