Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1966

Vol. 61 No. 11

Credit Union Bill, 1966: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Government amendment No. 1:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1936, between the 24th day of January, 1962, and the 31st day of August, 1966, the objects of which have at all times been wholly or substantially those of a credit union."

This amendment is put down following our discussion last week when it was represented to me that the provisions of the Bill would operate to affect in particular the Community Development Movement adversely, and I undertook to have discussions with representatives of both the Community Development Movement and the Credit Union League with regard to the proposals of Senator FitzGerald. I am glad to say that on Monday last we achieved complete agreement whereby the 12 existing units of this particular movement and the five which it is proposed to register before 31st August next will be exempted for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment as I have put it down covers these 12 existing and five proposed branches of the Community Development Movement's activities and are acceptable to the representatives both of the movement and of the Credit Union League. The date 31st August, 1966, is being put in to enable the registration of the five pending units to be completed.

I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in this matter and for the speed with which he dealt with it. On the last day he said that he would come back here in a week's time and in the meantime see both sides and draft any necessary amendment. I was not at all sure that he realised what he was taking on, but I can assure him that the House is grateful for what he has done in being able to come back having approached both sides and satisfied the Community Development Movement on terms satisfactory to the other group. Great credit is due to him for the speed that he has shown and for the fact that he was willing to take action on the rather belated representations in this matter, which left him in a rather unfair position when the Bill was going through the Dáil before he had a chance to clear matters with this particular group. That he should have been so willing to meet them and that he has done so and reached an agreement is something on which he is to be congratulated.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

I am not sufficiently familiar with the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, but it did strike me that in later sections there is reference to an appeal to the district court. Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate where in the Principal Act referred to, which applies to credit unions, there is provision for these societies suing and being sued in their name? It does not seem to me from reading the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, that they have power to hold property unless perhaps it is given to them by the rules. After that it seems to me that that is the only power they have resembling the powers one normally vests in a corporate body. They are unincorporated. I wonder whether as these societies are going to proliferate, as we hope, we should not give them more of the attributes of a corporate body which one would expect to find in this legislation. It may be that this is contained in the 1893 Act.

I think that this is covered by section 21 of the 1893 Act where it says: "The registration of a society shall render it a body corporate by the name described in the acknowledgment of registry, by which it may sue and be sued, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with limited liability."

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for drawing my attention to section 21. I was misled myself by section 36 of the 1893 Act in which we find that a registered society may, if its rules do not direct otherwise, hold, purchase, or take on lease in its own name any land, and so on— the normal things one would expect to find in the provision relating to corporate status and right to sue, etc. This apparently has been one case of an improvement in the drafting of our legislation.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (2), line 28, to add at the end:

"and retain his voting rights".

This is an amendment which one of these unions interested in this suggested to me ought to be done. It seems to me that where a person ceases to have a common bond of either location or employment and so on he can retain his rights in the union, continue to be a member, but under this section is not given power to retain his voting rights. It struck me as somewhat odd that that was so. I suggest that at the end of subsection (2) we should add that he should be entitled to retain his voting rights in addition to his shares and deposits.

The position here is that we originally provided that the person who loses the common bond continues to be a member but ceases to have rights of voting. In discussion in the Dáil it was put to me that this was rather unfair, and that the person should retain his full rights, that once having had a common bond the fact of having lost it should not deprive him of the rights of membership. I acceded to that in the Dáil, and the section as drafted does cover that.

I would draw Senator O'Quigley's attention to the provisions of section 20, which provides that at an annual general meeting of a credit union each member shall have only one vote on each question irrespective of his share-holding in the credit union. The next subsection mentions that he may not vote by proxy. What this means is that under section 4 his membership is preserved, and his voting privileges are ipso facto preserved by virtue of section 20, so that I do not think it is necessary to add into section 4 the extra words suggested by Senator O'Quigley. I think that the combination of sections 20 and 4 makes it quite clear that a person in the position mentioned has, in fact, got his voting rights. They are preserved by the mere fact of membership being preserved, and I would suggest that this amendment be withdrawn. On the other hand, I am quite easy on this, and if the House feels that it would make it clear or be of any help to add these extra words for clarification or otherwise, then I can do that. I would be agreeable to delete the word “membership” and substitute “membership and voting rights” but I suggest that this is not, in fact, necessary.

