Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1976

Vol. 293 No. 4

Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The activities of friendly societies are governed by the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 to 1953. The Registry of Friendly Societies Act, 1936, vests in the Minister among other matters power to appoint the registrar of friendly societies. This Act also lays down the qualification necessary for the position of Registrar which is that he must be a barrister of not less than ten years' standing.

The purposes of the Bill now before the House are first, having regard to the change in the value of money, to up-date the financial limitations imposed by the Acts; secondly, to improve the controls on the operation of societies; and thirdly, to replace the existing requirement that the registrar should be a barrister with a provision enabling the Minister for Industry and Commerce to prescribe the qualifications required for the appointment. I propose to deal with these matters separately, starting with the measures affecting the activities and responsibilities of friendly societies, and their branches.

Societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts may be divided into three main groups, which are one, friendly societies and branches, two, benevolent societies and three, specially authorised societies.

The kind of activities carried out by these societies is not often understood, or indeed appreciated, in terms of their social overtones. I will, therefore, provide a very brief outline of their functions.

Before doing so, however, I should like to draw a clear distinction as between these societies and societies which are known as industrial and provident societies. The latter are generally, though not always, co-operative enterprises formed under the industrial and provident societies code. Agricultural co-operatives, for example, and indeed credit unions, are industrial and provident societies. These bodies have legal personality unlike societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. Though, historically, co-operatives were rooted in legal provisions enacted for what were called friendly societies, a distinct division in law has evolved as between co-operatives and friendly societies, despite the fact that friendly societies often embody the social motivation that generally characterises co-operatives.

I have mentioned the three main groups of societies which are registered under the friendly societies legislation. Friendly societies themselves are generally for the relief of members in sickness or in old age and for payment of sums to meet the funeral expenses of members and their wives and children. Benevolent societies, too, provide benefits but they do so in respect of persons other than members. Specially authorised societies are a different kind of operation but they, too, have a pronounced social awareness in their objects. The biggest grouping within this class is that known as the specially authorised loan societies which were formed for the purpose of creating funds by monthly or other subscription to be lent out to or invested for the members or for their benefit. Examples of other kinds of specially authorised societies are those which have been registered for the promotion of literature, science and the fine art, and for the promotion of education.

Although there is not what one would call a national awareness of the existence of these societies, the following details in relation to their operations may be informative. As at 31st December, 1974, which is the last year for which completed annual returns are available, there was a total of 177 of these societies on the register maintained by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Total membership for the same period exceeded 150,000 persons and the total benefits paid out in respect of the year 1974, whether as sickness, mortality of other benefits, came to more than £600,000. These figures will, I hope, act as indicators of the scale and usefulness of the societies we are dealing with under this Bill.

The measures proposed in the Bill deal with two aspects of their operations for most societies and imposes a new obligation, under section 4 of the Bill, on the conduct of their business by specially authorised loan societies. I will now proceed to enunciate the principles behind each section of the Bill.

All of these societies and their branches are permitted, under section 46 of the Principal Act of 1896, to accept deposits from, and to make loans to, members, subject to certain restrictions. Section 2 of the Bill now before the House is intended to allow the Minister to alter these restrictions, by regulation.

The restrictions on the operation of a loan fund by a registered society are very limited. Some of them take the form of financial limits, while others are more of a procedural nature. All of them, however, were fixed on the making of the Principal Act in 1896, and they have not been changed since, mainly because until recently there was no evidence that changes were necessary.

In recent times, however, it has been represented to the Minister that those restrictions which consist of financial limits, represent an unrealistic constraint on the operations of certain societies. The money limits concerned are a maximum investment of £200 which a member may hold in a loan fund of a society, while, as regards its lending operations, a society may not make any loan which together with any money owing by a member to the society exceeds £50. Having regard to the decline in money values since 1896, when these limits were fixed, they now bear no relationship to their original value and there is a justifiable case for their revision upwards.

It is proposed, therefore, to increase the limits to more realistic levels and section 2 of the Bill now before the House will enable this to be done by regulation. Rather than prescribe any specific new limits in the Bill, the value of which could again be undermined long before another legislative change is effected, the medium of regulation has been chosen to achieve this end, with a view to ensuring that any new limits now fixed can be reviewed at more regular intervals, and if appropriate, adjusted more frequently, in the future.

