Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister of State. Amendment No. 36 is related and I suggest that we discuss the two amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Private Members' Business. - Credit Union Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No.1:
In page 12, line 11, to delete "1989" and substitute "1997".
As Deputies will be aware, since the publication of the Credit Union Bill a new Central Bank Act has been enacted. Consequently we must update in this Bill the appropriate references to the Central Bank Acts, 1942 and 1989, so that they now read "1942 to 1997". These references occur in sections 2 and 184.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 14, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(5) No order, regulation, direction or rules shall be made under this Act without prior consultation with the Irish League of Credit Unions.".
This amendment was discussed in detail on Committee Stage and the Minister undertook to take its substance as well as its spirit on board.
If I recall correctly, Deputy Quill was dragged away from the Committee Stage debate by urgent business. I have already incorporated this proposal in the Bill. This formal recognition of the league meets the thrust of the Deputy's amendment.
I thank the Minister for his reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 17, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"(6) An acknowledgement of registration or a refusal of registration shall be notified to the society within 10 weeks of the application for registration.".
I said on Committee Stage that I would ask the Minister to revisit this element of the Bill on Report Stage and he undertook to see if he could take the substance and spirit of the amendment on board.
Deputy Quill tabled this amendment on Committee Stage. She was unable to be present for part of the debate due to other pressing business in the Dáil Chamber and perhaps she did not have time to read my explanation. I said that during my discussions with the parliamentary draftsman I had sought to include this type of amendment. I was advised, however, that such a time limit would not be appropriate in this section. The point was made to me that time limits were appropriate where the Registrar was discharging administrative functions. However, where the Registrar was discharging judicial functions, the parliamentary draftsman, supported by the Attorney General's office, advised that time limits should not be inserted. They referred to the fact that as a general principle courts are given a wide latitude to reach their decisions without any specific or artificial time limits being imposed. In the case of this section, what is involved is the Registrar deciding whether a separate corporate entity should be established. The view of the parliamentary draftsman was that this was a judicial function by the Registrar and that a time limit on his decision in this case would not be appropriate.
As Deputies will be aware, I moved a number of amendments on Committee Stage to reduce time limits where the Registrar was exercising administrative functions. Section 49, which deals with the approval of additional services, is a case in point. I have also acted to insert time limits in a number of other sections where no limits had previously been included. Sections 103 and 104 are cases in point and I draw the attention of the Deputy to those. Consequently, I have acted to impose or reduce time limits in response to the views of the credit union movement in cases where it was possible for me to do so. Unfortunately, based on the legal advice I have received, it is not possible to accept Deputy Quill's amendment.
I accept the explanation of the Minister of State. I am grateful a time limit has been set on the administrative side of transactions relating to the provisions of the Bill because delays have been a damning feature of bureaucracy. In any new legislation we seek to enact, we should seek to minimise, in so far as possible, unnecessary delays. The Minister of State has attempted to do that in this Bill. I regret we cannot seek to impose the same restrictions on judicial decisions. I do not know the reason for that but the Minister of State has access to advice not available to me. I take his word on trust and for that reason I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 20, line 24, after "unions" to insert "or a body the majority of whose members are credit unions".
Having read the amended Bill I believe my concern in this amendment has been met by the Minister of State. Without further discussion on the matter, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
I thank the Deputy for her cooperation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 20, line 40, to delete "evidence," and substitute "evidence".
The simple purpose of this amendment is to remove the offending comma after "evidence," in line 40.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 23, line 2, to delete "(in this Act referred to as a `non-qualifying member')".
Again the substance of my amendment has been met by the Minister of State in the revised Bill and we have a better Bill as a result. I thank him and withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Deputy Quill. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are alternatives. I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 28, to delete lines 16 to 35.
I understand the Minister of State has tabled an amendment in which he has gone some distance to meet what I set down in my initial amendment. I appreciate that and we have a better Bill as a result. I wish he had gone further but in appreciation of what has been done I will withdraw my amendment.