What perturbed me about this was this—for certain periods, as it seemed to me under section 4—a person would cease to be a member of the union, having lost the common bond, but then it went on to say: "the credit union may continue to accept from that member money", or that kind of thing. One begins to wonder what is the necessity at all for the whole of section 4. Either you are a member or you are not. I do not like to press a willing Parliamentary Secretary but I think I would be that bit happier—certainly there would be no doubt about it—if the amendment was accepted.

I have no objection if the House so wishes. I would suggest that the amendment should read—"in subsection (2), line 24, to delete the word "membership" and substitute the words "his membership and voting rights".

That would be much better.

To add the words: "and voting rights"?

The words "his membership and voting rights". Subsection (4) deals with a group of people rather than a natural person and is not really relevant to the discussion, which is confined to an individual person losing the common bond but retaining his membership and voting rights.

That would be more satisfactory.

We can do that straight away.

If the Seanad is agreeable.

In case there is any doubt about it that would mean that in subsection (2) of section 4, at line 24, we delete the word "membership" and substitute the words "his membership and voting rights".

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.

The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 be taken together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1), page 5, line 46, to delete all words after "the" to the end of the subsection and to insert "Annual General Meeting of the credit union concerned and the decision of the Annual General Meeting shall be final."

These amendments were discussed in the Dáil and the Minister did not accept them. The Parliamentary Secretary has already said he will not move on the point. I feel very strongly on the points raised in the amendments and I must have another try to see if I can get the Parliamentary Secretary to approve them.

As I said on the Second Stage, the credit union movement is a friendly, neighbourly movement; it is also an entirely voluntary body. It is an extremely valuable organisation, in that it encourages thrift, wise spending and wise borrowing. It is, I am convinced, a great mistake to try to introduce the law and the law courts into this very welcome legislation. The annual general meeting of the Credit Union will understand the background and the reasons for refusing membership to any particular person. They will understand far more clearly than the law courts ever could. It would be far better to leave such a decision within the credit union movement. The Parliamentary Secretary, I am afraid, would not agree with me in regard to suspicion where the law courts are concerned but I really think the average simple person does not like any shadow of the law courts and it is particularly out of place in a friendly movement. Should the law courts decide that an unwelcome person must be accepted into the credit union, it could introduce a very unhappy atmosphere; it could result in a falling off of the membership. I could not see that the happy atmosphere would continue and I think passing such power to the law courts would have a very bad effect on the credit union. This also applies, of course, to the other amendment which deals with the expulsion of a member, where the same argument applies.

At this late hour, I do not propose to say more except that I support the appeal addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary by Senator Miss Davidson. I would ask him to consider this and agree to it if at all possible.

I regret to find myself opposed to Senator Miss Davidson. God knows when we get such little support on this side of the House from other people we must support one another from time to time. When one has a Parliamentary Secretary with a reasonable approach, one adopts a reasonable approach with him. However, that is quite beside the point. I do not understand Senator Miss Davidson's unreasoned prejudice against the law courts. I appreciate her point of view but I do not understand why she should have such a terrible fear of them.

I would have agreed with Senator Miss Davidson had she gone the whole hog and said that this section should not be in at all because it seems to me that if a number of people get together to form a credit union or a society they are exercising their right of freedom of association and if somebody else wants to muscle in on that and the other people do not want to allow him in, I do not know that he has any right to get into it. It would be much more logical to say we should not have section 5 at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary may have good reasons for insisting upon section 5 but if 30 of us here decide —because we do not disagree with one another—to form a credit union or any society and then some other people say: "we want to get into it", the 30 of us who are banded together can say: "that is it, we have banded ourselves into this society, we are agreeable with one another and we are not going to have anybody else". That, to me, is freedom of association.