There are two other restrictions which apply to the operation of a loan fund by societies. These are, first, that a loan shall not at any time be made out of money contributed for any other purpose of the society and, second, that a society shall not hold at any one time on deposit from its members any money beyond the amount fixed by the rules and the amounts so fixed shall not exceed two-thirds of the total sums owing to the society by the members who have borrowed from the loan fund.

When it is borne in mind that the loan funds operated by societies are constituted, in part, by the deposits of members, I think the House will agree that these restrictions alone, even when taken with the financial limits I have already mentioned, are very limited. They may well have reflected the standard safeguards for depositors of their day but they fall far short of providing the kind of protection which depositors have come to expect of their investments. It is proposed, therefore, to rectify this situation and to take this opportunity to tighten up the restrictions which operate in favour of depositors in societies registered under the friendly societies legislation. Section 2 of the Bill will also empower the Minister to act in this sphere.

I might add that initially, the intention is to introduce regulations under section 2 of the Bill in respect of specially authorised loan societies only, because unlike other classes of friendly societies which operate a loan fund as a secondary activity only, specially authorised loan societies are established expressly for the purpose of creating funds by monthly or other subscriptions to be lent to or invested for the members. In other words, their sole business is borrowing and lending money.

Only 15 of these societies now exist. This is because, by virtue of the special authority dated 15th August, 1917, the only specially authorised loan societies which may now be registered are societies formed to grant loans for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture or arboriculture. Notwithstanding their small number, however, the fact that the business of these specially authorised loan societies is distinguished from the business of other friendly societies, by their exclusive concentration on a loan fund activity, emphasises the desirability that their operations should be regulated.

I should like to mention here, of course, that the measures before the House have not been motivated by any suggestion of abuse or mismanagement by societies operating a loan fund. On the contrary, I should like the House to be aware that I regard societies such as specially authorised loan societies as performing a useful social function in the credit field. Very often, they fill that lacuna that sometimes exists for certain members of our community as regards credit availability.

There will always be those members of the community who, for one reason or another, will not seek credit from, say, the conventional banking sector and this is where bodies such as specially authorised loan societies play their role. I think that their growth in scale over the years since 1917, when authority for any new registrations was abolished, can reasonably be taken as a pointer to the continued use of, and need for, this kind of society. This is particularly true in the Dublin area where the majority of specially authorised loan societies are concentrated.

Section 3 of the Bill embodies a new control in relation to the activities of friendly societies and their branches. It relates specifically to the maintaining and auditing of accounts by these societies and their branches. As the law stands at present, accounts of friendly societies can be audited by any two persons appointed by the societies, who need have no accountancy qualifications or background. In addition, existing legal requirements are silent on the form of accounts for friendly societies and their branches and it is very desirable that these accounts should conform to recognised standards.

Under section 3 of the Bill, therefore, it is proposed to take power to provide by regulation for the form of accounts and records to be kept by friendly societies and their branches, for matters relating to the audit of their accounts including the qualifications necessary for persons carrying out such auditing, and for the laying of accounts before the annual general meetings of societies by their committees of management.

I should at this point look forward to section 8 of the Bill. Sections 2 and 3 about which I have been speaking would give the Minister power to alter certain very important requirements by regulations, but the principle of Oireachtas control is fully preserved by providing, in section 8, that no regulation shall be made until a resolution approving of it shall have been passed by each House. I think these arrangements avoid on the one hand the excessive rigidity which would result from embodying provisions in legislation, and on the other hand the danger that they might be given the force of law without full and democratic examination and debate. Indeed I regard the bringing of such regulatory powers for approval before the House as of considerable importance.

I feel that it is only right that members of a specially authorised loan society should have a positive say in the running of the society and section 4 of the Bill has been drafted to meet this objective.

Before going on to deal with section 5 of the Bill which concerns the separate matter of the appointment of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, I should like to refer briefly to sections 6 and 7. Under section 77 of the Principal Act, the circumstances in which the Registrar of Friendly Societies may cancel the registration of a society and its branches are stipulated, while section 84 of the same Act relates to offences under the Act. It would be anomalous if, firstly, the circumstances under which the registrar may cancel the registration of a society and its branches and secondly the committing of an offence by a society or branch or an officer or member thereof did not include non-compliance with any regulations made under this Bill. Accordingly, sections 6 and 7 of the Bill will remove the danger of such anomalies by making the necessary adjustments to sections 77 and 84 of the Principal Act.

