Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Apr 1997

Vol. 151 No. 1

Credit Union Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is the first legislation specifically devoted to credit unions for over 30 years. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework for the development and growth of the credit union movement and to enable credit unions to provide an enhanced range of services to their members.

I acknowledge the general welcome given to the Bill by the Irish League of Credit Unions. The league is the representative body which has guided and overseen the development of the credit union movement since its foundation, a role it has carried out and continues to fulfil with diligence and integrity. The achievement of the league in presiding over and guiding the extraordinary growth of the credit union movement is truly remarkable.

In its journal, the league has described the Bill's highlights as including "provision for more flexibility on withdrawing shares and deposits, for allowing people under 16 years to join credit unions, for loans to be made for periods longer than five years, for a credit union to participate in a savings protection scheme, for statutory fraud, dishonesty insurance and to allow credit unions provide `additional services"'. I will return later to some of those matters, as I will to addressing important concerns also articulated by the league.

I am pleased to present this important Bill to the House. The need for the new Credit Union Bill is due entirely to the tremendous success which credit unions continue to enjoy in meeting the financial needs of their members. Credit unions are now such an integral part of Irish society that it is hard to believe that they were unknown in Ireland 40 years ago.

In 1958 the first credit union was formed here and by the following year there were three credit unions comprising 200 members with a modest sum of £415 in members' shareholdings. As financial co-operatives, the initial credit unions were formed under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, but such was their success and growth in the succeeding years that it quickly became apparent that they needed a separate statutory base.

This led to the enactment of the Credit Union Act, 1966, which remains the principal legislation governing credit unions to this day. The 1966 Act deals with the basics of credit union establishment, organisation, operations and supervision. It outlines the conditions for the registration of a credit union by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and sets out the qualifications for membership of a credit union. It provides for the rules of a credit union to be approved by and registered with the registrar and establishes the general provisions relating to a member's shares and deposits in the credit union. The Act allows the credit union to borrow money and to make loans available to its members, subject to certain conditions.

It deals with the powers, functions, duties and constitution of the credit union's board of directors and its supervisory committee and establishes the manner in which they report to the credit union's membership and are subject to the members in general meeting. The Act also provides for the keeping of books of account by credit unions and for their audit, and it established the Credit Union Advisory Committee, which has been a source of independent advice on credit union affairs to successive Governments for some time. It will be clear from this outline of the 1966 Act that many of its general features are being retained in its successor. With the support of the statutory recognition afforded by the 1966 Act, the number of credit unions grew from the existing three in 1959 to 336 by 1969. The number of credit union members reached 169,000 in that year and shareholdings exceeded £7 million for the first time. In a little more than ten years, credit unions had become firmly established in Ireland.

The next legislative landmark was the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1978, Part III of which dealt exclusively with credit unions and specifically with providing updated powers of supervision for the Registrar of Friendly Societies. This became necessary because of the continuing success of the credit union movement in expanding the number of credit unions, its overall membership and the savings base. Part III of the 1978 Act was a response to the fact that the 1966 Act provided the registrar with little or no powers to exercise any meaningful role in supervising a credit union once it had been established. For the first time, the 1978 Act gave the registrar the power to inspect and investigate a credit union's affairs and, where necessary, to direct a credit union to suspend the acceptance of shares, deposits, loans and payments in certain specified circumstances. It also enabled the registrar to call a special general meeting of a credit union and to appoint a person as one of its directors. Many of these provisions are replicated in the Credit Union Bill before the House.

Throughout this period credit unions continued to grow and prosper, and by the end of the 1980s there were more than 500 credit unions throughout Ireland. In addition, credit union membership passed the one million mark, and the value of shareholdings amounted to £650 million. It was at this time that a general consensus began to emerge within the credit union movement itself that a new and wide ranging Credit Union Bill was required. This led to the establishment of a working party comprising representatives from my Department, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, the Credit Union Advisory Committee and the Irish League of Credit Unions to identify the parameters for this new legislation. The Bill before the House is consistent with heads agreed on the basis of the working party's conclusions.

If it was felt that legislative change was required in the late 1980s, it is even more urgent in the second half of the 1990s. Many credit unions are now offering services to their members that were never envisaged in the original legislation, and there is clearly a need to provide a proper statutory basis for current credit union operations as well as establishing a framework for the future development of the credit union movement in the years ahead.

With a sum of £2 billion currently invested in the more than 430 credit unions based in the State and notwithstanding the record of credit unions and the league in protecting members' savings, there is also a need to update the supervisory powers of the Registrar of Friendly Societies since the last legislative change in 1978. The purpose of this Credit Union Bill, therefore, is to consolidate all existing credit union legislation and to provide an updated framework for the development and regulation of the credit union movement in the future. Unlike the 1966 Act, which continued to rely on provisions in the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts as far back as 1893, this Bill for the first time constitutes a stand alone measure for credit unions. It repeals the 1966 Credit Union Act as well as those parts of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts which formerly dealt with credit unions.

There are many positive features to the Bill, and it important at the outset to outline what these are. First, the Bill supports and protects the essential ethos of the credit union movement. Credit unions are non profit-making financial cooperatives; they exist only to serve their members and their members' community. They provide a mechanism for redeploying the savings of credit union members to benefit and support the financial needs of other members of their community. This has been achieved down the years through a largely volunteer and part-time workforce in the best traditions of community self help. All members of the movement, regardless of whether they are actively working in their credit union, arehelping their community by investing their savings in that community.

A second positive feature of the Bill is that it provides a framework for the development by credit unions of additional services beyond the traditional ones of savings and loans. For example, a number of credit unions are now selling insurance products and providing foreign exchange, and there is an increasing desire on their part to exploit the opportunities afforded by technology for the development of an ATM network, for example. The provision of this framework in the Bill addresses a long-standing demand of credit unions which are anxious to provide both improvements in service and a greater range of services for their members. Many credit unions have shown commendable initiative in starting to provide additional services on a pilot basis, but credit unions in general are conscious that a lot of work lies ahead in bringing their services up-to-date.

Thirdly, the Bill adopts new limits for loans and savings, whether they are held in the form of shares or deposits. Under existing legislative provisions there are distinct limits for shares and deposits. In the Bill before the House a combined savings limit per credit union member is set at £50,000 or 1 per cent of the credit union's total assets, whichever is the greater, provided that no more than £20,000 is in the form of deposits. A positive change in the area of loans is the removal of the maximum loan period of five years contained in the 1966 Act. The new Bill enables up to 20 per cent of credit union loan funds to extend beyond five years and up to 10 per cent of loan funds to cover periods exceeding ten years. The limit on individual loans under the Bill is £30,000 or 1.5 per cent of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is the greater.

Senators will be aware that the financial limits for savings and loans have attracted a lot of attention since the Bill was published. However, the limits in the Bill have been changed since publication in response to various representations I received from the credit union movement. At the same time, the new limits remain faithful to the fundamental principles I am anxious to protect.

The strength of the credit union movement lies in catering for the personal financial needs of its members. Credit unions are not banks or building societies, and they should not become such. It is my view and that of the Government that credit unions should continue to meet the needs of their members and should not seek to diversify their activity into corporate or other commercial business. The most effective means of achieving this is to cap the amount of savings and loans which apply to individual members of a credit union, just as limits were a feature of the Credit Union Act, 1966, and its associated regulations. Based on figures supplied to my Department by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Irish League of Credit Unions, I believe these new savings and loan limits meet the current needs of credit union members while providing generous scope for future growth. In round figures, the average shareholding of a credit union member in 1995 was in the region of £1,000. The average amount such a member had on deposit was about £100. The average loan to each member borrowing from a credit union was some £2,000. When these are considered by reference to the minimum ceilings of £50,000 and £30,000 per member included in the Bill for savings and loans respectively, it is clear substantial scope is given for the future growth of the savings base and loan book of credit unions generally.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill includes a number of modern legislative provisions to support the credit union movement. First, updated provisions are included relating to the arbitration of disputes between a member and his or her credit union. Secondly, the Bill makes improved arrangements for amalgamations or transfers of engagements between credit unions. It also translates into credit union law the arrangements relating to winding up in companies legislation, subject to appropriate changes. The Bill also adopts the administration concept found in the Insurance Acts. Finally, the Bill allows for examinership. In this latter area, it adopts a number of the recommendations made in the Company Law Review Group Report of December 1994. Although these changes have yet to be implemented in company law, they are included in this Bill as evidence of the Government's firm commitment to a state of the art Credit Union Bill. I will elaborate on these changes later.