Deputy O'Rourke and I tabled amendment No. 8. I am glad the Minister of State has provided some flexibility and tabled an amendment on this matter. A substantial portion of the Bill is being deleted in section 27, from line 24 to line 35. That is the result of a demand from this side of the House to change the limits. The existing limit was ridiculous in the way it was structured. The Minister of State has gone even further than we requested, to 1 per cent of the total assets, which is welcome. Much criticism was made of the contributions from this side of the House but we realised the importance of changing the limit. If the limit had not been changed it would have damaged the credit union movement.
I welcome the change of heart on the part of the Minister of State. He said on Second Stage he was prepared to listen to suggestions. Having spoken to the credit unions we were convinced that what the Minister proposed in the original Bill would place great restrictions on their capacity to function in the future. We welcome the change the Minister of State has introduced because in my own area many people deal with the credit unions, particularly Army personnel who are coming into money as a result of voluntary early retirement and compensation for hearing loss. Many people deal with credit unions——
Those are the realities.
——and it is important that they can continue to do business with the credit unions that have served them so well in the past.
I want to thank the Minister of State for his amendments and the other amendments he promised in the Committee Stage debate, which I chaired. He has kept those promises to my colleagues, the majority of whom are in the Chamber tonight. I thank the Minister for honouring the undertaking he gave on Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 28, line 23, to delete "£50,000" and substitute "£50,000 or 1 per cent. of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is the greater".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 28, to delete lines 24 to 35.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 33, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(3) The circumstances referred to in subsection (2)(c) are those where, were a loan to be made to a member, the amount of the member's outstanding liability (including a contingent liability) to the credit union, whether as borrower, guarantor or otherwise, would exceed whichever is the greater of——
(a) £30,000, and
(b) 1.5 per cent. of the total assets of the credit union.".
During the course of our debate on Committee Stage I undertook to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which would have the effect of limiting a member's liabilities to a credit union to either £30,000 or 1.5 per cent of the total assets of the credit union, whichever was the greater. This is the purpose of the amendment before the House. Its effect is to provide that every credit union will be able to lend up to £30,000 to an individual member. For the larger credit union, however, this ceiling will increase by reference to the size of the total assets of the credit union. For the largest credit union, which would have assets of approximately £50 million, the individual limit could, in theory, be as high as £750,000. In any event, the preceding section 35(2) effectively curtails the prospect of such a large loan. This provides inter alia that loans for periods exceeding five years may not constitute more than 20 per cent of the credit union's loan book. In practice, therefore, few large individual loans will be offered by credit unions who will be under pressure to accommodate the widest number of members with loan finance.
Clearly, a credit union would find it difficult to justify refusing 100 members seeking loans of £1,000 each in preference to a single member looking for a loan of £100,000. I have at all times indicated that I do not wish the credit unions to become banks or building societies, that I wish to see them continuing to plough the bulk of their lending resources into meeting the financial needs of their members. This is the strength of the credit union movement, and the proposed lending conditions in the Bill effectively safeguard this position. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the House.
I welcome the Minister's amendment. Were we in the season of good will I would congratulate him, but we are in a different season.
Great efforts were made by Members on this side of the House to have this change made. We highlighted what effect it would have on the members of credit unions and on credit unions generally if this was not done. The Minister took what we said on board and it will be passed into law tonight. I welcome that, but it took major effort by several Opposition Deputies who had to speak repeatedly and were accused of filibustering which was unfair because open discussion is what this House is about and we are often criticised for not being in the Chamber at all times. Had we not contributed so vigorously, our demands might not have been met. I welcome the amendment which is the icing on the cake for the credit union movement which was genuinely concerned. The Minister has seen fit to take on board and redraft the Opposition's amendment which will now become law.
I also support this amendment. From the outset it was the intention of my party that any new law would not seek to put unnecessary or artificial limits on the natural development of the credit union movement. That is what propelled us into putting down the number of amendments we did. I am very glad the Minister has come this far to meet the substance and the spirit of our amendments. We would not seek to do anything that would destroy the essential culture of the credit union movement. As against that, we would not seek either to strangle or limit the capacity of the credit union movement to grow and develop in accordance with the wishes and the means of its members. The Minister has struck a good balance in this amendment which is one to which, on behalf of my party, I will give my support.