The other amendment is concerned with expulsion. There, I certainly shall demur because, being in, one has taken on certain obligations and acquired certain contractual rights under the rules. If you are a member of a society, perhaps you are critical of the way in which affairs are being conducted and somebody wants to expel you, you are entitled to state: "You are not entitled to do that under the rules". I think a person is quite entitled to say: "Right, we will get the district court, the circuit court or the High Court to decide that issue". That is a different thing; once you are in you have acquired contractual rights and contractual relations with other people. It is a different thing being in. I should prefer section 5 not be in at all. I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say on this.

While I dislike doing so, I must resist this amendment from Senator Miss Davidson. This discussion took place in the Dáil and was fairly full. Deputy Donegan on behalf of the Fine Gael Party very strongly opposed amendments tabled by the Labour Party in roughly the same terms as those tabled by Senators Miss Davidson and Crowley. I agree that the credit union movement idea involves friendly and voluntary cooperation but the basis of the Credit Union is the common bond and I am appalled at the suggestion by Senator O'Quigley that a group of people should get together and having done so decide that they will omit everybody else if they feel like doing so. I think you either hold to the idea of the common bond or you do not. If it is accepted that the basis on which we operate is that the common bond is the sine qua non, then there can be no question of a small group getting together and deciding among themselves who they will have and who they will not have.

Now, let us turn to the individual who believes he has the necessary common bond which entitles him to membership. I am sure I do not have to tell Senator Miss Davidson that especially small credit unions could adopt the very procedure that Senator O'Quigley has mentioned and that is that having got together the little coterie that satisfies themselves they say they are satisfied and will exclude all other people even though to all outward appearances those people have exactly the same right of membership as those who are chosen to form the union.

I think what Senator O'Quigley has said points out the very reason why I have to insist on this simple right of appeal to the district court. It could well happen that people would try to exclude from membership those who were equally entitled with them and if there were no appeal from their decision, then that was the end of it. It is because I want to have that appeal preserved that I am suggesting that these amendments should be withdrawn. It is because the person who is excluded by such a decision should have the right of an independent and neutral tribunal deciding on the merits of his case and because the district court is independent and neutral that I think the individual should have a right to which clearly he should be entitled of having an independent person or tribunal arbitrate on his case.

I should mention that the Committee on Cooperative Societies whose report gave rise to this Bill specifically recommended that this right of appeal to the courts should be there and presumably this Committee made that recommendation because they foresaw that the very circumstances which Senator O'Quigley has outlined could, especially in small communities, quite easily arise and cause serious injustice. Because of that I must continue to oppose these amendments.

Senator Miss Davidson said that the credit union movement encourages thrift, wise borrowing and spending in a friendly voluntary atmosphere. How would Senator Miss Davidson feel as an individual excluded from the rights of enjoying wise borrowing and wise spending through a local credit union and having no appeal anywhere except at the annual general meeting which already had a closed mind on her application? Just how friendly would she feel towards the annual general meeting and how voluntary would she feel the entire local union was if that sort of situation obtained?

As I said on Second Reading here, I do not think the right of appeal to the district court which is in the Bill will, in fact, be used very often. I do accept that in the main members of the union will be only too glad to admit others who have the common bond into membership to expand their unit whether it is already small, medium or large. I think that in practice, and I believe this is experienced elsewhere, the need for an actual appeal to be decided by the district court will seldom arise. I do think it is essential that the simple and cheap procedure whereby a demonstrably neutral and impartial person can adjudicate on a matter like this should be preserved so that the credit union movement or any unit of it will not ever become the personal property of a small number of people excluding those they feel like excluding and admitting those they feel like taking in.