A final significant feature of the Bill to which I wish to draw the attention of Senators is the updating of the supervisory arrangements for credit unions. I have already indicated this work is discharged by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and his staff, who are attached to my Department. I mentioned earlier the registrar already has certain powers in this area under existing legislation and these are being maintained and updated as necessary in the Bill. In response to the desire of credit unions to expand the range of additional services which they may offer, the registrar is being given new powers to enable him to satisfy himself as to the capability of the credit union to undertake the additional services which it wishes to offer, where such services have potential consequences for the finances of a credit union or the savings of its members. In conjunction with the wider scope of this Bill relative to existing legislation in such new areas as administration and examinership, the registrar is also being given a role in such areas to facilitate the orderly regulation of credit union affairs. I add that the registrar's decisions are subject to appeal in the High Court, so as to ensure he cannot overstep the powers to be given to him in the Bill. Finally, the registrar is the State's supervisory and regulatory watchdog in this area of the financial and monetary system. He is to credit unions what the Central Bank is to banks and building societies.

Having outlined what I believe to be the significant elements of the Bill, I now turn to describe in more detail for the House the provisions contained in each of the 14 Parts of the Bill. Part I covers the first five sections of the Bill and contains a number of standard preliminary provisions. Part II, comprising the next 20 sections, outlines the conditions for and procedural provisions relating to the registration of a credit union and its rules. It also deals with amendments to a credit union's name and registered rules. It also establishes the conditions for membership of a credit union and provision is made for a member's withdrawal or expulsion. A right of appeal to the courts is provided against specified decisions of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the credit union. In this part also, a member may nominate in writing to the credit union a person or persons to become entitled to his or her property in the credit union on death and necessary consequential and procedural provisions are stipulated. Where no nomination has been made, the board of directors has discretion, within certain limits, to distribute or make payments from a member's property in the credit union to persons whom the board judges proper to receive it in the event of the member's death or mental disorder or disability.

Part III, which deals with the operation of credit unions, covers sections 26 to 52 inclusive and sets out a number of the key parameters within which credit unions must operate. It starts by specifying that a credit union may do anything consistent with its objects, subject to the right of a member or the registrar to apply to the High Court to restrain a credit union from doing any act or thing which it has no power to do. The general provisions relating to savings in the credit union include that the amount which a member may invest may not exceed £50,000 or 1 per cent of the credit union's total assets, whichever is the greater; the dividend on shares may not exceed 10 per cent per annum; different interest rates on deposits may be set from time to time and the credit union may require minimum withdrawal periods of 60 and 21 days for shares and deposits respectively.

Subject to certain conditions, borrowing by a credit union is permitted. It may also make a loan to a member, subject to a ceiling of £30,000 or 1.5 per cent of its total assets. A maximum interest rate of 1 per cent per month shall be charged on the amount of loan outstanding. Certain limitations on the period of loan offered also apply. A credit union or a person acting under its authority may make, accept or endorse a promissory note or bill of exchange; make, vary or discharge contracts and acquire land for the sole purpose of conducting its business. A credit union may, in addition, invest its surplus funds in a specified manner and establish a special fund for social, cultural, charitable or community development purposes, subject to certain conditions. It must also meet certain requirements with respect to the establishment of a reserve, its participation in a savings protection scheme and the maintenance of insurance against fraud by its officers, etc. Subject to the agreement of its members and the registrar's approval, a credit union may provide additional services to its members. However, a credit union is prohibited from offering loans subject to a condition that a member shall avail of an additional service. A right of appeal to the High Court is provided against decisions of the registrar in this area.

Part IV deals with the management of credit unions and extends from sections 53 to 76 inclusive. It specifies, for example, the general functions and duties of the board of directors, the supervisory committee and other officers of the credit union and it outlines a number of associated procedural requirements. Provision is made for the manner of their election, appointment, resignation, suspension and removal, for the remuneration of the treasurer and the payment or reimbursement of expenses to other officers.

In this Part of the Bill a general prohibition operates against any officer participating in a decision in which he has an interest and against any officer or voluntary assistant disclosing any information relating to the affairs of a credit union. Officers and voluntary assistants who have receipt or charge of credit union funds may be required to provide security and they shall be required to account for their actions.

A credit union is also required to maintain a register and duplicate register containing certain specified information relating to its members and officers. It must also make available for inspection by its members an abbreviated register containing certain particulars from the register. On the application of 30 members, the registrar may appoint an accountant to examine the books and documents of the credit union.

Part V of the Bill sets out in sections 77 to 83, inclusive, the arrangements for the notification, convening and conduct of the credit union's initial organisation meeting, its subsequent annual general meetings and any special general meetings. The registrar, a body administering a savings protection scheme or a qualifying group of members may require the holding of a general meeting.

The credit unions' tradition of one member one vote, irrespective of the size of the member's shareholding, is confirmed and the right of members to demand a poll on the questions before a general meeting is protected. The registrar may also attend and be heard at a general meeting. The requirements for the adoption and commencement of special resolutions are also specified.

Part VI comprises sections 84 to 106, inclusive, and contains a number of important provisions relating to the control and supervision of credit unions by the registrar. It specifies that his role is to protect members' funds and the financial stability of credit unions generally. To that end, he is given power to require credit unions to comply with certain specified ratios. He may also issue directions in relation to advertising by credit union interests. In specified circumstances, the registrar may issue regulatory directions to a credit union in relation to the conduct of its affairs, subject to a right of appeal by the credit union to the High Court. The registrar may also invite the court to confirm a regulatory direction, to prohibit a contravention of the Bill or to cease the provision of the additional services offered under Part III. While such regulatory directions are in force, winding up and other specified proceedings may not be initiated except by leave of the court.

In addition, the registrar may appoint an authorised person to inspect the books and documents of a credit union. Under specified conditions, he may appoint, on his own initiative or at the request of 30 members, an inspector to investigate its affairs or call a special general meeting. Matters relating to the conduct of such an inspection or investigation, the subsequent report and possible prosecution proceedings are also dealt with.

On foot of an inspection or investigation, the registrar may appoint a director to the board of a credit union or suspend or remove from office one or more directors or members of the supervisory committee. The registrar may also suspend or cancel the registration of a credit union. In these cases, a right of appeal to the High Court is available to the person(s) concerned.

This part of the Bill also imposes obligations on the registrar. For example, he is required to prepare and maintain a public file on each credit union and the Minister may prescribe fees for the exercise by the registrar of his functions under the Bill. Certain administrative provisions relating to the classification of information and the delivery of documents are also included. The Minister may authorise assistant registrars to perform the functions of the registrar, who is required to produce to the Minister an annual report which shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Part VII of the Bill covers sections 107 to 124, inclusive, and deals with the accounts and audit of a credit union. It specifies the financial year of a credit union, the accounting principles to be followed, the keeping of proper accounting records and the maintenance of adequate control systems. It establishes the duties of the directors in relation to the format, content and audit of the annual accounts and the report to members.

Provision is also made in this part for the election, appointment, resignation and removal of the auditor of a credit union and for the notification, convening and conduct of general meetings relating to the auditor. His rights to obtain access to information and his duties to report to members on the state of affairs of a credit union are also included. The registrar may also require the auditor to report to him on specified matters. Officers and voluntary assistants of a credit union are required to give the auditor every assistance in the preparation of his report. In addition, the credit union is required to make available a copy of its annual report and accounts to the registrar and to its members.

Part VIII, comprising sections 125 to 127, inclusive, deals with the resolution of disputes and complaints relating to credit unions. It provides that disputes between a member or former member and a credit union shall be settled in accordance with its rules, which decision shall be binding on all parties. In certain circumstances a member may apply to the District Court to settle the matter. Provision is made for the application of the Arbitration Acts to the settlement of disputes and for the making of ministerial regulations relating to the establishment of a credit union complaints investigation scheme.

Part IX of the Bill, from sections 128 to 132, inclusive, provides for the amalgamation of two or more credit unions and establishes the necessary procedures for the approval of the terms of the amalgamation by special resolution of the members and for registering the rules of the successor credit union. The procedures include the preparation of an information statement by the credit union for its members, the application to the registrar for confirmation of the proposed amalgamation, the publication of the necessary notice and the subsequent distribution of any funds to members. Similar provisions are included in this part where a credit union proposes to transfer its engagements to another credit union.