Section 5 of the Bill deals with the appointment of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. This section is relevant not just to friendly societies but to all other forms of societies, for example, industrial and provident societies and building societies that the registrar deals with. At present, the power to appoint the Registrar of Friendly Societies is vested in the Minister by section 1 (3) of the 1896 Act as amended by section 2 (2) (b) of the 1936 Act, while section 4 (2) of the 1936 Act contains the present stipulation that the registrar must be a barrister of not less than ten years' standing. I should emphasise, of course, that notwithstanding the Minister's power to appoint the registrar, the powers and functions of the registrar himself are statutorily conferred on him and are not at all subject to the Minister's influence. Generally, however, these powers and functions are largely of a mechanical and recording nature.

For example, the responsibilities of the registrar have mainly consisted of matters such as registration of rules, amendments to rules, resolutions for amalgamations and transfers of engagements, resolutions for conversion of societies into companies and vice versa and the acceptance of annual returns and other documents that must be filled. The registrar has also been involved in the settlement of a limited category of disputes involving societies and members and has in certain restricted circumstances, power to call special meetings of societies or to appoint inspectors to investigate their affairs.

The registrar is responsible for ensuring that annual returns of socities are made and are available to the public who may wish to inspect them. It has been found adequate, in the past, to fill this position on a part-time basis only.

Recent developments, however, which are altering the fundamental nature of the registrar's role, will considerably strain the continuation of this working arrangement, if not, indeed, make it impossible to operate in the future. The best example I can give of the changing nature of the registrar's role and his increased responsibilities, is the Building Societies Bill which is now before the House. Members will be aware that this Bill will endow the registrar with extensive powers to supervise the building society sector. Indeed, in keeping with the general drift towards arming the registrar with active supervisory and investigatory muscle to ensure that both the rights of members and the public interest are continuously respected by various societies, the Department are considering the introduction of measures to empower the registrar to supervise actively, as well, the affairs of societies other than build ing societies.

There is little doubt but that the registrar should be so equipped in modern times. Societies in many areas have outgrown the limited dimensions that characterised them in the past. For example, some industrial and provident societies, or co-operative societies as we know them best, would compare very favourably, in terms of, say, turnover with some of our largest companies. Credit unions, too, are growing fast, in terms of the shareholdings and deposits of members. There is, therefore, an indisputable need for an active but independent office of registrar, firstly, to ensure that all societies conduct their business in a proper fashion, secondly, to better protect the rights of members who may well be interested in the affairs of their society but who find their interest frustrated, and thirdly, to exercise greatly strengthened powers, with improved rights to oversee the affairs of societies.

The changing nature of the registrar's work, as manifested at present in the Building Societies Bill, may well lead to the need for qualifications other than legal expertise for the post. For example, the supervisory function envisaged for the registrar under the Building Societies Bill could conceivably call for a knowledge of accountancy and financial matters which could not normally be expected of a barrister. In other words, flexibility as regards the qualifications of the registrar is imperative in circumstances where the nature and demands of the position are undergoing substantial change.

Section 5 of the Bill is, therefore, drafted with a view to providing the Minister with the desired flexibility in determining the qualifications for the position of registrar to meet the evolving responsibilities of the position. It will also enable him, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to pitch the remuneration for the position at a level which, if a full time official is eventually required, would attract a person of the requisite standing and experience.

In summary, the purposes of the Bill are, firstly, having regard to the change in the value of money, to update the financial limitations imposed by the friendly societies Acts on the operation of a loan fund by societies, secondly, to improve the controls on the operation of societies, and, thirdly, to enable the Minister to determine the qualifications necessary for the position of Registrar of Friendly Societies so that, having regard to the evolving nature of the position, he will have the desired flexibility to appoint a person with the kind of qualifications that events will show are most suited to the position.

I recommend this Bill to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a total of 177 societies. Is that the total of friendly societies or is it of one class only of the society?