Before paying any more compliments to the Minister, perhaps we should look for an undertaking that he will not remind us of these compliments during the forthcoming election campaign.
The original proposal gave no recognition to the credit unions for the manner in which they carried out their duties in the past. We all recognise that they have gone about their business diligently and have looked after the affairs of their members in a very prudent fashion. We have no reason to doubt that they will continue to do so.
Once again, I welcome the Minister's amendment. It is something we all sought but were not too hopeful of getting. I thank the Minister for his understanding of the situation.
I compliment the Minister on introducing this amendment which he promised on Committee Stage. Most members of the committee spoke on this on Committee Stage, and it was regarded as probably the most significant amendment introduced on Report Stage. It is a tribute to the committee system that there was rational discussion on the merits of amendments with a Minister who was prepared to listen and to try to accommodate the different viewpoints of the members of the committee. I am pleased this amendment will be enshrined in legislation and I am sure the credit unions are equally happy with it.
(Laoighis-Offaly): The Minister tabled an amendment on Committee Stage which dealt with the 1.5 per cent limit. We asked him to look at the proposal that the total amount outstanding in respect of loans to members in excess of £30,000 should not exceed 5 per cent of the total loan book. The Minister gave an undertaking following our discussion and offered to change it on Committee but, on the chairman's advice, it was agreed that he would come back on Report Stage. My concern was that a 5 per cent limit would have confined larger loans to a small number of members of the credit union and that the boards of directors would not have been free to use the members' shareholding in the best way possible, by giving out loans, if such a limit were imposed upon them. I welcome the fact that the Minister has honoured his commitment. As has been said here, he has proved himself capable of listening at all Stages of debate. As a backbencher, it is refreshing and rewarding to have a Minister who will listen to what we have to say at all Stages of a Bill because we end up with much better legislation. This Bill certainly meets the concerns of the credit unions in my constituency.
I compliment the Minister on his approach to this Bill. The debate we had on it was probably the best we have ever had on any legislation in the House. It highlighted the benefits of Committee Stage that we had a Minister who was prepared to listen and to take on board what backbenchers were saying. The Opposition made a strong plea to the Minister. Likewise Government backbenchers were able to do the same, which was not the case in the Dáil over the years when backbenchers were muzzled and not allowed to express a point of view that differed from the Minister's because he might take umbrage.
The Minister made the point that he did not wish the credit unions to move into the realm of the banks or the building societies. I would not like to see them do so either. However, competition in that field will do no harm, and there are many who would welcome it.
I compliment the Minister on the way he has dealt with this amendment and, indeed, all the amendments. At the end of Second Stage I also felt there was a certain amount of filibustering going on, but I take on board the comments made by Deputy O'Keeffe. On the basis of what was happening at that stage I did not think we would get to a stage where this Bill would be passed in the Dáil, and that was my great fear. In the context of the representations I received and the commitment of everyone in this House to getting this legislation through, we have seen democracy at work at first hand. Since I became a Member of this House in 1989 I have seen various Ministers adopt a different approach; they were not prepared to take amendments on board. This Minister was prepared to meet the credit unions and to take amendments on board.
As a member of the credit union in Donabate since it was set up I am aware of the significant and vital role played by the Irish League of Credit Unions in getting the Bill to this stage tonight. Their lobbying of public representatives gave us all an insight into what was required in this Bill. All Members played a role in bringing about this legislation. The Minister, who received some hassle, particularly on Second Stage, was strong enough to say that, in the interests of the credit union movement involving thousands of members, he was prepared to take on board the representations and legitimate concerns expressed. The Bill is better for that and I compliment the Minister on his achievements.
The Minister has been practical and common sense has prevailed. When he was in Opposition and Deputy Bertie Ahern was spokesman on labour affairs similar communication and understanding was evident. On many occasions Deputy Ahern conceded amendments to the Minister, but things are changing and the Minister is now more magnanimous. It would have been unacceptable not to remove the cap originally proposed as much good business would have been transferred from the credit unions to other institutions. The removal of the cap is worthwhile. It is better to lend to one's members than engage in third party investment.