Part X sets out in sections 133 to 136, inclusive, the arrangements for the winding up of a credit union. It provides that the registrar may in certain circumstances apply to the High Court for an order to wind up a credit union. It also provides that a credit union may be dissolved in accordance with the Companies Acts by members or creditors. An instrument of dissolution is required to contain specified information and shall be sent to the registrar for registration. The credit union shall be dissolved from the date of advertisement of the dissolution, subject to a right of application to the High Court by a member or other person having a claim on the credit union's funds. The registration of such a credit union may only be cancelled after the fulfilment of specified conditions.

Part XI, covering sections 137 to 141, inclusive, applies to credit unions the concept of administration which is found in the Insurance Acts. The intention is that a credit union administrator would be appointed where a credit union was being mismanaged rather than necessarily having serious financial difficulties. Provision is made for the appointment by the High Court, on the application of the registrar, of an administrator, or provisional administrator, to carry on the affairs of a credit union as a going concern. The effect of an administration order on a credit union is stipulated and various procedural matters, including the termination of administration in certain circumstances, are dealt with.

Part XII proposes to apply the option of examinership to credit unions and extends from sections 142 to 170, inclusive. Senators will recall that the first 1990 Companies Act introduced the concept into Irish law and it has since been frequently used to save companies which have found themselves to be in serious trading difficulties. The Company Law Review Group in its first report in 1994 made a number of recommendations to improve the examinership process. The principal recommendations made by the group which are now incorporated into this Bill are: that the petition to the court for the appointment of an examiner must be accompanied by the report of an independent accountant on the credit union's affairs; the court must satisfy itself that there is a reasonable prospect of the survival of the credit union as a going concern before it decides to appoint an examiner and the general time period for examinership should be reduced from three months to 70 days.

The examinership part of this Bill provides for the appointment by the High Court, or in certain circumstances by the Circuit Court, of an examiner to a credit union if it appears that there is a reasonable prospect of survival. A petition to the court may be made by specified persons and must be accompanied, inter alia, by the report of an independent accountant containing certain information.

In exceptional circumstances the court may allow the petitioner a period of no more than ten days for the submission of the report to the court before the petition is heard. A credit union shall be deemed to be under the protection of the court from the date of presentation of the petition. The effect of such protection on the status of a credit union is described and the court may make such orders as it thinks fit where a receiver or provisional liquidator already stands appointed to the credit union.

The powers of an examiner are defined in this part, and specified persons are required to cooperate with him in his work. In consultation with members and creditors, the examiner shall prepare for consideration by the court a report containing proposals for a compromise or scheme of arrangement.

The court may also hold a hearing where evidence exists of a substantial disappearance of credit union assets. Various procedural provisions are included related to the appointment of an examiner and the court's adjudication of his proposals for a compromise or scheme of arrangement.

Part XIII deals with offences and civil proceedings in sections 171 to 179 inclusive. It outlines the general provisions relating to offences which may be committed by credit unions, their officers and other persons for contravening the provisions of the Bill.

The final part of the Bill, Part XIV, provides in sections 180 to 189 for the maintenance of the statutory Credit Union Advisory Committee, for the making of ministerial regulations under the Bill and for various matters relating to records, documents and notices. This part of the Bill also includes for the first time statutory recognition of the Irish League of Credit Unions as the major representative grouping of credit unions in the country by providing that the Minister and the registrar are required to consult with the league on various matters relating to the implementation of this Bill.

It is clear from this extensive summary that the Bill before the House is a lengthy measure. That is putting it mildly. I said at the outset of my remarks today that the Bill's overall structure and content is attributable to the extensive consultation process which took place between Government and the credit union movement itself over a number of years. It is unique in my experience that any economic sector should have been given the freedom to develop the legislative blueprint for its own future. The movement has therefore had a major formative influence on the Bill before us today.

Since the publication of the Bill late last year, I have received extensive submissions from the Irish League of Credit Unions and the statutory Credit Union Advisory Committee, as well as a host of credit unions, individuals and other interested parties. Many valuable comments have been made, and I endeavoured in our debate on the Bill in Dáil Éireann to take on board as many of the suggestions as possible. The four month period since publication of the Credit Union Bill has therefore proved to be very beneficial in helping me to improve a number of the Bill's provisions and in particular to address the concerns of the credit union movement about some of its details.

Aside from the issues of savings and loan limits and the statutory recognition of the Irish League of Credit Unions which I have already spoken about, there were concerns that the Bill involved a measure of "intrusive regulation" of credit union affairs. The first point I would make in response is that any financial institution which looks after other people's money must be subject to effective regulation. The increased powers being given to the Registrar of Friendly Societies are designed to ensure that appropriate and speedy action can be taken in a problem case.

Having said that, I have amended the Bill since its publication to extend the right of appeal to the courts from his decisions, to shorten or impose new time periods within which he must act and to remove altogether from the Bill unnecessary references to his involvement in credit union affairs. I believe that these represent a serious response on my part to these credit union concerns.

In a similar vein, I should also add that a number of credit union interest expressed concerns with the offences and penalty provisions of the Bill. I have since amended the Bill to effect a significant reduction in the terms of imprisonment applicable to offences committed under the Bill.

A series of other more technical amendments have also been incorporated in the Bill before the House taking into account many more detailed comments made to me in recent months, both inside and outside the Oireachtas. I said on its publication that the Bill was in good shape, primarily because of the expert contributions which the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the credit union movement had made in its preparation. I believe that the Bill is now in much better shape arising from the extensive consultations which I and my Department have had with various parties in recent months.

I have not been able to meet all of the points made to me, in some cases because the suggestions made involved a measure of contradiction. It is not surprising that in a movement of over 1.5 million members there should be some measure of disagreement as to the best way forward. In other cases I have not been able to respond for sound legal reasons following consultation with the offices of the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General. In certain instances, I have taken a particular policy position which ruled out some of the more uninhibited ideas for future credit union development.

In particular, I want this Bill to maintain the fundamental ethos of credit unions as community self-help institutions. In addition, I want to see them remaining as important providers of personal finance to their members, which banks and building societies have tended to neglect. I particularly do not wish to see credit unions chase corporate business, whose commitment to credit unions would generally extend no further than the bottom line. This of necessity implies that some differentiation between credit unions and other financial institutions must be maintained in this Bill, and this has been done.

I remain anxious that the registrar, should have appropriate supervisory controls over credit unions as they develop and expand their range of services, and I have secured Government approval to additional resources to help him in his expanded role. Credit unions have an excellent track record of security for their members' savings, and I want to see this continue. The registrar must be accordingly able to act where necessary to resolve any emerging difficulties arising in any individual credit union and thereby to preserve their excellent reputation as sound community based financial institutions. I commend the Bill to the House.

I am pleased this Bill is before the House. I have listened attentively to the Minister. This Bill has gone through a long process in Dáil Éireann. There is an anxiety on this side of the House, particularly in my party, that the Bill should have a speedy passage here. The credit union movement, the league and the members of individual credit unions who have been in touch with me are worried lest impending political events should cause any lengthy delay in the passage of the legislation.

The Minister has rightly said, and I think it is agreed by all parties, that the credit union movement has been one of the most extraordinary and spectacular successes in Irish life in the past 50 years. It is incredible that only 40 years ago the concept of credit unions was virtually unknown. Over 40 years, the credit union movement has provided Irish people with an exemplary service in every way. It is an extraordinary monument, not just to its own success but the energy members of the credit union movement have put into it. The way the movement has grown, developed, flowered and flourished is also an extraordinary tribute to Irish voluntarism.

As the Minister said, in 1958 there were 200 members and £415 of savings. There are now 530 credit unions on the island, 1.8 million members and almost £2 billion in savings. It is worth our while remembering that the kind of scandals, failures and problems which have been such a distressing feature of other parts of financial services have never been experienced by the credit union movement. Their record in this regard is an exemplary one, which the Irish banking and financial industry can only try to emulate and feel more than a little jealous about.

There are 427 credit unions affiliated to the league. They provide an unparalleled level of financially based, user friendly services to people in all parts of the country. Travelling through Ireland one can see towns which have been abandoned by the banking industry and experienced the death of post offices but still remain cores of credit union activity.

The service provided by the credit union movement is unique. First, it is community based, which is extraordinary in the days of crass commercialism. Second, it is not fundamentally focused on profit. Service is the objective rather than the bottom line. This is something which privately and publicly owned banks cannot compete with. Third, an extraordinary level of voluntarism is still based in the credit union movement. It is extraordinary to look at the scale and level of service provided by credit unions when one considers the backbone of that movement is voluntarism.