A total of all societies.

They are very fortunate societies that they are able to obtain a Bill here to improve the regulation of the societies when there are only 177 of them. They are very small operations by anybody's standards and many people would, perhaps, be out of sympathy at the moment with modern thinking. It puts them in perspective when you remember that there are over 50,000 companies registered in this country and there has not been an amendment of the Companies Act since the Consolidating Act was passed in 1963, although it is arguable that the need for an amendment to the Companies Act, 1963 is immeasurably greater than the admitted need for the alterations that are being proposed in the Friendly Societies Act of 1896. One of the difficulties in talking about friendly societies is that they tend in the public mind and, indeed, in my mind to overlap with industrial and provident societies, and it is sometimes difficult to know which is which in some cases particularly as the same registrar deals with them and with friendly societies, building societies and trade unions.

I want to make a point in relation to the numbers of what are described here as specially authorised loan societies whose activities under section 46 of the 1896 Act will be changed by regulations which the Minister will be empowered to make under section 2 of this measure. It is amazing that there are only 15 of them and since 1917 the only new societies which can be formed are those which would grant loans for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture or arboriculture. There is no fear that anybody could try to start a specially authorised loan society for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or arboriculture because the whole principle and system of people helping one another in respect of their endeavours in these fields is completely out of date now. Everybody looks to the State for help and the ACC provides the help now by way of loans for agriculture and so on which the 1896 Parliament of the time envisaged should be provided by the mutual assistance of people engaged in agriculture and other activities for one another. While it is very commendable that people should be encouraged to exercise thrift, self-reliance, mutual co-operation and assistance, the very principle of that seems in practice to have gone completely and it is to the State and semi-State bodies that people now look for that assistance.

While this Bill may be of some value to a very small number of groups of people it is not of great significance from a national point of view and while it improves the existing situation, the numbers who are affected by it are so minute that it is not of any great importance. Because it is not of any great importance, I do not propose to delay the House in relation to it except to say that I have no objection to the alteration that is proposed in respect of restrictions on those 15 specially authorised loan societies by section 46 of the 1896 Act. I have no objection to proper accountants being appointed to audit societies' accounts since it is obviously necessary that they should be properly qualified accountants. I have no objection to these supervisory committees for specially authorised loan societies on the lines of what was set up in the Credit Union Act of 1966. I have no objection to the minor consequential amendments of sections 78 and 84 of the Principal Act.

The only point on which I have any question is the proposal to change the law in relation to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, his qualifications and his appointment. Subsection (2) of section 5 states that the registrar may be removed from office by the Minister with the reasons for removal being conveyed to the registrar. In his speech the Parliamentary Secretary said that there is therefore an indisputable need for an active but an independent office of registrar. I agree fully, but how can the Parliamentary Secretary say that in introducing the Bill while at the same time saying that the registrar may be removed from office by the Minister? While that provision is there, the registrar is not independent. He may not be interfered with by the Minister in his day-to-day work; but if somebody, regardless of what position he holds, can be fired at will by a Minister or by anybody else, he cannot be said to be independent. He may endeavour to act independently in the discharge of his duties but he cannot be seen by the public to be so acting if he is subject to dismissal at will, if he has not security of tenure in the office he holds. The position of Registrar of Friendly Societies is important, not because of his being Registrar of Friendly Societies as such, of which there are about 100 or so; but, by virtue of the fact of his holding this office, he is registrar also of building societies, of industrial provident societies and, for certain purposes, registrar under the Trade Union Acts.

All these considerations are very important. During the debate in the Seanad on the Building Societies Bill the Fianna Fáil spokesman proposed that the registrar who would look after building societies and who is in fact the Registrar of Friendly Societies should be appointed by the Government and not removed from office other than on foot of a motion passed by a two-thirds majority of each House of the Oireachtas. The purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the registrar maintained his independence in view of the politically sensitive nature of his work, particularly in relation to building societies.