With regard to amendment No. 7 which envisages the Credit Union Advisory Committee as being a sort of court of final decision, I do not think it was ever intended that the Advisory Committee should be anything other than what it says, namely, a committee which gives advice to the Minister in relation to matters arising out of the operation of the credit union movement. It was never envisaged that they would exercise any judicial or semi-judicial function and for that reason I regret that I cannot see my way to accept as reasonable the arguments advanced in favour of any of these three amendments.

I should like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the credit union in which I am particularly interested felt that the machinery of the law force as visualised in the Bill was far too fearsome and far too heavy for the purposes of the credit union and difficulties might arise. The Parliamentary Secretary asked how I would feel if I were the person concerned. Well, I think if I were stupid enough to put myself in the position of being a person who would not be accepted by a credit union or being a member of a credit union to have proved myself such an unsuitable person that I would have to be expelled, I think I would take what was coming to me.

There is better stuff than that.

I did realise that what the Parliamentary Secretary said is true, that these points will not be likely to arise often but they still could arise. Surely it would only be a very unsuitable person who would be refused, and likewise a very unsuitable person who would be expelled.

I still feel the advisory committee of the Credit Union or the annual general meeting would know the background of the case better than the law courts. What would the atmosphere in a credit union be if they were forced to take in someone they felt was unsuitable, or to retain someone they felt was unsuitable —untrustworthy, for example.

I said I could see a valid reason for not having the subsection in unless the Parliamentary Secretary gave some reason to the contrary. Having heard him, I quite agree that since the right to exist is founded upon the existence of the common bond everyone who is within the ambit of the common bond should be entitled to become a member of this entity which is authorised to exist by this Bill. I quite agree, therefore, that it is necessary that there should be a right of appeal. Persons who can then qualify in the common bond should be entitled to join the union and should be denied for good reasons only. In all these matters the only place where one can get satisfaction is in the courts of law.

The courts of law, I should like to tell Senator Miss Davidson, if I may be permitted to make the observation, are not perfect. They cannot give satisfaction to all the people all the time. That is reserved for democracy. The courts of law are the best system we have been able to devise yet. They are a far better system for doing right in the case of an individual than a general meeting. We all know what takes place at general meetings. We have all joined various societies from time to time. General meetings do not operate in a judicial fashion.

I was going to rise earlier and say that I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary and disagreed with Senator O'Quigley. When I discovered that Senator O'Quigley was going to change his mind I waited until he had done so before agreeing with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 14, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (2), to delete all words from and including "prior" in line 13 to the end of the subsection and substitute "by the Board of Directors".

It seems to me that if the board of directors are able to determine all the matters which will fall to be determined by them within the rules, they should be able to determine the remuneration of the treasurer. Therefore, I think it would be better to leave it to the board of directors. Again, at general meetings people are in a very flaithiúl kind of mood and canvassing goes on. Subsequently there is treating by people who are appointed to office. If we had a sober-minded set of people such as a board of directors we might get a better or a more appropriate rate of remuneration for the treasurer than if it were determined by the members at a general meeting.

If the amendment in its present form is not acceptable, we could say that the remuneration is first fixed by the board of directors and is subject to approval at an annual general meeting. That might meet any fears the Parliamentary Secretary has and, at the same time, meet the very good point made by Senator O'Quigley.

I was rather surprised that this amendment was put down because in the course of the discussion which we had for a long time on detailed minutiae it was suggested on one occasion by only one very small credit union that this alteration should be made but it was not suggested by any of the other unions or bodies or by the Credit Union League. There is a basic objection to the arrangement that the treasurer's pay should be fixed by his own cronies. As a matter of practice, it is usual in clubs and bodies of this kind that the members themselves have the last say so far as anything to do with the financial affairs of the club or body is concerned. I was anxious to preserve that position in regard to the treasurer. This does not cover the assistant treasurer or other workers, but only the treasurer himself. All others would be within the power of the board of directors to deal with exclusively.