There is another aspect of the credit union movement I find praiseworthy and which is an essential element in its success. The credit union service is not in any way elitist. It is user friendly, a character exemplified by a sense of neighbourliness. It serves people who would not use banks.

Credit unions also encourage frugality, which is sometimes considered conservative but which is praiseworthy. In particular, it encourages frugality among people on low incomes who do not necessarily have a high propensity to save. This helps people regulate their financial affairs in a way none of the commercial banking services does.

Credit unions provide a valuable service to young and old people. Young people are encouraged to become involved in the movement, partly through the positive attitude taken by credit unions to younger people in comparison with that of banks or commercially oriented bodies. In particular, I welcome the service credit unions provide for the elderly, especially those in rural communities. The movement is trusted by these people. They feel unthreatened by their credit unions and they are encouraged to deposit savings with them rather than hold income at home. The credit union fulfils a very important social function which other financial services are not fulfilling.

Banks have often abandoned rural areas and too often we have seen the demise of post offices. In many parts of the country credit unions provide the only available financial services.

One aspect of credit unions in recent years which we all celebrate is the monetary advice and budgetary service. This is a very valuable service, particularly for those who in the past found money lenders, who operated usurious rates with ruinous effects on the lives of people, were their only recourse in times of difficulty. Credit unions, with the support of Government and other social agencies, have stepped into a major gap which emerged in recent years. All members of credit unions are entitled to our compliments and gratitude for doing this.

Credit unions have made modest demands for changes to this Bill. They have sought an increase in lending limits to 2 per cent of the assets of the union. Having listened to all the arguments, I cannot understand the reticence on this matter. Credit unions have also asked that the league be given more statutory recognition. It should become the co-ordinating and controlling body. The Minister knows my views on self-regulation. I have not been a supporter of it in the past, but we have to examine the track record of the credit union which has been exemplary in comparison to other areas of life where self-regulation is present. We could find credit unions more trustworthy in this regard than, for example, banking or some of the so-called liberal professions.

Credit unions have also argued for equality of membership and for the clause on non-qualifying members to be removed. I do not understand, and neither does my party, the reluctance to meet these modest requirements.

The Minister has cogently indicated his reluctance to extend the lending limits. His view is that credit unions are not banks or building societies. The Minister is correct in this — they are entirely different bodies. Therefore, it is not valid to make comparisons with banks and building societies. Credit unions should be seen as a sui generis body providing a unique service. For this reason the Minister has argued for a cap on loans. The figure suggested by him is not a constraint if it is judged against average loans. However, the capping figure has the potential of becoming an inflexible and unnecessary constraint. I recognise the work the Minister has put into this Bill but he is, surprisingly, showing as excess of conservatism, a conservatism which is novel, given the Minister's past pronouncements on other issues. It also hints at a degree of mistrust of the unions which is not warranted by the history of honest and prudent management which has exemplified the credit union movement.

Credit unions have proved their maturity and trustworthiness and have argued cogently for an increase in new limits. In its magazine, Review, which has been circulated in preparation for the annual general meeting of the movement, the league says it has provided detailed data to the Minister based on a survey of 427 affiliated credit unions in support of its case. The survey shows there is a substantial number of loans over £20,000, the limit in the Bill as initiated, and a significant number of loans over £30,000. One hundred and thirty two credit unions gave loans in excess of £20,000 and 60 have loans over £30,000. In addition, 293 credit unions have loans between £10,000 and £20,000. This suggests that the cap will prove an onerous restraint on credit unions. I agree with the league that the low cap on loans proposed in the Bill could mean that 81 credit unions will have to restrict certain services to its members. The survey suggests that these 81 credit unions are already facing caps.

The regulation arrangements outlined by the Minister and the role he has identified for the Registrar of Friendly Societies seems to be excessively conservative. The Review is interesting in this regard. It writes about the constraints ensuing from even the modified arrangements being made for the Registrar of Friendly Societies. We are reluctant to delay the passage of this Bill but we may have to return to this matter on Report Stage.

I agree with the views of the league that that kind of regulation from the top down is inappropriate to a community based organisation. The movement is essentially community based and it would have been good to have had this recognised in dealing with the issue of regulation.

The third issue raised by the league and individual credit unions concerns equality. It is an important issue and I think the Minister recognises this.

The Minister has expressed concern about commercial lending by credit unions. I do not wish to misinterpret the Minister, but I found this portion of his contribution puzzling. We should leave the credit unions to exercise prudent discretion in the manner in which loans are made. I know of many small businesses which have been saved by commercial loans from credit unions. I am anxious that the views of the Minister should not impede this important source of funding for people who wish to start their own business.

The response of the banking community to this Bill has been churlish in the extreme. I have listened to some of their arguments; some of the banks have argued that some credit unions have made imprudent loans. That is a choice argument coming from a banking community which supported, for example, the Goodman empire and which has been involved in many imprudent loan arrangements through the years. The banks have been arguing strenuously about the real APR which is effectively charged by the credit unions, saying that it is too high. That, coming from a banking community which imposes charges for banking services on Irish people and which is totally out of line with other EU countries, is also choice.

The banks' hostility to the credit union developments into the mortgage market is very difficult to understand. I cannot see how the credit union movement could possibly pose a threat. They have also argued that the credit union movement enjoys special tax arrangements. There are many special arrangements in place in the banking community which also constitute special arrangements, not least cartel arrangements which were allowed to operate for many years in the banking sector.

The banks should mature and "chill out" a little. There is a place for banks and there is also a place for credit unions. Individual credit unions and the Irish League of Credit Unions are anxious that the impending general election should not impede the legislation in any way. I share that view; it is important that the Bill should not be delayed. The Minister can be assured that we will do everything we can do allow the Bill proceed as speedily as possible through this House.

The credit union movement, which has served Irish people so well, is due to hold an AGM, representing its fortieth year in service, on 26 and 27 April. I would like to extend my good wishes and those of my party to the movement. I hope the Bill will be in place at that time and will meet the movement's requirements.

We, in the Houses of the Oireachtas, have been awaiting this Bill for years. This comprehensive and detailed Bill effectively incorporates five or six Bills under one title. As the Minister said, it is a state of the art Bill. This fine piece of legislation is a monument to the Minister, his officials, the Irish League of Credit Unions and the credit union advisory committee. When the Bill was first published, quite a number of contentious issues arose. From that point through to Committee Stage of the Select Committee, substantial amendments were accepted by the Minister. Last night in the Dáil, the Minister again accepted a huge number of amendments which leaves us with very little to say. It is difficult for us to criticise the Bill or to prepare amendments as all the contentious areas have been dealt with by the Minister. He must be complimented for that. The Bill before the House today has been substantially amended and improved and has received the acceptance of the credit union movement across the country.

The history of the credit union movement and the manner in which it has blossomed over 40 years is interesting. If one looks at the development of the movement from its foundation to the present day one must ask how and why it has managed to attain such a firm foothold in Irish communities. The answer lies in the fact that it is a movement of the people and by the people which responds to the needs of the real people. The credit union in every town and village provides a service to people whom the banks would not remotely entertain. That is the significant difference between the banks and the credit union movement which is effectively a co-operative.

The credit union movement has provided an effective service to people who, in many instances, are disadvantaged and do not have major assets. Such people are given an opportunity by the credit union movement to improve themselves and their lifestyle. There are 38,500 members in the credit union movement in County Clare. The movement does not treat people as customers, it treats them as fellow members who co-operate with each other. That is why it has been so successful.

Very few bad debts arise in the credit union movement primarily because of the local knowledge, information and contacts. People recognise that if they default on loans, they and their families might be held in low esteem by the credit union which would not augur well for them in the future. The credit union movement has provided loans to people whom the banks would not even consider — social welfare recipients, people on low income and women. Credit unions were providing loans to housewives long before the banks would entertain them. They are to be commended for showing foresight and judgment long before other financial institutions.

The credit union movement is not a banking movement and the Minister has struck the right note in this Bill. He is wise in seeking to ensure that credit unions do not move into the corporate sector. The credit union movement is a non-profit making organisation. The proposition by banks and other institutions that a case be made for taxation and so on in relation to the credit union movement is extremely unwise. The credit union movement is in a different league to the banks. It collects money from people and provides them with money on a non-profit making basis. The work they do is of huge advantage to the community. That must be borne in mind at all times.