There is less investment now than in the past, involving greater risk, and investment without a return is not worthwhile. Government stocks are the most secure investment. The equity market, which is going through a turbulent period, is experiencing changes and there are great risks in that area. The changes to the legislation, which result from representation by the Opposition, are prudent. The section has been further improved from Committee Stage and I am grateful for that. I welcome the consensus between the Government parties and the Opposition.
I thank Members on all sides for their comments. I assure Deputy Power I have no intention of abusing his gracious remarks in any forthcoming winter election.
The Minister is expecting two elections this year.
I acknowledge the role of the Opposition, particularly that of Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. A good Opposition has a very important role to play. As I remarked on Committee Stage, Fianna Fáil in particular is becoming a good Opposition.
Long may it remain so.
After another five years it will be in a position to contemplate crossing the floor and in the interests of democracy that would be sound.
We have served our apprenticeship.
I agree with the view that the balance is about right. Deputy Boylan made an important point about the role of the select committee and the opportunity it gives to scrutinise legislation line by line and hear from the main interest groups concerned. I have no intention of changing the disposition I had when on that side of the House. If the House is reduced to an Opposition proposing and an Executive disposing, the quality of legislation is likely to be poorer.
It is appropriate to take seriously Committee Stage debate on a Bill that affects so many people. We should take seriously the views of representative organisations, in this case, the Irish League of Credit Unions. As with the Catholic Church, it is a body with which it is not easy to deal, but it is made up of the most honourable men and women with whom I have dealt. In the Irish tradition they start bargaining very high and it is difficult to meet all their concerns. I think that body agrees we have struck about the right balance in the Bill, which will go to the Seanad tomorrow.
It is appropriate to again record that the Irish League of Credit Unions was involved from the genesis of the Bill. The level of consultation since then has been a worthwhile exercise and the Bill will stand the test of time. We forget we have provided for the Minister of the day to change, by order, as he or she deems appropriate, the limits applying if circumstances change. We have gone a long way to meet the requirements and I thank Deputies for their remarks.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 34, line 41, after "considered." to insert "This subsection shall not apply to employees of the credit union.".
This is a simple but important amendment which I hope the Minister will take on board. We propose that the term "officer" should not include an employee of the credit union. If an employee wishes to take out a small loan the application should not have to go before the board. I do not wish to weaken the control of the credit union, but the term "officer" should not include an employee. Loans of £1,000 or so to employees of credit unions should not have to go before the board of the credit committee. I would like the Minister's views on this matter.
As I understand it, the intention of the amendment is to place the loan appliing cations of employees of the credit union on the same basis as the loan applications of all other members rather than on the level of directors and other credit union officers. Employees are in a different category from that of other members because they work in the credit union and, therefore, special arrangements are necessary to ensure transparency and good practice in regard to their loan applications. It is appropriate that their loan applications should be treated in the same way as those of directors and other officers.
The effect of the present subsection (3) when read in conjunction with subsection (5) is to have the loan application of an employee, which does not exceed the value of his savings in the credit union, approved by either a credit officer or the credit committee. It is only where the amount of the loan exceeds the value of savings that the special committee, constituted in accordance with subsection (4), would come into play. Unlike other members whose loan applications would be dealt with by the board of directors in such circumstances, it is appropriate that the committee approving such loan applications for employees and other officers should have a membership wider than the board of directors and that it should include specifically at least one member of the supervisory committee, which is generally responsible for overseeing the operations of the credit union. I regret, therefore, I am unable to accept this amendment. In the interest of fair play and transparency, the arrangements for approval of such loans set out in section 36 (3) is appropriate to employees of credit unions and, accordingly, I ask Deputy O'Keeffe to reconsider his amendment.
In the age of accountability and transparency, I agree with the Minister of State's comments and the Deputy should reconsider his amendment.
I do not wish to sound unreasonable, but there is merit in my argument. Why should an employee of a credit union have to go before the board to secure a small loan? That will merely give rise to more bureaucracy. Could the credit committee not decide on such matters?
