This additional power was not obtained until 1929, the delay being caused by the need to consult the relevant local authorities (1921), the City Council thinking the time was not opportune (1922), sufficient matter not being received from the other Committees (1923), and proposals not of sufficient importance to justify the promotion of such a Bill (1924). Additionally (in October 1923), it was the view of the Committee that due to the possibility of the promotion of a public Bill for powers to be granted to the larger Municipalities to establish Municipal Banks, it was inadvisable to take action for obtaining special powers of the nature proposed at that time.

On  July 7th 1924 the Bank Committee discussed the question of the desirability of obtaining powers in respect of various matters and resolved that the Town Clerk be instructed to prepare draft clauses for submission to the next meeting of the Committee with reference to the following:

1.         To enable deposits to be made in the Bank by Registrars of County Courts in compensation and other cases;

2.         An amendment of the Birmingham Corporation Act 1919, to provide that the Corporation may alter or rescind the Regulations of the Bank, or prescribe new Regulations, with the approval of the Treasury. It was considered that the provision of the 1919 Act, empowering the Treasury to prescribe Regulations for the control of the Bank was unsatisfactory, it being felt that the powers conferred upon the Bank by the Regulations should not be interfered with except on the initiative of the Corporation;

3.         Power to enable the establishment of branches in the area of adjacent local Authorities, at the request or with the consent of such Authorities;

4.        Power for the Bank to act as directed by the Corporation in the receipt or payment of any sum due to, or payable by, the Corporation or the Overseers of the Poor for the Parishes of Birmingham and Handsworth.

The Town Clerk pointed out that should the Bank desire to obtain these powers, it would be a matter for consideration, in the event of the requirements of other Committees of the Corporation for additional powers being negligible, as to whether it would be desirable to take steps to promote a Bill mainly for the purposes of the Bank, in the ensuing session of Parliament in view of the expense involved, and other considerations. It was intimated that this aspect of the matter would be considered when the Parliamentary Sub-Committee of the General Purposes Committee had before them the proposals of the other Committees of the Corporation.

The General Manager was directed to ascertain the views of the adjacent Local Authorities on the question of obtaining powers to establish branches, in areas outside the City, with the consent of the Local Authority concerned.

The Town Clerk reported on October 20th 1924  that the question of promoting a Bill for the obtaining of further powers by the Corporation in the ensuing session of Parliament had been considered by the General Purposes Committee, who had decided not to proceed in the matter this year.

In  June 1925, the Town Clerk asked to be informed by the first week in July whether the Bank desired, in the event of a Parliamentary Bill being promoted in the next Session of Parliament, to include Clauses for further powers.

The question as to the possibility of a branch in the Borough of Smethwick had been raised recently at a meeting of the Smethwick Council, and arrangements had been made for a meeting to take place between the General Manager and the Town Clerk and Borough Treasurer of Smethwick to discuss the question.

The Town Clerk was therefore informed that the Bank may desire a draft Clause included in the projected Bill to enable the establishment of branches in the area of adjacent local Authorities at the request or with the consent of such Authorities, if  Smethwick made official representations to have a branch in their borough.

However, in November 1925, the Committee were informed that it had been decided that no General Powers Bill would be promoted in the ensuing Session of Parliament. The next opportunity for a Parliamentary Bill was raised in June 1926, but although no conclusion had been reached in the discussions with Smethwick by that date, the Bank's General Purposes Sub-Committee considered the general question of securing further powers, or amending existing powers, and recommended as follows in a comprehensive report:

1.        That powers be sought to grant advances to persons desiring to purchase their permanent allotments. Having regard to the prominence which has been given to this matter by many public speakers, and to the importance of allotments, your Sub-Committee feel that power to advance money in this way could appropriately be given to the Bank.

2.         That the present limitation on deposits of £500 per year should be removed. The limitation acts harshly, upon trade unions, and as a result has practically prevented trade union money being placed with this Bank. In 1922 the Bank endeavoured to have fixed a limit of £5,000 for any one trade union, but HM Treasury objected on the ground that in periods of emergency the money would be withdrawn in bulk, which would present some difficulty. Having regard to the resources of the Corporation and the powers which the City Council possess of obtaining money at short notice, and having further regard to the past experience of this Bank, your Sub-Committee do not consider the request for the removal of the limitation to be unreasonable and believe that Parliament would support their view.