During the meetings we, as public representatives, had in our various constituencies, a number of issue were raised in relation to the Bill and the Minister addressed all of them in the Lower House. He has addressed the issues of loans, shares and deposits and that it very commendable. I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has responded to the representations which have been made to him over recent months. He has accepted the views of the credit union movement and its members. He has allowed the credit union movement to move into the next century in a befitting manner and has given it the opportunity to provide additional services. The Minister mentioned the number of loans and the average amount of money on deposit in 1994. That speaks volumes about the credit unions.

A case was made about intrusiveness and there was a real concern in the credit union movement about the level of intrusiveness the Bill would cause. I am delighted the Minister has responded to that section in a wholehearted manner by removing the unnecessary references to the registrar. The people working in the credit union movement, be they full-time, part-time or voluntary workers, are honourable, decent and highly motivated people. Their record speaks for itself and there is no need for any major policing of them. There is a need for guidelines, regulations and control. That is acceptable but there is no need for over-intrusiveness and the Minister has acknowledged that.

The Minister of State responded positively by removing the unnecessary references to the registrar in section 33 on borrowing powers. He also provided a greater right of appeal to the courts as regards the registrar's decision, which is welcome. The time period within which he must act under sections 14 and 49 have been shortened, which is welcome. The provision allowing the registrar to give dispensations to credit unions from requirements under sections 27 and 35 is commendable. The time limits within which the registrar must act are extremely welcome. This area which worried people has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the credit union movement.

Before I came into the Chamber I received a phone call from the credit union movement on the Bill as it stands. Its response was heartening and the Minister of State and his Department must be proud of what they have done during the debate. The movement said the Bill was positive and that all the fundamental issues had been addressed. It expressed its admiration for the Minister of State and said it had seen democracy at work in that the Minister of State listened to the views of Deputies from all sides on Committee and on Report Stages in the Dáil and accepted and tabled amendments to respond to their views. The movement said the Bill will allow it to grow and develop into the 21st century and to expand its services. Overall, it is extremely pleased with what the Minister of State and his Department did during the debate in the Lower House. It said it would be unfair to highlight any matters of concern at this stage and felt there was no need to pursue further detail in terms of amendments to particular sections.

This reflects positively on the manner in which the Minister of State handled the legislation in the House and on the future of the credit union movement, which is well equipped to move into the 21st century. The Bill provides support, guidelines and direction and protects the interests of the movement and those of its members. It is one of the finest pieces of legislation to come before the House in recent years and the Minister of State and his staff must be complimented on a good job.

I welcome the Bill, but it will be hard to follow the extreme compliments paid to the Minister of State and his staff. This is significant legislation which is overdue and which has been discussed at local level. There was conflict as to whether these so-called "road shows" should take place. Credit unions in cities and towns outlined to local and national representatives areas of concern and I am glad the Government took account of a number of issues raised and amended the Bill.

It is obvious the credit union movement has been a spectacular success. The movement has grown in stature and status, as has the amount of money on loan. Some £1.8 million or £2 billion is on deposit in 530 credit unions throughout the country. Coming from County Kilkenny, I am extremely grateful for the work which St. Canice's Credit Union, in particular, has done. It allowed people who were unable to get bank loans to borrow money for family holidays. The credit union gave the loan on the basis of need.

The manner in which credit unions have directed funds away from the cowboys of the lending industry, that is, those who tout house to house giving loans at exorbitant rates of interest to people who may need an extra bed or other furniture. Without the credit unions, these cowboys would make more money than they do at present. The rates of interest they charged people who were under pressure were considerable. As people got further into debt, they had no way to pay the interest, not to mention the loans, and found themselves in serious difficulties. Banks did not help people having trouble making ends meet.

The lending process which the credit union movement has developed is exemplary. It understands people can get into financial difficulties and that some might not fulfil the necessary credit status investigations. The movement has done something which the banks did not want to do or were not capable of doing.

Credit unions pay personal attention to those who invest or borrow from them, which has paid off. Banks have moved away from personal attention and want plastic to take over from people. The major banks have no personal contact with those who do business with them. Although the credit union movement has grown in size, it pays personal attention to people, which is necessary.

There is a need for regulations because the money involved has grown considerably. The movement and those involved in lending and investment must be regulated by means other than self-regulation. Self-regulation, as an exemplar, would be all right but it does not work. We have seen it in the legal profession and in so-called financial institutions in which insurance brokers became financial advisers to the detriment of the people involved. Self-regulation would be the best way to deal with matters if we lived in a society in which everything was exemplary or correct.

The service to the community that credit union members offer is something we should look to in every other area of life. The Irish League of Credit Unions must be complimented on the way in which it has brought together various units throughout the country. What this supervisory organisation has done is an example of how to do business within a group of ordinary citizens who in general are doing a job without pay as volunteers. Professional people also work in many bigger credit unions and they do a tremendous job establishing personal contact with those with whom they deal.

The League of Credit Unions remains concerned that there is still some way to go on the issue of self-regulation. I agree with the suggestion that self-regulation is the way to go, but there are problems with it. Such problems have arisen in many other industries, particularly where finances are concerned.

The proposal that the High Court should be the first line of appeal is a matter of concern for the movement. This Bill deserves to pass through the House in the shortest possible time, but we must also remember the fact that we are dealing with a major industry. The Bill addresses the credit union movement as an entity in financial life that has to be complemented.

I will not deal with the details of the Bill except to say that I am delighted it recognises the work of the credit union movement over many years. The movement has taken much of the burden off hard pressed people in the past.

I hope there will be flexibility in the amount people can lend or place on deposit with credit unions. There are distinct limits for shares and deposits. The Bill sets the combined limit per credit union member at £50,000 or 1 per cent of a credit union's total assets, whichever is greater, provided that no more than £20,000 is in the form of deposits.

I am glad the maximum loan period has been removed because this gives a chance to people who might want to purchase or take a share in a house or deal with a longer term arrangement than the existing five year period. We do not want credit unions to become competitors to building societies, even though banks now have a bigger percentage of the home loans market than buildings societies. I would not like to see credit unions becoming home lenders because of the long-term lending involved — 15 years plus for a house loan — and the amount of money that would have to be tied up in them.

There can be occasions, however, when the credit union might be involved in financing homes, in particular where a person might be turned down by another lending institution due to a small shortfall in income or savings. There is scope in the Bill to help those people.

The Bill allows for examinership, but I am not too sure how well examinership has worked. Many companies have availed of the examinership system, but how many of them have succeeded in doing anything other than providing a lot of money for auditors or the examiner? How many companies have been saved through the option of examinership rather than receivership or liquidation?

As well as allowing for examinership, the Bill also takes on board a number of recommendations made by the Company Law Review Group. The concept of examinership has possibly worked to the advantage of certain major international companies in their secondary areas of operation; but I wonder if it has worked to the benefit of workers in certain companies which in the past would otherwise have gone into receivership or liquidation.

In many cases it appears all the examinership has done is to put a lot of money in the hands of lawyers and accountants. I would like the Minister of State to tell me whether there has been a successful examinership which has helped the workforce. Can the Minister of State say whether the examinership option has been of benefit to a company's investors and directors, other than being of benefit to the legal or auditing professions? I would like to know what his feelings are on that matter.

The updating of supervisory arrangements for credit unions is both necessary and welcome. There may be slight flaws in the Bill, but many of the flaws that were in the original Bill have been amended. The Bill is welcome and over time changes may be made to facilitate the genuine needs of the credit union movement. In particular I would like to ensure that the Irish League of Credit Unions receives the recognition it deserves both within the Bill itself and within the ambit of the financial services sector.

The ATM is a fact of life but I hope credit unions will remain person friendly and not plastic friendly as many of the other financial institutions have become.

I welcome the legislation. This House does not have much work to do in this regard because all the work has been done at this stage, particularly with the passage of the Bill through the Dáil. I congratulate the Minister of State for getting near the end of the line. He has put a tremendous amount of work both into the preparation of the legislation and the changes that were made during the debate on Committee and Reports Stages in the Dáil.

We were lobbied when the drafting seemed to be taking forever and a day, but eventually that was completed and the Bill came before the Oireachtas. All the work has been worthwhile. We now see legislation that will give proper legislative recognition to the work of credit unions and will put into law the various regulations necessary to ensure the movement can move forward into the 21st century.