The credit committee will make decisions on small loans or loans that are lower than the savings an employee has saved with the credit union. However, where the loan requested exceeds the amount of savings, the board will make the decision.
As the Minister of State has given us many of the concessions we requested for the development of the credit union movement, I reluctantly withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 37, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a credit union from giving security over property within its objects, accepting security over property, within its objects, participating in ownership of property with an association or body corporate the majority of whose members are credit unions, assisting or promoting or investing in charitable, social, cultural and enterprise activity in the community by providing or making property available to an organisation involved in such activity.".
In this amendment Deputy O'Keeffe is reopening the question of credit unions being able to engage in property transactions within the objects of the credit union. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, I have accepted, following legal advice, that it would not be appropriate to deal with the property issue in this manner without creating major difficulties in curbing temptation on the part of credit unions to speculate in property.
The alternative way to proceed, which is now adopted in the Bill, is the best way to deal with this issue. The extended section 44 allows a credit union to engage not only in social, cultural or charitable matters, but specifically allows it to use its resources to support community development whether in the form of an enterprise or community centre or in any other manner deemed appropriate by the members. The amendment also seeks an explicit reference to a credit union giving or accepting security over property. My officials have consulted with the Land Registry, the Parliamentary Draftsman and the Attorney General's office on this issue and I am advised that the relevant provisions are already enshrined in sections 33(1) and 35(1). Section 33(1) indicates that in borrowing money, a credit union may give security for those funds. Similarly, section 35(1) indicates that in making a loan to a member, the credit union may accept such security in accordance with the provisions of the credit union's rules. Consequently, I am legally advised that these provisions are unnecessary.
I hope those remarks will reassure Deputy O'Keeffe in terms of the intent of his amendment.
We put a great deal of thought into the drafting of this amendment. The existing paragraph (5) is not sufficient. Credit unions should be able to use property to secure mortgages or for security purposes. I am not convinced by the Minister of State's comments about the Land Registry or the Attorney General.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related. Is it agreed to take them together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 37, to delete line 38.
The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 41(6) is to effectively allow a credit union to ignore a direction of the registrar to dispose of a building or other land held by a credit union, even though he may have good reason for considering it would not be in the credit union's best interest. In practice, the registrar will be very slow to issue such a direction. However, where he feels compelled to do so, any such intervention on his part should be effective. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept amendment no. 14.
In relation to the proposed deletion of section 41(7), certain directions issued by the Registrar will be subject to rules made under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947 while others may be issued independently. It is my legal advice that a direction under section 41(5) should not be subject to such rules and I am not, therefore, in a position to accept this amendment.
In the light of the Minister's comments, I have little option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 17 is an alternative to amendment No. 16. Is it agreed that we take Nos. 16 and 17 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 41, lines 11 and 12, to delete "those for which provision is made by the preceding provisions of this Part" and substitute:
"those—
(a) for which provision is made by the preceding provisions of this Part; or
(b) which are prescribed for the purposes of this section as being services the provision of which appears to the Minister to involve no risk to the assets of the credit union or the funds of its members;
and regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (b) may make the exclusion of any services from being additional services conditional on compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed".
During the Committee Stage debate, I undertook to consider an amendment tabled by Deputy Quill, the effect of which would be to preclude from the requirement of registrar approval those additional services which had been exempted in ministerial regulations. Having considered the matter further, I am prepared to exempt from approval those types of additional service which involve no risk to credit union or members' funds. Examples could include advisory services, whether taxation, budgetary or similar services, or services where the local credit union merely acts as an information point for services provided by third parties and where members contract directly with the companies concerned without any funds passing credit union accounts. In such circumstances, there should be no requirement on the registrar to approve the additional services concerned, as no risk to the funds of the credit union or to the funds of members in the credit union would be involved.
In advance of drafting the appropriate ministerial regulations, it would be my Department's intention to consult with the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Credit Union Advisory Committee to determine the precise scope of such services which can be exempted from the registrar's approval. Accordingly, I commend this amendment to the House.