Consequently it is disappointing to note that in this Bill, which deals with the registrar's qualifications and appointment, there is provision for his removal at will. In accordance with the 1886 Act the registrar held office during the pleasure of the Treasury. That wording was amended in the 1936 Act so as to substitute the Minister for Industry and Commerce for "The Treasury". However, the registrar's functions then were not important. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, they were mainly of a mechanical nature and were so unimportant as to have been capable of fulfilment by a part-time official. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks here of the registrar playing a much more active and positive role in relation to the various societies under his control and of his having an investigatory function. I am very much in support of all this. Certainly, the registrar will have very important functions in relation to the building societies which, unlike the friendly societies that have been on the decline for years, are becoming an increasingly important facet of modern life. They play a significant role in our financial and commercial affairs. It is envisaged, and rightly so, in the Building Societies Bill that the registrar, whose office is the one we are talking of here, will have very much more extensive powers than was the case up to now, that he will have very important powers and powers which potentially are politically sensitive. Therefore, he should be independent of the Minister.

We believe that, if this officer is to carry out his work efficiently and is to adopt a more positive role than was the case in the past, he will need professional staff including accountants and possibly some lawyers. In the past, apart from the registrar, the office has been staffed by career civil servants, many of whom were transferred on promotion from that area as soon as they had achieved a certain level of confidence and seniority.

There is a strong case for setting up a separate office within which promotion could be achieved, an office which could be an executive branch of government similar to that envisaged in the Devlin Report on civil service reorganisation.

For Committee Stage I intend tabling an amendment, similar to that proposed by our spokesman in the Seanad, to the Building Societies Bill and for the same reason, that is, the importance that will attach to this office in the future in the context of building societies and industrial provident societies.

It is worth remembering that, while friendly societies are very minor institutions which in the 1896 Act were described as benevolent societies, cattle insurance societies, workingmen's clubs, old people's homes societies and so on, the industrial and provident societies into which category most of the co-operatives fall are very important when one realises that the bigger co-operatives such as Golden Vale, Mitchelstown and others have turnovers in excess of £50 million per year. The supervision of such vast societies will have to be carried out by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and that supervision should be undertaken by a man who is independent and who is seen to be independent, a man who does not hold office at the pleasure of the Minister but who is appointed for a specific period and can be removed from office only by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas in which there is a two-thirds majority.

No mention has been made of the fact—I suppose this is understandable —that there was what can be referred to as an outbreak of the formation of friendly societies for the purpose of evading taxation, but those purposes have been set aside by successive Finance Acts. However, the closing of such loopholes accounts perhaps for the now extraordinary low number of friendly societies. The friendly society idea, as conceived and developed in the nineteenth century, was possibly very good from the point of view of thrift and of mutual help. It is an idea that could well be recommended to our people today but unfortunately there is less attraction to that idea now and people rely on the State to a much greater extent than that to which they rely on the concept of mutual help.

There is one other aspect of the Bill which gives rise to some concern. This is the proposal that the amendment of sections 46 and 26 of the Principal Act should be effected by way of regulation rather than by way of legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary makes the point that if he changes the existing figures to some higher figure we may be faced in a couple of years with the problem of having to increase them again. I accept that is certainly a difficulty.

To which section is the Deputy referring now?

Section 2, which is section 46 of the Principal Act, which limits the amount of the loans and the amount of the deposits that can be made by or taken by a specially authorised society. As a matter of principle I would prefer not to see these powers given away to be made by regulation, but I suppose it is one of the less tragic by-products of inflation that money is depreciating so quickly that we would flood this House with legislation if we had to keep updating figures of this kind by way of legislation.

Subject to the reservation I have about the Registrar of Friendly Societies who is very important, not because of the handful of little friendly societies he deals with, but because he deals with the building societies and will now have, I am very happy to say, a positive supervisory function, an active function in relation to them —and because he has that also in relation to some huge industrial and provident societies and in relation to certain aspects of trade unions he is very important—and subject to the reservation that he should not now hold office simply at the will of the Minister but should have and be seen to have a genuine independence, I have no objection to this Bill. I welcome it for what it is. It is worth bearing in mind that it deals only with a very small number of societies which are very small in their commercial and other significance.