Many Members referred to the work and growth of credit unions. The credit union movement belongs to the people. It is not concerned with making a profit, it is non-sectarian as it operates in the 32 counties, and its ethos is to serve people without benefiting from it. Figures published last September showed the number of credit unions and members in each constituency. The ratio of volunteers to full-time and part-time employees is approximately 7:1. That illustrates the nature of the credit union movement and the fact that many people give their time free to advance its aims. As many speakers said, it has helped people of limited income for whom the banks do not cater. This movement should be congratulated for the difference it has made to the lives of a large number of people.

There is little work to be done on this legislation. I also got a telephone call this morning from the Irish League of Credit Unions to say it was happy with the way the Minister responded to its concerns and that it hoped the Bill would be enacted as soon as possible. I operate on the principle that if something is not broken, it should not be fixed and if something has been fixed, it should not be rebroken. We should enact this legislation as soon as possible.

The main changes relate to the limits on the amount of a loan a credit union may give. The inclusion of a percentage is important because there are big and small credit unions. This allows big credit unions to lend larger amounts of money than smaller ones. These amounts must be related to the assets of the credit union. I also agree with what has been said about changes in regulation. No credit union objects to regulation or to the role of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Self-regulation is already built into the system, so the State and the registrar must supervise and regulate its activities. However, they must not become involved in the day to day management of credit unions. The registrar must be free to intervene whenever necessary to ensure everything is organised properly.

The Minister consulted widely and he has satisfied those who raised concerns about this Bill. It will allow credit unions to give additional services to the people, which is right, given the way they spend their money. In the past people kept their wages in their pockets until they needed to use them. However, our financial affairs are a little more complicated so it is important for credit unions to increase their services.

I also welcome the credit union's involvement in the money advice and budgeting service. The Minister for Social Welfare said in Ennis it was his intention to allow social welfare payments to be paid directly to a credit union account as soon as the necessary amended legislation is put in place. That will probably facilitate the interaction between the money advice service and credit unions. I know from dealing with individuals who have problems handling their household budgets that the credit union helps them to control their limited income. It also means that people who have difficulty paying their bills will be able to sort out their financial affairs. It is not easy for anyone on a limited income to pay bills but at least this service gives them support. Credit unions should be congratulated for the role they have played.

The detail in sections 4, 5 and 6 is important. It copperfastens the way credit unions operate, particularly in relation to the tradition of one member one vote, in relation to confidentiality and ensuring that someone does not participate in a decision in which they have an interest. It is important that this is enshrined in legislation so there is no doubt about the way the system operates.

I join with those who congratulated the Minister for introducing this legislation and responding to the concerns expressed by the Irish League of Credit Unions, individual credit unions and by Members of the Dáil and Seanad. I hope the legislation is enacted as soon as possible.

I am not sure I can congratulate the Minister but he must be commended for the way he has dealt with this legislation and the degree to which he has taken on board the legitimate concerns and fears of the Irish League of Credit Unions and the movement in general. The movement has been looking for this Bill for the past ten years or more. The need for the legislation was self-evident in view of the huge growth in the movement.

I will not catalogue the figures and facts put before this House and the other House about the growth of the credit union movement, the number of its members and the size of its savings except to say they and the degree to which the movement has flourished since it was founded are impressive. The credit union movement, more than any other movement in Irish society, highlights the degree to which self-help can transform society and the degree to which a genuine commitment to local co-operation, community care and self-help can mobilise something into a major national achievement and job creation exercise.

We must also recognise the huge voluntary contribution by people who serve the credit union which allows it to be more flexible and better than the Associated Banks. It is important that the distinction between the credit union movement and the Associated Banks continues and that, within the distinct ethos enjoyed by the credit union movement, it is able to offer and expand its services and increase the range of options available to its members and in certain circumstances to compete with the banks. The point was made by many speakers that people on whom the banks cast a cold eye have found a home in the credit union and have been well looked after. Indeed, I can recall instances where businesses have been able to succeed as a result of support from the credit union when the banks would not have anything to do with them.

I welcome the changes the Minister has made to the Bill but there are a few improvements which could still be made. In fact, I would have gone even farther than the credit union movement in terms of some of the limits which have been increased and improved in the Bill, but I welcome the changes in broad terms.

It is important that the Bill is enacted quickly before the election but none of us knows when that will occur. I know that the Minister's Labour Party colleague had some views on that matter but I am sure the Democratic Left, being a distinct party in Government, might not yet have formed an opinion.

The Senator must be out of touch.

I thank Senator Sherlock for his assistance in this matter. I am sure he will let me know when the day comes.

The Bill which was published before Christmas was deeply flawed and it has been improved. The lobbying involved was one of the most successful exercises undertaken by a national movement of any size. It was responsible and clear. It is important in a democracy that that type of activity should take place. I know it can be tedious for Ministers and officials but it is important and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Many of the reasonable requests made by the league have been incorporated in the improved Bill and much of what was adopted at the special general meeting in Limerick was incorporated in the Bill.

The most significant improvements are the limits on the savings and loans and the recognition of the Irish League of Credit Unions. Other issues have been cleared up also and there is the area of new services. I still take the view that something could be done with regard to the registrar and the regulation of the movement.

The system must take into account the huge diversity within the movements, the fact that there are small and large credit unions. To introduce new figures rather than the national ones which have been well rehearsed, the credit union in my town, Newbridge, County Kildare, has £15 million in assets and 13,000 members and it has grown by 40 per cent within the space of a few years. Such growth would be regarded as a huge success in any commercial operation. In County Kildare, there are 52,000 credit union members and £54 million in savings. Depending on the which figures one reads, there are 1.6 or 1.8 million credit union members in Ireland so it is one of the most important national movements.

It is worth stating the vision of the credit union movement which I was given recently: credit unions will satisfy the social and economic needs of their members with dignity and integrity by offering, in the co-operative manner and on a not for profit basis, full financial services for everybody in the community who wishes to join. That summarises well their ethos and underlines why the legislation should be flexible and take their views into account. It is important that the Bill is enacted quickly and that the credit unions are allow do the things they wish.

The question of self-help is hugely important. My party leader has been criticised for saying that the Progressive Democrats want to help people who want to help themselves and if any movement underlined that philosophy, it is the credit union movement. That has been its history. The people achieved remarkable things on a co-operative basis and I would underline the voluntary effort involved.

A magnificent new 10,000 square foot credit union building was opened in Newbridge last September and we are very proud of it. If an individual credit union is of a scale that it wants to provide an ATM on the side of its buildings, that should be a matter of the board of the local union. In such matters, which I would regard as domestic management, neither the Registrar of Friendly Societies nor anybody else should intrude to an unwarranted degree, and that relates to additional services and the provisions in the Bill with regard to how such matters are to be handled.

There is the question of non-qualifying members under section 17(4) and we may look at that on Committee Stage or on Report Stage.

The movement is relieved at the degree to which the Bill has been improved. One of the things which needs to be stressed — and I suspect it has been — is the low level of bad debt or defaulting loans in credit unions. It is curious that in circumstances in which one might expect a larger rate of default than in the associated banks, the reverse is true. That says something about the ethos of the movement and the way it has been managed. It probably has something to do with deriving from, and being part of, the community and accepting obligations to the community through the movement which have not always been evident in the associated banks. There is also the point, which has been well made, that some private individuals who handle large sums of money have left their clients high and dry and that the credit union movement has been a model of how things should be done.

The main thing is that the legislation should be flexible, the movement should be able to continue to grow and flourish, it should be able, within the regulations to offer a full range of services and the necessary prudential discretion should be available to them on big and small loans. I could speak at length on this Bill but I would just be repeating what has been said in the Dáil or by other speakers here. I endorse the points made by most of the speakers.

I welcome this Bill. It is a good Bill as a result of the considerable dialogue between the Minister and the people responsible directly for delivering the service in credit unions. That is a good thing because the legislation must reflect the views and aspirations of the people who deliver the service. They know best. I commend the Minister for giving such consideration which has resulted in an acceptable Bill.

This is a modernising Government and the Credit Union Bill is modernising legislation. The last legislation governing credit unions was passed in 1966 when the financial landscape looked very different from today. It is hard to imagine that, with the growth of the credit unions over the years, it took so long to introduce legislation. In the interim, technology has galloped ahead. ATMs have become commonplace, as have paperless transactions, and the financial services market have been globalised.

There has long been an urgent need for updated legislation to facilitate credit unions and strengthen their social role. The Bill seeks to level the financial playing field while retaining the unique ethos of credit unions. It provides that members of credit unions will have access to a similar range of services available to customers of other financial institutions, while updating the regulatory framework governing credit unions. At the same time, the Bill ensures that a local credit union will not simply become another bank or building society.