The Minister of State's amendment goes a long way towards taking on board the concerns I had when I tabled amendment No. 17 on Committee Stage. It makes sense for the Minister to seek to defend a function which should properly belong to credit unions and to ensure that credit unions are not required to submit decisions on routine matters to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Bill as originally drafted gave excessive powers to the registrar to deal with the day to day activities of credit unions, thereby stripping from them a great deal of the discretion they exercised with good judgment in the past and which they have the capacity to exercise with good judgment in the future. For that reason I am pleased the Minister has taken on board the concerns I expressed on Committee Stage and brought forward this amendment. It goes a long way towards meeting my concerns and, therefore, I withdraw amendment No. 17. I am grateful the Minister has streamlined and refined the process in respect of this matter as a result of which this is a better Bill.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I support the Minister's amendment. On Second Stage I, as well as many other Deputies, argued strongly that as much freedom as possible within the bounds of reason and good regulation should be allowed for additional services to be developed by credit unions. On Committee Stage the Minister made a substantial change in terms of the length of time available to the registrar to make a decision on these matters by introducing a fast track approach for agency as opposed to principle services offered. This is a sensible addition to those changes. Decisions on the provision of information services or services which do not involve any risk to the funds of members can be precluded from the requirement to go before the registrar for approval. That reflects the current position.
The credit union in Tullamore of which I am a member has offered foreign exchange services for years. Since last year it has offered an ATM facility to its members. Like many other credit unions it is an active and worthwhile participant with the Department of Social Welfare and the local health board in providing a money advice and budgeting service, which I commend to all credit unions. Many people in my community have been helped out of the clutches of money lenders and into the practice of good money management through the assistance of the credit union. This amendment increases the measure of flexibility available and encourages credit unions to provide additional services for their members, for which they may be charged substantial fees in other financial institutions. I support the amendment.
I welcome this change introduced by the Minister. It is worthwhile to simplify the process and consider the provision of additional services. Many credit unions provide additional services and have broadened their base. We live in the age of modern technology and electronic banking. If credit unions do not follow the modern concept and there is too much bureaucracy or impediments in their way they will not make progress and will not be of service to the community. Credit unions provide a service for 1.5 million people and that level of service must be given recognition. We are aware of the substantial fees charged by other institutions for small transactions, which in many instances credit unions provide free of charge, and that assists the community.
The Consumer Credit Bill was introduced by Fianna Fáil and ended up with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. It was one of the most comprehensive Bills to come before the House. It is somewhat like the Credit Union Bill, but a change of Government provided a reason for the many amendments to that Bill. Deputy Rabbitte was on this side of the House and when he progressed to the other side he had to rethink and rejig a good deal of what he said when he was on this side.
This amendment simplifies and lifts the process out of bureaucracy. Decisions will be left to the credit unions and that is to be welcomed. They can expand their provision of services without having to become involved in a great deal of bureaucracy. I know the registrar from another area of work in which I am involved. While he does an excellent job he may not have sufficient staff to deal with matters related to the daily operation of credit unions, or if something went wrong there could be a delay in dealing with matters and business and services could be lost to the community. The credit union organisation provides an excellent service to the community.
I support the Minister's proposal. I, along with other Members, expressed concern about the original powers given to the registrar. I thought they would impinge on the day to day running of credit unions and decisions taken on a regular basis would require the approval of the registrar. The Minister's proposal will provide greater flexibility and it can only improve the service which will benefit the community.
This measure recognises the track record of credit unions in the day to day running of their business. They have proven to be an outstanding success. It would be unfair to place any further handicap on their operation by requiring that they refer to a governing body on matters related to the day to day operation of their business. It is important that there is a governing body, the Registry of Friendly Societies. It carries out an annual audit which is important for the safety of any voluntary group. I welcome the Minister's comments and his approach. This amendment will be appreciated by the credit unions.
