asked the Minister for Finance what notice he received from the banks and what consultations took place between the banks and him prior to their closure; if he was aware of this closure before it took place; and what representations, if any, he made to the banks on this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Banks' Closure.
26.
As I stated in reply to a question on 26th May, 1970, there is no law requiring the banks to stay open. The question of giving notice did not, therefore, arise. My Department was not aware of the closure before it took place and was not in a position to consider making representations.
May I ask the Minister if, in view of the serious economic and social dislocation caused by the current dispute, acting jointly with the Minister for Labour, he will intervene to bring both parties together with a view to their reopening negotiations on this dispute, having regard to the prolonged nature of the dispute?
There is a question of that nature coming up tomorrow or the day after and I do not think I would be in order in anticipating the reply.
When the Minister says there is no law requiring the banks to stay open, what he should say is that there is no statute requiring the banks to stay open. It is quite obvious that Common Law requires them to stay open, otherwise the necessity for the Bank Holidays Act, 1871, and the Public Holidays Act, 1924, would never have arisen.
I have already indicated that anybody who is dissatisfied with the explanation given by the banks can have recourse to legal proceedings. I do not propose to try to set out here what the law is as between the parties involved.
Could the Minister tell me if there was a statutory provision which has been repealed since the 1966 banks' strike?
No.
I appeal to the Minister not to depend on parliamentary niceties at this stage but to intervene in the dispute. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, intervened in the newspaper dispute in England.
These supplementary questions do not arise on Question No. 26.
I hope the Deputy is not trying to import on us the kind of industrial relations they have in Britain.
At least their Prime Minister intervened in an attempt to settle a dispute.
As the Minister has pointed out the possibility of legal action, will he say if in defence of public interest he will institute such legal action against the banks? Is this not an obvious way to bring pressure to bear on them if the Minister really wants a solution?
That does not arise on Question No. 26. Question No. 26 deals with the notice given by banks. I am now calling Question No. 27.