The Credit Union Bill will help facilitate diversity. Credit unions are, quite literally, the people's banks. For many households they are the main financial institution used and they provide a lifeline in circumstances where people might otherwise have to have recourse to predatory moneylenders.

Democratic Left has consistently highlighted the plight of families trapped by money lending. In Government, we have promoted practical measures to deal with this issue, ranging from the Consumer Credit Act to this legislation and to the massive expansion of the monetary advice and budgeting service which falls under the remit of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa. In addition, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Bill contains a section with stiff sanctions aimed at aggressive and intimidating debt collection. It is extraordinary how commonplace this problem has become and it must be tackled. However, I am sure the credit union movement will attract people by making it easy for them to save money.

It has been suggested that the inclusion of the term "in accordance with the registered rules" in section 32(3)(b) does not increase the flexibility of the section and that decisions on withdrawing shares when an outstanding liability exists should be delegated to credit committees which are better equipped to make judgments, given that they issue loans in the first instance. People must be encouraged at all times to continue to save money.

I seek clarification in respect of section 51. Reference was made to the Minister for Social Welfare's statement on 4 April when he said:

It is intended to make it possible to pay social welfare payments directly to a credit union account as soon as the necessary amended legislation has been put in place. The possibility of a user friendly bill payment system through the credit union can then be considered.

Section 51 contains no reference to this matter — the Minister of State referred to it during his contribution — and I am not aware that it is dealt with in any other section. I do not know whether section 51 was amended in this regard but, if it has, I stand corrected.

My final point is a minor one and concerns changes of address. I am informed that this provision might not apply in rural areas as much as it will in urban areas where people retain links with the locality in which they grew up. These are not contentious matters but they may require consideration before the Bill is eventually enacted.

Chuirim fáilte roimh an mBille and roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach. I welcome the Minister of State who will soon be taking a holiday on the Dingle peninsula. The House is scheduled to take Second Stage of the Bill today and a request was made that we should deal with all Stages. As party Whip, I consulted the Fianna Fáil Members who stated that it would be better if Committee Stage were taken at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday as planned. The credit unions are anxious to see the Bill enacted and the Opposition will not delay its progress. The Minister will receive every co-operation from this side of the House to that end.

Like most Members who contributed to this debate, members of my family and I belong to our local credit union. As I stated on a previous occasion, the credit union in Dingle was only established within the past four to five years but it has been very successful.

There are major differences between credit unions and banks. With credit unions one is doing one's business with people involved in the local community who know families and are aware of their problems. Banks differ from credit unions in respect of their consideration of requests for small loans and they issue blanket refusals without being aware of the full circumstances. However, it is possible that those operating credit unions are involved in other local voluntary organisations and know the familial circumstances of people seeking loans. Credit unions are important because they help to drive moneylenders off the streets. Properly run credit unions cater for people's needs in a very personal manner.

I welcome a number of important changes incorporated in the Bill. For example, people under 16 years of age will now be allowed to open savings accounts in credit unions. I recently spoke to a woman who stated she was embarrassed by a bank's refusal to open an account for her son until she obtained proper identification. She tried to explain to the bank officials that the boy in question was her son and everything was above board but many obstacles were placed in her path.

Young people should be encouraged from an early age to save money and respect its value. In Greece and Crete, people open bank accounts for their children soon after they are born. Any money children receive on birthdays or other special occasions is deposited in their bank accounts for use in later life. Young people should always be encouraged to save money and the credit union is the obvious place for them to do so.

Reference was made to ATM machines and, if it is permitted under the provisions of the Bill, I have no objection to credit unions putting these in place. I am aware of many people who had to go to the credit unions to borrow money to cover their credit card debts. It is easy to be issued with a credit card and because high credit limits are readily granted it is easy to overspend. People often have to borrow elsewhere to cover the debts incurred. I would be wary of credit unions providing credit card or ATM card facilities. They must be strict about the withdrawal or credit limits involved. Over the years the credit unions have solved the problems of many people who have overspent with credit cards.

I imagine most credit union loans are short-term and do not involved very large sums of money. They provide a useful means to help people in trouble. Many people experience financial problems related to different events, such as first communions, confirmations or weddings and they need money to help tide them over in the short-term. The credit union is the obvious place to go because, especially in rural areas, the people working in the credit union would be familiar with the members. As I said, those working in the credit union are often involved in other local voluntary organisations and are aware of the needs of families. They tend to be fairly flexible in their approach.

I would not like to see credit unions operating in the same way as the banks or building societies. I would prefer to see the credit unions continue to operate as they do at present with the improvements which they have sought. The Minister of State has gone a long way to respond to the changes required by the credit unions. Perhaps it is because I am my party's Whip, but I have received many letters in relation to this Bill which have indicated to me the worthiness of the credit unions and the respect in which they are held.

We will not delay the Bill unduly. We will examine it between now and Committee Stage and we may have amendments to propose at that time. If we receive representations from the credit unions we will do our utmost to facilitate them. The Bill is comprehensive and requires examination. I commend it to the House.

I join in the compliments paid to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. They are well deserved because, in keeping with his attitude to other legislation he has brought before the House, he has indicated a willingness to listen to constructive criticism aimed at improving the legislation. His willingness to listen to points of view is recognised on all sides. There have been many representations on a limited number of proposals in the Bill. However, it is a comprehensive Bill which comprises 189 sections and five Schedules. It is not often that Bills of such size come before us. From the outset the greater part of the Bill was recognised as necessary.

I join in praising the contribution the credit union movement has made to the wellbeing of many people. It is a substantial movement, with about 1.5 million members. From its inception it has focused on providing credit facilities for many people, some of whom are in the low income bracket and who would not find other financial institutions as willing to meet their requirements. It has created among its members an important instinct for saving. In his usual common sense way, Senator Fitzgerald gave us the example of the difficulties which confronted a mother and her son when trying to open an account in a bank. He also pointed out that the service provided by a credit union is a local service based on local knowledge of the clients in the community. This is part of the valuable contribution which credit unions make.

I received many representations on this Bill from the credit union movement. It was pointed out that the credit union carried out an effective lobby on this Bill, as was its entitlement. However, many of its concerns were based on misunderstandings. I attended a meeting recently in County Clare at which over 200 members of the credit union movement were present. Distinct from other lobby group meetings which one is called upon to attend — I often have reservations about the wording of the summonses one receives — the credit union members did not come to the meeting to harangue the public representatives but to express their concerns.

We engaged in a positive and constructive discussion and there was evident willingness on their part to accept our reassurances on certain points. When we thought we could only give them a conditional reassurance before checking it out further, they were willing to accept that. I compliment the people who attended that meeting on the constructive manner in which they presented their concerns and accepted our willingness to pursue the questions they raised.

This morning I discussed the Bill with the people who attended that meeting. They said the Bill as passed by the Dáil addressed the fundamental points they had made. It was a positive measure and they were happy with it. The Minister of State will be happy to hear that they also expressed their admiration of him. Any Minister would welcome such admiration because it is not always the case. They believe the legislation will allow the credit union movement to expand and develop its services. That is an amazingly positive reception from an organisation that had substantial concerns only weeks ago. As a result, it is a pleasure to welcome and support the Bill in this House.

Senator Dardis made a point that merits consideration. The credit union movement provides a financial service to people on low incomes. The level of default by members of the movement, in comparison with the level in the wider financial services sector, is amazingly low. I agree with the Senator that one of the principal factors contributing to the low level of default is the ethos which underlies the credit union movement and the spirit of co-operation it engenders among its members. The low level of default is a vindication of the service it provides for people, many of whom would not receive such a service from other financial institutions. It is a credit to the movement and to the people who work in it.

The ceiling on shares and loans, which was a matter of concern, has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the movement. The movement was also concerned about the powers conferred on the registrar under the Bill. Some of that concern was based largely on misunderstandings and the Minister of State has moved to eliminate or meet the movement's fears. This morning I was told that it was one of the fundamental points which had been addressed to the movement's satisfaction.

The movement also had a problem with regard to the disposal of property. The Minister of State has addressed that in section 41 and the movement is happy with his response. He has also gone further in extending recognition to the Irish League of Credit Unions and in acknowledging its expertise in the important areas in which it operates. The new section 181 accommodates that recognition. The movement was concerned about penalties and offences. The Minister of State has extended the circumstances in which these would arise and these changes are acceptable to the movement.