I suppose I would not have any basic objection to this alteration if the House felt no damage was being done to the general principle that the main body of members should have the final say in financial matters. That principle is pretty well enshrined in the Bill itself. I had some misgivings about it but Senator FitzGerald has suggested a compromise, namely, that in the first instance the board of directors should have power to fix the rate but that it should be subject to the approval of the annual general meeting. That seems reasonable.

May I suggest the precise amendment I have in mind? After the word "by" in line 14, to insert the words "board of directors and endorsed by". That would require that the remuneration to be paid would have to be approved by the board of directors and endorsed at the general meeting. This should be an adequate safeguard.

That seems reasonable.

Far be it from me to try to restrain the Parliamentary Secretary from accepting an amendment but it occurs to me that there might be a danger in this. If the intention is that the annual general meeting should continue to have the final power in the matter of remuneration, I do not think that would be possible with this amendment. There is a great difference between the annual general meeting fixing the rate of remuneration from the start and fixing it upon the recommendation of the board of directors. It might be very difficult for the annual general meeting not to agree to a proposition of this kind. If you want the annual general meeting to have this power, I do not think they would retain it under this amendment.

The word "prior" would have to go.

I suggested removing it. It says here "such remuneration as may from time to time be approved...by the members in general meeting." A better way to do it would be to say "such remuneration as may from time to time be approved by the board of directors". Senator Yeats has a point.

It is a very valid one.

This requirement by the annual general meeting is intended as a safeguard. It is the normal thing for the board of directors to fix remuneration. We are trying to introduce a check into the system. Although Senator Yeats has a point, I suggest that that is what the check is wanted for. I put down the amendment in order to ensure that a check would be made.

In view of the different opinions expressed here it might be best if we left further consideration over until the Report Stage because obviously we are not going to get more than the Committee Stage tonight. Since it is a compromise between one and the other, I suggest we leave it over for further consideration on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Government amendment No. 6:
In subsection (2), line 24, to add at the end:
", or be paid otherwise than out of surplus funds which are available for that purpose and have been accumulated after meeting the requirements of section 23 of this Act in relation to reserve".

Words to the effect of this amendment were included in the list of instructions to the draftsman which might be regarded as the first draft of the Bill. Unfortunately, they got mislaid somewhere en route. The object of this additional phrase is to ensure that there would be no question of dividends being paid out except out of surplus funds. I appreciate it is unlikely that a reasonable board of directors would recommend a dividend in the case where no surplus was available. I considered it desirable to take those precautions against any such practice and to restore to the text of the Bill the part of the section which we intended should be in it from the beginning.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.

Amendment No. 7 has been discussed already.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.

The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 8 and 9 be discussed together.

Yes, they are dependent on each other. I move amendment No. 8:

Before subsection (3) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(3) Where a regulation is proposed to be made under paragraphs (i), (j) or (k) of subsection (1) of this section a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulation shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."

This amendment is designed to retain the supremacy of Parliament over the legislation which is enacted and to ensure that legislation enacted by the Oireachtas can only be changed by a further Act of the Oireachtas. Section 35 prescribes that the Minister may by regulations alter a variety of things. We find that he can also amend the Schedule to this Act and that Schedule already contains amendments to the Principal Act.

The Minister is seeking power to do by regulation what is necessary to do by Act under the 1893 measure, which this Bill is amending. We ought to pause and check at what stage we should permit legislation by regulation. It is one thing to make regulations which are within the purview of a particular statute but it is quite a different matter to say that by regulation you can amend an Act of the Oireachtas.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say: "I am only going to amend financial limitations and matters of that kind." Those are financial limitations which we specify in an Act of Parliament. They are laid down by the Oireachtas. It is quite wrong to say that what is passed by the people's Parliament can subsequently be amended by Ministerial regulations. I do not for a moment subscribe to that theory. Now that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, a man who is the personification of reasonableness, I do not believe he will subscribe to it either.

