Amendments Nos. 85, 88 and 89 are related and may discussed together.
SECTION 58.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 46, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "officers" and substitute "directors".
These three amendments relate to the fact that the Supervisory Committee of a credit union is mandated to ensure that the credit union is being operated in accordance with its registered rules and the law. These provisions invest a particular duty on the Supervisory Committee to review the performance by the officers of their functions. Deputies will recall that the term "officer" in the definitions section, section 2(1), includes both the directors and the employees of the credit union. As the employees work under the supervision of the directors, it is the duty of the directors to oversee the performance by the employees of their functions. Accordingly, I consider the term "officers" in sections 58(1) and 59(1)(b) and (c) is not appropriate. To avoid duplication, the work of the Supervisory Committee should be restricted to overseeing the performance by the directors of their functions and that is the purpose of these three amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 47, subsection (6)(c), line 33, after "employee" to insert "of the credit union".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 47, subsection (6)(d), line 35, to delete "union." and substitute the following:
"union;
(e) a body corporate.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 58, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 58(5)(b) states: "where the Committee consists of five members, two shall retire at each annual general meeting;". Who goes? Two go the first year and two go the second year, so one of those who went the first year must go the third year also.
Section 58(5)(d) provides ". . . as between members who were last elected on the same day, the member (or members) to retire shall be determined by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the drawing of lots."
I am glad the Minister of State is getting biblical.
Section 58(6)(c) states that an employee cannot be a member of the Supervisory Committee. An employee is not debarred from being a member of the board. Could that mean an employee could be a member of the board and then have a bearing on, say, his own salary without being a member of the Supervisory Committee?
The role of the Supervisory Committee is to deal with matters relating to the functioning of the credit union not related to advancement of employees' salaries or other such matters. I suspect the league would be of the view that this is where the voluntary dimension of the credit union should have primacy. One could find the same situation in many trade unions; the full-time paid bureaucrat would not be the person supervising certain aspects. In my union, the trustees are always elected members.
I have no problem with an employee not being a member of the Supervisory Committee. However, there was no reference to an employee among members of the board, where there seems to be a vested interest which is not debarred by the legislation.
There is a section on conflicts of interest and that is not unusual even in the House. If a person knows there is a conflict of interest he declares it and asks to leave. A member of a local authority who owns land that is to be rezoned declares his interest and absents himself. Under section 69, if one is a director setting one's own salary, it would be very unwise not to declare that conflict of interest and it would be prudent to absent oneself.
Question put and agreed to.