No critical voice has been heard about this Bill in the House today. Senator Fitzgerald pointed out that the concluding Stages are ordered for next week. Otherwise, I doubt that anybody would have criticised the House for passing all Stages today. However, we are not at liberty to change the Order of Business, much as I would like to dispose of the Bill since there is no indication that further amendments will be proposed.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister of State for meeting the concerns of the credit union movement.

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate on this important legislation. The tone of their contributions and their gracious remarks are appreciated. It was clear they had held many discussions with representatives of the Irish League of Credit Unions and that they had personal knowledge of the operation of credit unions in their local communities.

I do not disagree with Senator Roche's analysis of the role of credit unions. However, he reopened the question of the limits imposed in the Bill. He described them as an inflexible and unnecessary restraint. This is an important point which has been debated both inside and outside the Oireachtas ad nauseam. Senator Roche appeared to suggest that there ought not to be ceilings on either savings or loans. That is not consistent with his argument that it is important to protect the ethos of the credit union movement. If there are no limits or ceilings, there is a temptation to pursue commercial lending and to enter the business of house loans and mortgages. Once that is done, some if not all credit unions will become what building societies were not so long ago.

Senator O'Sullivan referred to other considerations, such as the fact that credit unions enjoy a different tax regime from conventional financial institutions. It is right that they do because they are non-profit making organisations. As Senator Dardis said, they are self help, mutual organisations working for the local community on the basis of its savings. It is proper they are exempt, for example, from corporation tax, and that differentiation is important. If Senator Roche's argument were carried to its logical conclusion and loans were allowed to be made available as if the movement were a conventional financial institution, great pressure would be brought to bear on the Minister and it would be very difficult to resist demands that the movement be treated similarly in other respects, including taxation. That would have the effect of transforming it into another limb of the conventional financial services sector and it would no longer be different.

The main focus of credit unions has been meeting the personal financial needs of their members. Senator Fitzgerald described it as people who get into trouble and need to be bailed out in the short-term, or people who need finance for the purchase of a car or something similar. That is the main area and the new limits enable a credit union to respond to the argument made in the other House about a person in a local authority dwelling who avails of the tenant purchase scheme being able to raise finance from a credit union where a building society or a bank may not be so forthcoming. It is an exceptional case but it is right it be provided for.

The figures are illuminating. Averages do not necessarily prove anything but the average figures, largely agreed between the league and the registrar, suggest the average deposit is about £100, the average shareholding is £1,000 and the average loan £2,000. There are exceptions to that, but not to the extent Senator Roche suggested. Some 0.04 per cent of the membership have loans in excess of £30,000. The situation should not be exaggerated. It is right we should acknowledge the primacy of the bona fide credit union member where his or her investment tends to be in shares rather than in deposits. The aggregate formula we have devised in terms of investments of £50,000 or 1.5 per cent of assets is about right. That argument is generally accepted at this stage.

Some Senators, such as Senator Taylor-Quinn, acknowledge that if the movement were to go full-bloodedly into the corporate sector in terms of commercial loans, etc., credit unions would not be what they are. Explicit provision is made in the legislation to allow credit unions to devote some of their resources to community development objectives, be it small enterprise, community enterprise, etc. Positive encouragement to do that exists. We should not get confused. Up until now, credit unions have been able to give loans to micro-enterprises under one guise or another. There is a world of difference between that and being able to give loans to some of the major companies which Senator Ross reports on so elegantly and eloquently and in such a balanced manner every Sunday.

I imagine that was unscripted.

As Senator Howard said, self-regulation is probably the other major topic which has emerged in the debate so far. I thought Senator Roche favoured self-regulation. I am of the same mind as Senator Lanigan that there is an argument for self-regulation because it is important with any organisation dealing with substantial amounts of members' funds that we are happy with the regulatory regime which applies, especially with regard to occasional developments in other areas of the financial services sector. The credit union movement may say this does not relate to it and that it is different. That is true. However, there has been substantial deification of and gracious remarks about me, about which I am very pleased, and similarly about credit unions and their members. It would make us believe there are 1.4 million saints in the movement. I am more sceptical than that and, notwithstanding the best efforts at self-regulation and at leadership in the credit union movement, it is prudent to provide for regulation, and the registrar is a suitable mechanism to prudentially provide for the supervision of members' funds. The current occupant of the office has immense experience in the area and has acquired considerable knowledge. He has had a major formative influence on the construction of the Bill and has a good relationship with credit unions. This augurs well for the future and the continued growth of the movement.

Senator Lanigan raised the efficacy of examinership and the appropriateness of the provisions in the Bill. I do not argue with him that some professionals attending on examinership are paid too much as that is manifestly the case. Professionals are generally paid too much. However, it does not mean examinership has failed. The Senator asked for my opinion, which is that examinership, by and large, has worked well. It has staved off creditors for a valuable period to allow a certain number of companies to get their act together, show that they had a future and gave them a respite. That has been valuable.

These sections seek to import into the Bill some of the recommendations of the report from the Company Law Review Group — for example, to apply the test of a reasonable prospect of survival for the enterprise or credit union concerned. That is a reasonable test. It is proper that the enterprise concerned should have a reasonable prospect of survival. Once that is the case, examinership is a useful instrument and can be beneficial to companies who have encountered temporary difficulties or difficulties for exceptional reasons. The same could be the case in the credit union movement. I am not sure how relevant the measure is in the case of credit unions. I tend to believe that the registrar would have noticed the alarm bells before that stage.

Members of the Opposition are expecting a general election. I see no reason why we should have an election, given the performance of the Government and the economy. If they insist on believing that——

It will not happen before next Wednesday.

The point was raised about the High Court being the point of appeal. We had this debate in the other House and my advice from the Attorney General's office was that, in certain types of decisions of which the registrar is seized, he is sitting in a quasi-judicial role and has the status of a District Court. Therefore, the appeal line from the District Court is to the High Court. That is not the case in other administrative situations where the decision of the registrar can be appealed to the District Court.

Senator Sherlock raised the issue of social welfare payments being lodged to credit union accounts. Discussions have been taking place between the Department of Social Welfare and the Irish League of Credit Unions on this point. I do not know where these discussions stand. I can assure the Senator that there is nothing in sections 48 to 52 to impede such payments. The matter raised is more appropriate for Social Welfare legislation. I imagine that that is the thrust of the discussions taking place.

Senator Sherlock also raised the term "non-qualifying members" used in section 36. Loans to non-qualifying members which do not exceed the value of savings can be dealt with by the credit committee or credit officer under section 36(5). As a result of the additional risk factor for loans above the amount of savings of such members, the board of directors will decide. Their decision will be informed by the views of the credit committee.

The common bond in credit unions is a key distinguishing feature relative to banks and building societies. If members both inside and outside the common bond are treated equally, the banks will be able to claim that credit unions are no longer a special case and will push for a level playing field in areas such as taxation.

Senator Sherlock also raised section 32, which deals with withdrawals. My advice went against linking loans in section 35 and withdrawals in section 32. I see no difficulty in the board of directors getting the credit committee's advice before making its decision. Unless a loan is above the 4:1 standard ratio, any member continuing to save will be able to withdraw his savings. This is important in respect of Senator Roche reopening the issue of the caps. No one mentioned the fact that the legislation allows the Minister to raise the ceilings by order if they are considered inadequate. In this case the registrar has the power to change the 25 per cent figure to which Senator Sherlock referred.

The Bill provides for the mainstream of members' transactions. It also provides for the exceptional event. For example, where someone receives accident damages which they wish to deposit in a credit union or where members who are co-workers wish to purchase a house in the Dingle peninsula. That is a long-term objective of my own.

The registrar has a certain discretion and the Minister has the power to make orders to raise the ceilings. I cannot accept the argument that this Bill is overly restrictive. It provides for the inevitable continued growth of the credit union movement. The movement is one of the outstanding successes of modern Irish life and the co-operative sector. It will continue to grow. The Bill provides a framework in which the movement can offer a new and enhanced range of services. It will allow the movement to avail of new technology and it places the emphasis on service to the customer in a non-profit making organisation. There is no doubt but that the movement will continue to grow and prosper.

I thank Senators for their considered contributions. It would have been even more helpful if we had been able to take all Stages today. It is right that the league is being accurately reflected in terms of its wish that the Bill be finalised in advance of its annual conference scheduled for 25 and 26 April. That has no bearing on any other dates or events people may anticipate. Any other events pale into insignificance by comparison.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

It is proposed to take Committee Stage on Wednesday, 23 April 1997.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 23 April 1997.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 April 1997.

Top
Share