What I am seeking in the amendment is a recognition that here is a situation in which it is necessary to accommodate the discharge of public business by providing that such amendments to the Act can be effected by the Minister bringing in draft orders which are first approved by resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I regard this as a fair and reasonable compromise and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the authority of Parliament ought not to be frittered away as it is sought to be frittered away by the application of regulations under paragraphs (i), (j) and (k).

I wish to support this very strongly. This seems to be the only blot on an otherwise excellent Bill. There are, of course, some minor defects which we can sort out between us. This involves the principle of amending legislation by regulation. What we are seeking is a provision that an order would be brought positively before both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. These regulations will not arise very often and the Parliamentary Secretary will not spend much time in producing regulations of this type, but there is an important principle here. I am not 100 per cent convinced in regard to paragraph (k): I am not quite sure I understand what is involved, but I am concerned about paragraphs (i) and (j) which specifically give the power to change the law, I am not sure how to fit paragraph (k) into the picture.

Does paragraph (k) not fall with section 32?

It takes the place of the original section 32 which prohibited advertising.

I am not that concerned about paragraph (k), but paragraphs (i) and (j) specifically give power to amend the Act.

There is something to be said for the amendment but I wonder, if the Parliamentary Secretary were inclined to accept the amendment, whether it would not be better to include all the regulations rather than some. It will be awkward to have some regulations brought into effect in one way. I feel it should be all regulations or none.

The regulations I am concerned about are those which, when operated, will alter the law. The others will merely implement sections in detail. It is quite necessary to have regulations of that kind, but where you are altering, amending the law and not implementing it by draft order first approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, expressed in the form of a motion——

This matter arose on a Bill we were discussing yesterday and I said I agreed with the representations made by the other side. I have been in this House longer than any other Member and it is news to me that alteration of legislation can under this system be performed without the decision of the Oireachtas. As an official of Dublin Corporation, down through the years I have been implementing orders but never to an extent greater than the substance of the Act concerned. They were all dealing with sections of Acts.

When the Bill was being debated in the Dáil this matter was raised and I said I agreed with what was expressed—that the functions of the Houses of the Oireachtas must be jealously preserved. I do not think that anybody in this or the other House is more anxious than I to see that objective is achieved at all times. The regulations are, of course, subject to subsection (3), which obliges the Minister to lay each order before both Houses as soon as possible. There is a further provision in the Schedule which obliges the Registrar of Friendly Societies to keep the public informed in his annual report of all orders that have been made—this was an amendment which I introduced in the Dáil.

I agree in principle that any regulation which is expressed to change the law should not be made without the procedure of laying the draft before the Houses of the Oireachtas and obtaining their approval in the first instance. I do not go as far as Senator E. Ryan in this. Obviously, there will be certain minor regulations which, for the sake of convenience, the Minister should have power to make without having in the first instance to consult either House of the Oireachtas, but, of course, he would have to lay all regulations on the Table of the House afterwards. Our aim in the Bill is to achieve the maximum flexibility, to enable the Minister to act when abuses arise or when it may be expedient to extend time limits or make other regulations which do not substantially affect the law. I should like to preserve the position of the Minister in regard to these matters, but I agree that where it is a question of changing the law, in principle it is wrong that such power should lie with the Minister without in the first instance obtaining the approval of the Oireachtas. If the House is agreeable, I intend to accept the amendments, though I have some misgivings in regard to mechanical matters such as time limits. I should like the House to consider this in the light of our general desire to preserve and guard the functions of the Oireachtas while at the same time achieving the maximum flexibility possible in the operation of the legislation.

Before we decide anything, may I say how pleased I am to hear the views which the Parliamentary Secretary has so well and so clearly expressed?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill".

To what does paragraph (k) in subsection (1) refer? It seems to be a throw-back to section 32 which I erroneously thought was still in the Bill.

