Vol. 476 No. 1
9 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the extent of consultation he has had with interested persons and organisations in relation to the Credit Union Bill; and the further opportunities, if any, he will afford to other such persons and organisations who wish to have their views taken into account. [6219/97]
In 1989 a working group, comprising the Registrar of Friendly Societies and representatives from my Department, the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Credit Union Advisory Committee, was set up to identify what should be included in new stand-alone legislation for credit unions. Those discussions eventually developed into an intensive series of negotiations between the registrar and the league representatives which resulted in a set of proposals being submitted to my Department in 1993. Ultimately, those proposals provided the basis for the heads of a Credit Union Bill.
At the specific request of the Irish League of Credit Unions I arranged subsequently for the Registrar of Friendly Societies to make himself available to continue to develop the detailed provisions of the forthcoming Bill. These negotiations continued until May 1995 when, I understand, the terms of an agreement between the registrar and the league were sent to the league board. In September 1995 the registrar and the league met and a document, endorsed by the league board, setting out what had been agreed between them was handed to the registrar. This agreement was subsequently submitted to my Department and passed to the parliamentary draftsman.
In addition to these intensive discussions, I attended the annual general meeting of the league in 1995 and 1996 to keep the movement informed of progress on the preparation of the Bill. In addition, I met with the league board on several occasions before publication of the Bill to review progress and I have had meetings with the Credit Union Advisory Committee also.
In March 1996 following a change in the leadership of the ILCU, the league wrote to me introducing a number of ideas which were not part of the agreement between the league and the registrar. These included the concept of self-regulation by the league of its members and a proposal for a corporate credit union. After consultation with the registrar and the parliamentary draftsman, the league was advised that neither proposal could be accepted in the context of the Bill under preparation. The Bill was published on 18 December last and reflects as far as possible the elements agreed with the credit union movement. There are, inevitably, some areas where for policy, legal or technical reasons the Bill differs from what might have been expected.
Since the Bill was published I have attended a special general meeting of the credit union movement held to discuss the Bill. At that meeting I made a commitment to make available my officials and the registrar to the league representatives to discuss the concerns of the credit union movement about the Bill. In recent weeks some two and a half days of intensive discussions have been held which, I believe, all parties felt were of benefit. On two occasions since the Bill was published I met with the league board and I have also had two meetings with the Credit Union Advisory Committee. As well as meeting with the two bodies representing the credit union movement, I have had discussions with several individual credit unions. The views of all Government Departments were sought on the Bill and there are ongoing discussions with two Departments about certain aspects of the Bill. I have received written submissions from the Irish Bankers' Federation, the Irish Mortgage and Savings Association and the Prison Officers' Credit Union.
The Deputy will note therefore that there have been unprecedented consultations about the content of the Bill. Arising from these consultations and subject to the views of the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General's office, I plan to introduce a number of Government amendments on Committee Stage, if we ever reach that stage. I am satisfied that when enacted the new Credit Union Bill will substantially meet the wishes of the credit union movement for a comprehensive and modern framework for its future development.
I am not sure if the Minister is intimating that an election might interrupt his progress, but that is a matter for us to speculate on. I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate the Bill was a long time in gestation and much discussion has taken place. Given that the credit union movement is such a large and diverse body, will the Minister consider the arguments on the effect of the legislation on large credit unions as against smaller credit unions? Last Saturday in Cork there were signs of a split within the Irish League of Credit Unions following that debate. Does the Minister of State agree the Bill is in the process of being finalised rather than a final Act? Will he intervene to avert what could be an unfortunate schism in the credit union movement?
The Minister of State is an expert on splits.
Like Brendan Behan, I know one or two things about schisms, but I do not know anything about one in the credit union movement. I would be delighted to intervene and tell the House my intentions in regard to the legislation, but all members of the Opposition are intent on using their entitlement to make the same speech as their colleagues.
There could be an expensive problem ahead.
I am anxious to take on board some of the sensible suggestions made by Deputy O'Keeffe and his colleagues and the sooner I am permitted to reply to Second Stage, the sooner the overheating, to which Deputy Sargent referred, will stop. There is no need for undue frenzy, everything is under control. I have the highest regard for the credit union movement and I share Deputy Sargent's sentiments in that regard. I also have the highest regard for this House, which means I do not regard the published Bill as the final article. Members are entitled to make an input to the legislation and I hope I will be able to accommodate the views of Members from all sides on Committee Stage.
While I welcome the Minister of State's comments, I await to see them in print. After waiting 31 years for the legislation, the credit union movement is disappointed. Will the Minister of State publish the letter he received from the Irish Bankers' Federation? That is an important document because I suspect the federation is having an influence on the legislation. If I were a banker I would also be concerned about the legislation.
Perhaps the Minister of State would also take a final brief question from Deputy Sargent.
Does the representative of the credit union movement speak on behalf of the entire movement? There appears to be a definite difference of opinion between large and small credit unions. That should not be the case if the same legislation applies to both.
Deputy O'Keeffe spoke with tongue in cheek when he politely accused me of being influenced by the banks in regard to this legislation. I do not know what he means by asking me to publish the letter from the Irish Bankers' Federation. I will send him a copy of it and if anyone is willing to publish it, they can do so. I will put a copy in the post to Deputy O'Keeffe. I have not even met representatives of the banks.
The Minister of State read the letter.
I did. I read most letters I receive. I had already published the Bill when I received the letter. It was sent in response to the Bill. I have not met representatives of the banks, but I am sure I will hear their views. Deputy O'Keeffe speaks with tongue in cheek when he suggests that I would stay awake at night wondering if I had done the banking fraternity proud in the credit union legislation.
There is little prospect of the difficulty to which Deputy Sargent referred arising. However, he is correct in stating there is not a single view in the credit union movement. That is one conclusion I reached after all my consultations. In a movement comprising more than half a million people it would be surprising if there were a single view among all its members. Members are motivated by the best interests of the movement, but there are differences in emphasis and so on. As a result of meetings I have had, not only with the league but with individual credit unions, I have a good knowledge of where the balance lies and I would like to take Committee Stage to manifest those amendments for Members.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