3.        That power be sought to create a special Investment Department of the Bank into which moneys could be transferred from the Ordinary Department. This provision is available in all Trustee Savings Banks, and your Sub-Committee see no reason why the Bank should not have the same facility. It is felt that money leaves the Bank, or is not attracted to the Bank, because a higher rate of interest than 3½% cannot be paid, whereas it would be possible o grant a slightly higher rate if the money was deposited in multiples of £50 and was not withdrawable under three months' notice. The desire of your Sub-Committee is that as much as possible shall be attracted to the City rather than be invested elsewhere.

4.         That power be sought to open Branches of the Bank in areas which adjoin Birmingham. The present restriction of the Bank to the City area raises difficulties in the House Purchase Department, particularly as regards Smethwick, Oldbury, Perry Barr, and Sutton Coldfield. Houses which are just over the border cannot be purchased by depositors in the Bank because of the fact that they are outside the City. Conferences have taken place with West Bromwich and Smethwick representatives, who have intimated their preparedness to support any application for powers which Birmingham might make and to give evidence before any Parliamentary Committee if so desired.

5.        That the present restriction on Joint Accounts should be removed. Under the present Regulations in the case of death of one party to the joint account money cannot be paid to the survivor without the production of a certificate to the effect that Estate Duty has been paid and a stamped receipt for Legacy and Succession Duty or a certificate that Legacy and Succession Duty is not payable. This requirement affects all accounts where the sum involved is over £100. The opening of a joint account is usually a matter of convenience, so that a husband or wife may make deposits or effect withdrawals without much trouble, and during lifetime no restriction operates against it, but immediately one of the parties dies the procedure indicated above comes into force, with the result that considerable irritation and annoyance is caused to survivors. The right of the survivor to payment of the moneys after the procedure indicated has been followed cannot be questioned. An appeal was made to the Treasury to amend the Regulation so as to avoid this procedure, but they were not prepared to assent to an amendment by Regulation. In two recent cases with which your Committee have been concerned, the survivors - both of whom are widows - were much upset at the course which had to be adopted, and as a result of the claim which they made to the money the Inland Revenue Authorities made no demand against the accounts and consequently there was no payment of duty. The Committee will appreciate that if the survivor does not inform the Bank of the death of the other party to the account, withdrawals can continue to be effected on the account even to the withdrawal of the last penny and no question would be raised, but immediately the survivor notifies the Bank that one party to the account has died, then the survivor is temporarily prevented from operating the account.

6.         That power should be obtained whereby deposits can be made by the Birmingham County Court in respect of workmen's compensation and other cases. The Treasury hold the view that such deposits are restricted to the Post Office Savings Bank, but your Sub-Committee would point out that when the County Courts Act of 1888 and the Investments Act of 1900 were passed no Municipal Bank existed, and that if the argument of the Treasury is correct there is good reason now why in Birmingham the limitation should be removed. This power would be beneficial to the recipients  as they would get at least 1% more interest. Applications have been made by Solicitors in the Birmingham County Court for moneys to be placed in this Bank, but the County Court Rules apparently do not enable such action to be taken. Local trade union leaders have made representations on the matter, and can be relied upon to support any application which is made.

7.        That power be sought whereby the Bank can, in respect of leasehold properties in mortgage to the Bank, pay the ground rent direct and charge the sum to the account of the Mortgagor. This facility would save considerable labour and expense in calling for the production of ground rent receipts, and is preferable in every way to the present practice.

Your Sub-Committee realise that after consultation with Parliamentary Agents it may be found that one or other of the proposals may be prejudicial to the Bank in the sense that an opening would arise for the Treasury to review the general working arrangements of the Bank, and while your Sub-Committee feel that every effort should be made to secure these powers, they, nevertheless, realise that it is undesirable to introduce a matter which would give rise to a general survey of the Bank's powers by the Treasury. It may be necessary, therefore, for the Town Clerk, City Treasurer and General Manager to confer with Parliamentary Agents on some of these points, and if after so doing it is clear that serious objection is likely to be raised to any of the matters mentioned in this report, it would be desirable that the Chairman of the General Committee - Alderman Bower and the Chairman of the General Purposes Sub-Committee - Alderman Lovsey - should be in a position to sanction the withdrawal of any particular clause, or decide that the clause shall go forward; and your Sub-Committee recommend that they be empowered accordingly.