I thank Deputies for their remarks. It was not the intention to shackle the credit union movement. I wish to let the House in on a secret. I finally met the Bankers Federation and the building societies after all these months of having been accused of calling them in when I was preparing the Bill and allegations that the Bill was authored by the banks. Deputy O'Keeffe will be pleased to know we had a meeting. Their main complaint was that the regulation generally provided for is not adequate, given the significance of credit unions in the economy. The phenomenal rate of growth we have seen in the past decade or more will be accelerated in the next decade. I stick by my maxim that it is not desirable that the ethos of credit unions should be undermined to the extent that they become banks or building societies. They are nonetheless a significant stream of competition for banks and building societies and that is only right. The banks and the building societies made the case that compared with the strictures and regime with which they must comply under the aegis of the Central Bank, this Bill is still too lax on the regulatory environment it provides for credit unions. I do not agree with that argument but it is important to mention it, given that I have been subjected to a good deal of legitimate lobbying by Deputies on all sides of the House who have studied the Bill in a little less detail than the Deputies present and who may take the line they were given and put it on the record. It will be helpful in the dark nights of November and early December when we are knocking on doors looking for votes.
In another by-election.
There is not a single view of this important question. This Bill is not introduced with a view to imposing any boundary to the march of the Credit Union Movement, but it is incumbent on us to be reasonably satisfied that the regulatory environment is about right for what is now a major institution and will be a bigger one in the future. That is all we seek to do here. I do not believe the financial institutions are right. The track record of the Credit Union Movement, the established role of the registrar and the prescriptive measures in this Bill are adequate to meet the exigencies of the position, but nonetheless it is important that point is put on the record.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 19 is related to amendment No. 18 and it is suggested both be taken together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 45, line 29, after "elected" to insert "from among the members".
Following discussion on Committee Stage it was drawn to my attention that there was no general requirement that credit union directors be members of a credit union. The only such requirement relates to the appointment of casual vacancies on the board under section 54(3). The purpose of these amendments is to remedy this omission by providing that the first board of directors shall be elected from among the members at the organisation meeting of the credit union and that subsequent vacancies shall also be filled from among the members at the annual general meeting.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 45, line 32, after "filled" to insert "from among the members".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related to amendment No. 20 and it is suggested they be taken together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 47, lines 14 and 15, to delete "cheques on behalf of the credit union" and substitute "cheques, drafts or similar documents drawn on an account of the credit union".
I undertook on Committee Stage to table an amendment to remove the requirement in section 70(2) that all cheques, drafts and similar documents drawn on an account of a credit union shall be signed by at least two officers, one of whom shall be a member of the board of directors. The purpose of the amendment to section 55(k) is to give the board of directors total discretion to determine the signatories to the cheques, drafts and similar documents drawn on an account of a credit union. The corresponding changes to section 72 are to remove these documents from the list of specified documents which must be signed by two credit union officers, one of whom is required to be a director. This will enable teachers to attend to their primary duty without being disturbed unnecessarily to sign cheques.
It is a good amendment.
Deputy Ó Cuív should be thanked for this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 48, line 4, to delete "sent" and substitute "send".
This is a typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 50, line 24, to delete "a" and substitute "the".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 51, lines 42 to 44, to delete "signed, after an annual general meeting, by each member of the Supervisory Committee" and substitute "signed by each member of the Supervisory Committee after an annual general meeting or, in the case of a member appointed to fill a casual vacancy, after his appointment".
Deputies will recall that, on Committee Stage, section 57(1) was amended to provide that casual appointments to the board of directors should also be included in the register of directors kept by the secretary of the credit union. Unfortunately, we omitted to make the same change in this section, which deals with the register of the members of the supervisory committee. The purpose of this amendment is simply to provide that the register of such members shall also be signed after his or her appointment by each member appointed to fill a casual vacancy on the supervisory committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 56, line 3, to delete "shall, subject to subsection (2), appoint" and substitute "shall appoint".
Deputies will recall that in a series of amendments on Committee Stage we deleted the then subsection (2) and expanded the corresponding paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Third Schedule. Unfortunately, we omitted to remove the associated reference to subsection (2) in section 67(1). The purpose of the amendment is to remove this reference.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
As it is 10.15 p.m., I am required to put the following question according to the Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.