Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Credit Union Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. G. Mitchell)

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, on introducing a thorough Bill in his usual professional and comprehensive manner. I welcome the Bill which provides a statutory framework for the development and growth of the credit union movement. It will enable credit unions to provide an enhanced range of services to their members.

The credit union is an essential part of community life in rural and urban areas. It is difficult to believe that the first credit union opened just 40 years ago. Today there are 434 credit unions with approximately £2 billion in savings and approximately 1.6 million members. Credit unions have established a niche for themselves as providers of personal finance in the community in a different way from banks and building societies. I pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers and part-time workers whose efforts have made the credit union movement flourish.

Members of the movement, whether or not they are actively working in their credit unions, are helping by investing their savings in their local community. This sense of local pride and the ethos of community self-help is being used in the local development programme. This scheme, for which I have responsibility, is on target to create over 8,000 jobs in areas of greatest need on the basis of local action plans prepared by local communities. The Bill maintains the fundamental ethos of credit unions as community self-help institutions. However, it also gives credit unions the necessary flexibility to develop additional services, such as foreign exchange, insurance products and ATM facilities. We live in a fast changing world and the credit union movement must be allowed to develop its range of services if it is to continue to provide the level of service expected by its members.

I made a suggestion to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, which may or may not be appropriate to Committee Stage of this Bill depending on the advice he receives. I respect that but this matter needs to be addressed either in this Bill or other legislation. Credit unions should be involved in forming undertaker co-operatives to offer members cheaper burial services in Dublin. This problem is specific to Dublin and does not, I understand, arise outside the capital. Therefore, my comments are based on my knowledge of the problem in Dublin. The cost of funerals in Dublin is scandalously high. Dubliners, when at their lowest ebb in times of bereavement, deserve the option of an alternative to mainstream undertakers who oblige them to sign up for funerals costing £3,000 and more, hundreds of pounds being charged for every movement of a mourning car for what is in effect a short taxi ride. As far as I am aware it is a Dublin problem and does not have the same implications elsewhere. At present credit unions write off existing loans when a member dies and pay double the value of shares held at the time of death.

I should like to see credit unions build on that provision for members by helping to form funeral co-operatives which would allow grieving relatives to bury a deceased member at a reasonable cost. It is this cost incurred at a most difficult time for people with which I am concerned. I have on file going back to 1991 of a series of invoices for funerals furnished to the poorest of people in Dublin for what they consider to be "giving the best" to their departed loved ones. One is for a sum of £2,454 dated 24 September 1991, and others are for £2,123 and £2,416 bearing dates in 1991 and 1992.

It is not by any means an exaggeration to maintain that funerals in Dublin can cost an average poor family £3,000 they cannot afford. If the terms of reference of credit unions were amended slightly — to allow them go beyond their present funeral provisions — and become involved in some way, in a co-operative funeral service for their members, we would be doing a signal service to the people of Dublin who are being preyed upon — and I make no apology for using that term — when at their lowest. We must devise some legislative means of dealing with this problem, if not in this, then in some other Bill.

Credit unions have helped to develop communities, providing an honest, fair alternative to unscrupulous money lenders. I welcome the provision which will allow people under 16 to join credit unions. Many young people are familiar with the credit union movement because of its sponsorship of the national community games. Allowing young people to become members of credit unions will introduce them to saving, to the concept of responsible borrowing and repayment at an early age. In that way we can stop the next generation falling into the hands of loan sharks.

This Bill will help the credit union movement to grow and be of even greater significance in the 21st century. My colleague has done a great service in introducing this Bill and I look forward to it being enacted.

This matter of funeral expenses is a very real problem — in Government we should not say anything different to what we would say in Opposition — it is a scandal visited on very poor people in this city at a very difficult time. We must find a means of tackling it and stand up for them against people milking them dry at such times.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Minister of State's deep interest in funereal matters has long been known in this House and is greatly to be admired. I am glad of this opportunity to make some positive contributions to this debate.

Our Party Whip will take up in greater detail a letter dated 10 March 1997 addressed by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment to the Secretary of each credit union branch or to the League of Credit Unions which began as follows:

I feel I should briefly bring you up to date on the progress of the Credit Union Bill through the Oireachtas. Unfortunately, due to an organised filibuster by the main Opposition party ...

He maintained that he does not know what parliamentary antics are being engaged in or what kind of "road shows" are being held around the country. In arrogance and pomposity, he seeks to upbraid the credit unions and the main Opposition party. There has been a response from the League of Credit Unions, and a further one this evening addressed to all Members.

I find very strange the manner in which the Minister has sought to truncate this debate which is in line with what the Taoiseach sought to do in the case of the Education Bill last week. The credit union movement lobbied and met individual Members of this House. I do not know whether that could be described as "road shows" which, to me, have a wider meaning than the very sedate, well documented and educative meeting I had with my local credit union about this Bill on two occasions.