The original section prohibited advertising and it was represented to me that it was not fair. I accepted that, but we felt, at the same time, that the Minister should have some powers in regard to the matter of advertising. There were obviously reasons for this.

It was argued that any money-dealing institution might take umbrage if statutory prohibitions on advertising by it were of a nature which would unfairly affect its business. For that reason it was felt that section 32 should be withdrawn but that the Minister should retain some power in regard to this matter of advertising, and the exercise of that power is regulated by the requirement that not fewer than six members of the Credit Union Advisory Committee must be of the opinion that the practice to be restricted is contrary to the aims of the credit union movement. I am not sure to what extent the movement uses advertising in other countries, but I think it is not large and that in the normal way it would be confined to local advertising in the shape of handouts, possibly advertisements in local papers circulating in the area of the credit union, and that there would not be any advertising through national newspapers or national media of communication. Therefore, no problem is likely to arise, except that we would like to feel that we are giving the Minister the right to step in to preserve balance and protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill".

Might I again say something about the type of Bill coming before us? I can well see that if this had been brought in under the title of Industrial and Provident Societies (Credit Unions) Bill, 1966, it would have been objected to. It is refreshing at this late hour of the night to be able to comment upon the fact that it is possible to describe this Bill as simply "The Credit Union Bill, 1966." I hope that other Departments will adopt that kind of approach in the naming of Bills in the future.

It is the lawyers who will be objecting in future.

Question put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill".

How does Part III of the Schedule arise? This is insurance.

Part II makes amendments to the Friendly Societies Act, and you will observe the reference to section 62 and section 65. There are identical provisions in the Insurance Act, 1936, apparently, in section 51.

If the Parliamentary Secretary has not a brief on it I do not mind, but the only question I am interested in is how the Insurance Act, 1936, comes into this particular piece of legislation, which seems to be a good distance removed from insurance society Acts. If the Parliamentary Secretary has not got the answer I do not want to press it.

There are limitations in the Insurance Act, 1936, on the extent of children's insurance and there have been representations from the insurance companies and the insurance representatives' organisation over a long period of years asking that these limitations should be adjusted to take account of the changes in the value of money. It seemed only reasonable that if changes were being made in respect of the Friendly Societies Acts corresponding changes should be made in the Insurance Act, 1936. The limitations at present in the Insurance Act are £6 for a child who dies under the age of three, £10 for a child who dies under the age of six, and £15 for a child dying under the age of ten. Here we are amending sections 62 and 65 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, as set out in Part III of the Schedule, and so we are amending the relevant sections of the 1936 Insurance Act in regard to payments that can be made regarding children who die under certain ages, to bring it into line with the changes in the Friendly Societies Act.

That half explains it, but what puzzles me is why in a Credit Union Bill you are amending limitations on insurance and friendly societies in the first instance. If you are going to do it for friendly societies, it is only fair that you should do it for insurance societies, but why do it in a Credit Union Bill in any event?

It is not necessary for the purposes of registration of credit unions under the Principal Act to make any changes in the Friendly Societies Act, but for the reasons I gave it is desirable even so that certain amendments be made to a limited number of provisions which contain unnecessary limitations that are now out of date. It appears that there has been pressure for some time past to have these limitations in the Friendly Societies Act brought up to date. The Committee of Co-Operative Societies recommended that appropriate adjustments should be made in this respect. There are financial limitations under the Friendly Societies Acts which are very much the same as those in the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, and it was considered unreasonable to rectify these as far as the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts are concerned as we are doing in Part I of the Schedule and to leave the Friendly Societies Acts in the lurch. The object of Part II of the Schedule is to avoid criticism on this point from those concerned with the management of friendly societies.

There are a number of other matters here regarding changes in money which I could go into, but they do not concern Part III, which is the one about which Senator O'Quigley raised the question.