I would hope now that the Parliamentary Secretary has interested himself in the updating of some of this legislation, the important updating which is needed in relation particularly to industrial and provident societies and, above all, to companies, which will be undertaken in the Department. I know the Bill which led to the Companies Act of 1963 was a very major Bill and entailed an enormous amount of work in the Department on the part of many officials who may perhaps feel that the companies might well be left alone now for a reasonable period. Nonetheless 13 years have elapsed and the pace of commercial practice has quickened so much, and the various commercial developments have changed so much even in that comparatively short period, that there is a strong need for a look at various aspects of the Companies Act, 1963, for the purpose of endeavouring to bring it up to date and preventing fraudulent or improper practices which it might now be possible to carry out in certain respects and practices have arisen which could not have been foreseen in 1963 at the time of the passage of that Act.

I should like to thank the Opposition for having expressed, through their spokesman, their broad support for this Bill. I should like to deal with some of the points the Deputy raised. He may be under a slight misapprehension as to the importance of the friendly societies. They are not quite as unimportant as he may think. This can best be illustrated by the fact that the 177 societies to which he referred have 150,000 members. That is not an insignificant number of people in a country of this size. The total benefits paid out by them in 1974 amounted to £600,000. One could expect that in 1976 the figure would have risen in line with the depreciation in the value of money. They are significant societies and any Bill which improves their situation is significant.

As regards the specially authorised loan societies, which the Deputy also seemed to feel were not of very great significance, while I agree they are small in number, they perform more or less the function of credit unions in the centre city area of Dublin. They have traditional support as a form of making credit available to people in that area which is very valuable and which is likely to be maintained despite the development of credit unions in other parts of the country. For that reason and for the purpose of the making available of credit in the centre city area, this legislation is necessary.

The Deputy referred to the need to update the Companies Act. This is a matter which I have in hand. We are hoping to bring forward a Bill dealing with this matter at least in some respects—perhaps not dealing with all the matters which need to be dealt with but dealing with certain important matters—perhaps this session or maybe early next session. I would point out, however, that in relation to companies legislation in general, a lot of development is taking place in the European Community. For instance, we have the development of the concept of the European company. We have a programme of harmonisation of national law in relation to companies which is being undertaken independently by the Commission. To a certain degree, movement by us in relation to company law must await clarification of the Community's position on these matters. One cannot move as quickly as one would like in certain areas if one is to avoid finding that one's work has to be undone as a result of a contrary provision being adopted at Community level.

The Deputy was concerned about the independence of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. In my introductory statement I made it quite clear that the registrar in the conduct of his duties would be entirely independent and so statutorily guaranteed in the exercise of his functions. The Deputy's concern was about the power contained in the Bill whereby the registrar may be removed from office by the Minister and that the reasons for such removal should be conveyed to the registrar. He felt more severe restrictions should be placed on the Minister's discretion in this matter.

I do not agree with the case made by the Deputy. There has to be some provision and, if the registrar is not performing his functions adequately, a very speedy provision for his removal from office. In view of the fact that the amount of money being dealt with by the various societies is quite significant, as the Deputy very clearly pointed out, it is important that the registrar should be a man who is competent and who is performing his duties fully. If for one reason or another the registrar were to cease, as he could do quite quickly, to have this competence, there must be a speedy provision for making the necessary change. The amendment proposed by the Deputy would not be speedy enough and could allow an expensive duration of time to elapse before action could be taken.

In matters such as this, there is no reason for the fear which may lie behind some of the Deputy's remarks of a sinister exercise of power by the Minister. It is quite clear that, in dealing with this area of legislation, successive Ministers have acted at all times in the public interest. It is very important to point out that the Minister, unlike any other agency who might be given a power to remove the registrar, is answerable to this House for actions. He is directly responsible, in a way no other person is, to the Government and to the public at large. It is appropriate, therefore, that the provisions contained in the Bill should be as they are. That said however, I again thank the House for the welcome they have given to this legislation and I look forward to its speedy passage into law.

I did have an inquiry as to the position of societies—I do not know whether they are special societies—loan societies which exist in the Army. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of their existence, and if so could he say what is the position under present legislation?

I am faintly aware of some such societies. I cannot deal with the Deputy's query at this stage. I think such societies do exist and I would presume that this legislation would apply to them as it does to other societies. There is certainly no capital society which if it comes within the broad definition of the Bill is specifically excluded. If the Deputy has a specific query in relation to these societies he might raise it at Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th November, 1976.
Top
Share