I move amendment No. 59:
In page 36, subsection (4), line 16, to delete "the whole of a building held by a credit union ceases" and substitute "a building held by a credit union entirely ceases".
There have been major misunderstandings in respect of this section. Subsection (4) has been read to mean that where any part of a building held by a credit union ceases to be occupied, that credit union is required to sell that building. The opposite is the case. This section is intended to mean that where the entire building ceases to be occupied, the credit union shall sell the building. It does not mean a credit union cannot take on a tenant, lease part of the building, etc.
The parliamentary draftsman does not accept that the provision in this subsection can be legally interpreted in the manner in which credit unions appear to interpret it. However, the amendment is designed to express the intention in a more straightforward way by providing that where a building held by a credit union entirely ceases to be occupied for the purposes of its business, the credit union shall dispose of the building as soon as is practicable. This will continue to allow credit unions which occupy part of their premises to lease, on a commercial or any other basis, that part of its property which it does not use. Subsections (2) and (3) cover such a situation. However, subsection (4) makes clear that where a building owned by a credit union lies empty, it must sell its entire interest in that building.
The proposed amendment to this subsection (4) does not cover the situation where a credit union may move to larger premises and pass on its existing premises while retaining ownership, to its community for a community use. Similarly, section 41 does not cover the situation of a credit union wishing to invest in other property for community development purposes — whether business enterprise centres or similar initiatives.
I had originally hoped in our amendment to section 41, I would be able to deal with this issue within this section. However, on legal advice I have accepted that it would be difficult to do so without creating a major difficulty in curbing any temptation for a credit union to speculate in property. As I do not wish to see a credit union's funds put at risk in this way, I have decided to widen section 44 to provide that the special fund for social, cultural or charitable purposes should specifically include the community development objective. I intend this section will allow credit unions to provide surplus premises for community use or permit credit union funds to be invested in supporting community enterprise projects. We will deal with the related amendments later. In the meantime, I recommend the proposed amendment to section 41.
