§ 56. Mr. RADFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state precisely the services for which the Bank of England charged the Government £1,095,199 during the year 1925£26?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe charge in question covers the management in 1924–25 of registered stocks to the nominal value of over £3,860 millions and of bonds to the nominal value of over £1,759 millions (of which nearly £800 millions are registered), as well as the issue of Treasury Bills to the value of over £2,442 millions. It covers the control of some 2½ million stock accounts, payment of over 9 million dividends or coupons, the cancellation of over a million bonds or stock certificates, and the registration of over 750,000 transfers, implying in a large number of cases the issue of powers of attorney and considerable correspondence.
§ Mr. RADFORDCan the right hon. Gentleman say if the remuneration for acting as registrars of stocks, etc., is based on some definite percentage, or on a lump sum?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI should not attempt to answer such a question without proper notice, but since attention has been called to this matter in the public Press and in the House of Commons I am having it made the subject of careful examination, in common with every other branch of our expenditure.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONCan the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the case that the Bank of England has voluntarily reduced its charges under this head for future years by £145,000 and, if so, will he take steps to recover sums which have evidently been paid in excess in previous years?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is certainly true that the current Estimates provide only £970,000 under this head, as against the figure of £1,095,000 mentioned in the question. That, I think, is an indication of the continuous efforts which are being made to secure this all-important service being discharged with a minimum cost to the public.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIf this be an indication that excessive charges have been made to the Treasury in the past, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the return of those excessive payments that have been made?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe fact that an economy is achieved in the future is no 988 guarantee or proof that an excessive charge has been made in the past. An improvement in organisation, a certain alteration in method, a certain economy in method, may yield a result which saves the public money, but in no way offers a ground for a retrospective claim.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs this business a monopoly? Must it only be performed by the Bank of England, or could the right hon. Gentleman have tenders from the other great banks?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf the hon. and gallant Member wishes to investigate and debate the whole relations and varying functions of the Bank of England and its relationship to the Exchequer and the State generally, it would afford most interesting material for debate, but it is quite out of the range of anything that has been dealt with in this question.
§ Mr. W. THORNEHas the right hon. Gentleman read the speech made on this subject in the other House a few days ago and, if so, is he prepared, in view of what he has said, to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the whole banking system?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI read Lord Arnold's speech, or the portions that were printed in the daily Press, which I think gave the point in question, but I certainly saw nothing that would justify the very disturbing process of an inquiry into the relations of the Bank of England to the other banks.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENHas the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that any firm of chartered accountants would do the work for such a small sum of money?