I just want to be clear about this thing. This is to all intents and purposes quite clearly a Credit Union Bill dealing with the whole organisation of the credit unions in this country. I am somewhat puzzled, and regret that I find myself in this position, to see that here we have quite extensive amendments of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 and even of the Insurance Act, 1936 about which I do not know whether we have heard anything up to now. I am not at all sure that this is the way that legislation to amend these various Acts should be carried out, by means of a Schedule. If we are going to amend the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 and the Insurance Act, 1936, I should think that we ought to put it fairly and clearly on the face of the Bill, and I demur to including these things in the Schedule to this Bill. But for the fact that the 1936 Insurance Act was mentioned here I would probably not have noticed this at all. The Friendly Societies Act of 1896 would probably have tied in with the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, and one would readily accept amendment of the Principal Act.

I do not think there was an explanatory memorandum issued with this Bill. What I am concerned about is, if amendment of legislation is necessary, that at least we ought to be alerted to it and it ought not to be tucked away into the Schedule of a Bill. This is the kind of vogue which has come into the parliamentary draftsmen's office. I would think when people are trying to ascertain what the law is in the Insurance Act of 1936, they would be a long time searching through the law books, reading section after section, before they would find there was an amendment of the Insurance Act of 1936 contained in the Schedule of a Credit Union Bill.

The Senator was complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary earlier.

I reiterate everything I said earlier about the Parliamentary Secretary but I do demur at that kind of method of effecting changes in the law. Nobody concerned with the Insurance Acts would for a moment suspect there would be an amendment of the Insurance Act of 1936 tucked away neatly—under the stairs you might say—in Part III of the Credit Union Bill. I am demurring at the whole procedure and reserving whatever rights are necessary for so demurring for the purposes of the Report Stage. I do not want to make any further point about it.

If these things had been taken out and put into sections 37, 38 and 39, so that people could see quite clearly what is being done on the face of the Bill, it would have been something, but we are not inclined to look at Schedules to Acts; we are inclined to take them as read. I do not want to touch the title. I am concerned that legislation of this kind in, perhaps, a more important Bill may very well escape the attention of Parliament at a future date. That is a very wrong procedure.

What Senator O'Quigley says is quite correct. Somebody looking at the Insurance Act and looking for amendments to it is not likely to look at this Act, but this is something which does happen very frequently. You have consequential amendments of other Acts and sometimes they are in Acts which have no apparent connections with the Principal Act, or the Act which is amended. Although it is unfortunate that this happens, it does happen fairly often and I do not see what one can do about it, except bring in a special Bill merely amending the Insurance Act.

As regards the second point made by Senator O'Quigley that the amendment, if it is to be made at all, should be made in the body of the Bill, I am not against that because I am very much of the opinion that where you do have repeals or amendments in a Bill they should be all grouped together at the end of the Bill, so that one can refer to them immediately and see them all together; you should not have to wade your way through the Bill to see if there are amendments.

I should point out that in section 37 there is specific reference to the Insurance Act, 1936. But I must say, as a mere solicitor, that these sort of practices of having changes tucked away became so confusing I often gave up and simply wrote to learned counsel for advice as to what, in fact, was the law. This is, at the same time, very difficult to avoid when we were strongly urged to make this amendment to the Insurance Act, especially by Senator Crowley and we made reference to it in section 37. It is not specifically but generally covered by the long Title. I do share misgivings about this method of changing law more or less under the stairs, as suggested by Senator O'Quigley, but I do not know how we can avoid it.

Might it not be of some help to ensure that each Bill intended to be amended in this way should be mentioned in the Title? Were they only named in the long Title, it would be of some help.

Question put and agreed to.
TITLE.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill".

So that it may be possible to amend the Title, might I say I do not agree that that should be the Title to the Bill, for the reasons I gave earlier? I merely say that formally so that any amendment of it will not be ruled out of order on the ground that it was not discussed.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th June, 1966.
Top
Share