The Bank Committee agreed with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee but it appears that the City Council did not submit a Parliamentary Bill until the following year, and the resulting legislation (the Birmingham Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1929) only extended the Bank's powers in two respects:

(1) advances could be made for a depositor to purchase an allotment (Section 56); and

(2) branches could be opened in adjoining Local Authorities (Section 57).

The Act obtained Royal Assent on December 20th 1929.

The next legislation proposed by the City in which the Bank was able to participate came in 1935. The Bank's General Purposes Sub-Committee (at its meeting held on April 23rd 1934) proposed that three clauses be included in a contemplated General Powers Bill to extend the Bank's powers:

(1) to advance money to enable any person, society or body to build a dwellinghouse or dwellinghouses in the City of Birmingham;

(2) to advance money to enable any person, Society or body to build, purchase or acquire a dwellinghouse or dwellinghouses in any area adjoining the City of Birmingham;

(3) to take Police Court proceedings in connection with the mutilation of passbooks.

The intention of Clause (1) was to enable the Bank to make advances for building houses. This power was already granted to the Corporation itself by Section 7 of the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1919, but Section 12 of the same Act limited the Bank to make advances for purchase only. This type of advance was available from Building Societies but the Bank's existing powers only allowed for Progressive Mortgages for this class of business.

Clause (2) combined the proposed powers of Clause (1) with the ability to make advances on property in areas adjoining the City. However, the clause did not include any provision for the Bank's powers to be subject to the agreement of the relevant local authority - the Sub-Committee stating that  the Bank is considerably hampered by the limitation of the existing powers, which necessitates the Bank obtaining the consent of the Local Authority of the adjoining area to establish a branch bank before an advance for house purchase can be made. Having regard to the considerable building developments which are taking place on the boundary and outskirts of the city, and the fact that it is not always possible to obtain the above-mentioned consent of the local authority to establish Branches, your Sub-Committee consider that the proposed extension of the Bank's powers should be obtained.

For some time the Bank had had under consideration the question of making provision against the tampering or mutilation of pass books, and had considered a report prepared by the Town Clerk on the subject, after consultation with Sir Stuart Robertson, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. From the report it appeared that the courses open to the Committee were either to secure amendments to the regulations making the pass book the property of the Corporation and having power to call in a mutilated pass book and to impose a charge for a new book; or alternatively, to obtain definite powers authorising proceedings in such cases.

In the event, only the powers sought in Clauses (1) and (2) were sanctioned, these being combined into Section 93 of the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1935. Royal Assent was granted on August 2nd 1935.

The following year, the Bank again wished to extend its powers in relation to its house purchase facility in order that a depositor having a mortgage with another lender could transfer that loan to the Bank. A suitable clause was prepared, but the Treasury raised a query by asking for information as to the intention of the clause. The Committee approved of the Town Clerk's suggestion that he, in consultation with the General Manager, should forward a suitable reply to HM Treasury explaining that the required power related to additional advances or transfer of existing mortgages and was not intended to apply to commercial or industrial properties.

Subsequently, the Town Clerk informed the Committee that an addition had been to made to the Clauses in the Birmingham Corporation Bill, after consultation with the Chairman, Councillor Martineau and the General Manager, in order to meet the views of the Treasury that advances should not be made on security of a hazardous or speculative nature. The proviso inserted in the Bill made it clear that in ascertaining the value of an estate for the purpose of an advance there shall be excluded the value of any building other than (a) a dwellinghouse or (b) a dwellinghouse partly used for some other purpose when the value of the part so used does not exceed one half the value of the whole building or £500 whichever is the less. The Treasury expressed their agreement with the additional proviso.

The resulting legislation was Clause 32 of the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1936. The Act received the Royal Assent on July 31st 1936.

This piece of legislation directly relevant to the Bank was the last prior to the enactment of the National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham Municipal Bank Act 1976 that transferred the Bank's status to a Trustee Savings Bank.

The necessity of using legislation to extend the Bank's powers was often a slow and cumbersome process. The main means of changing the Bank's procedures was additions or amendments of its Regulations - a process overseen by the Treasury and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

                                                                                               BACK TO THE TOP                         Continued ....