Our party Whip will take this point further vis-á-vis parliamentary democracy. I hope we still live in an era in which people are entitled to make their representations known, put forward their case, state their aims, objectives and objections for translation into amendments by their locally elected representatives. This is the strangest correspondence I have ever seen on the issue before this House and does not do justice to the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment. He is reputed to be arrogant and pompous but these two items of correspondence and the one I received this evening are truly amazing and do little to underpin The Workers' Party, now Democratic Left, and its wish to participate in genuine parliamentary democracy. Indeed, in his position as Minister of State, sitting at the Cabinet table, it is a disgraceful, deliberate flouting of proper democratic investigation and observations on a Bill before this House.

The introduction of this much needed Bill is timely but it needs careful scrutiny on Second and Committee Stages. The credit union movement is at a cross roads, wanting to thrust forward in a modern age and be at one with overall national development. The provisions of the Bill, as drafted, are intrusive, tending to centralise control, and unwarranted in the case of a movement founded on principles of self-help, regulation and responsibility, which should be encouraged in other areas of economic and social activity.

It would be well for Members to examine the history of the credit union movement. Why has Nora Herlihy not been referred to in this debate? I searched through the contribution of each Member so far and found but one reference to her, by Deputy John Browne. As Minister for Education I launched Nora Herlihy's book in 1990 at INTO headquarters. She, the founder of the Credit Union League, for many years was a primary teacher in this city, having taught in many disadvantaged areas, in Basin Lane, Harold's Cross, in Crumlin and at the centre for children with physical and other disabilities. She was brought up in Ballydesmond, worked her way into becoming a primary teacher, had very constructive ideas and always retained the ethos and principles of the credit union movement. While the Minister of State and his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, may sigh and, in their usual arrogant way, think they have heard it all before, I did not hear them mention Nora Herlihy nor did I hear any other Member refer to the fact that it was a woman who started this movement.

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say a word.

Mrs. O'Rourke

No, the Minister just gave his supercilious giggle, as did Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald. I thought Deputy Fitzgerald was a pioneer of feminism.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I am indeed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

She has let women down.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I have great admiration for Nora Herlihy.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Through the ideas she absorbed and her pioneering work, Nora Herlihy sought to have expression to the emerging spirit in Ireland, the need to break through a morass of discontent and deprivation and to look to an earlier age which in turn harkened back to the mid- 19th century, the ideas of Robert Owen, developments in Germany and Nova Scotia and the famous priest who laboured there in the co-operative movement, Fr. Finlay, Con Murphy and Pat the Cope Gallagher as head of the co-operative movement. All those ideas sought neither Government money nor EU funds, grants or subsidies but to energise and invigorate the people to help themselves. It is interesting that the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, is present. The pioneers of the Irish credit union movement in the 1950s relied on community development and did not seek moneys. They were the true founders of the Irish League of Credit Unions and the individual credit unions throughout the country.

I am concerned about the history of the credit unions which has a bearing on the present and the future. Neither the Bill nor the Minister's contribution on Second Stage pays tribute to what has gone before or builds on it in a proper cohesive sense. We need to maintain in the Bill the strong voluntary effort which was the hallmark of the beginning of the credit union movement. If we lose sight of that we have lost sight of what it is all about.

The Bill suffers from four major defects. It is over intrusive; it seeks too much monitoring and regulation — while there is a need for proper regulation, in the main voluntary effort is better done in a self-regulatory way; it seeks to put a cap on investments of shareholders and all the various activities of a credit union where obviously the percentage basis is the determining factor at which the activity is to be carried out. An attractive characteristic of credit unions is that they vary. There can be a large credit union in some part of a city and a tiny one in a village in a remote part of Ireland but both are seeking to do what the founders of the co-operative movement, in an agricultural or commercial sense, be it in Germany, Nova Scotia or in Donore, set out to do which was to awaken the spirit of people and use it as an engine for growth and community development. They did not think of great financial institutions or profit or motivation but only of what they were doing. To impose a cap without reference to the activity of each individual credit union is an incorrect stance to take and I hope the Minister will look at it.

I regret there is not a clear recognition of the role of the Irish League of Credit Unions and the need not to have a centralised unit but an umbrella organisation as a reference point, for guidance and general direction in the whole credit union movement. They are the major faults of the Bill.

It is interesting to read the contribution of the then Minister of State, Mr. Seán Flanagan, with Seán Lemass as the guiding Minister, and the contributions of other Members to the debate on the 1966 Act. They caught the atmosphere of what was afoot in the credit union movement and the need to lift Ireland out of a protectionist age. Strangely enough we were going back to a protectionism but in a more comfortable setting at local community level. The contributions on that occasion caught the spirit of the credit union movement.

The whole debate has been interesting and I hope the Minister of State has learned much from it and in particular that he will reflect on what I have said regarding its beginnings.

It is interesting to note that John Hume started his working life as a guide and motivator of the credit union in Derry. In the forward to the book by Nora Herlihy, which I launched in 1990, he said that there is scarcely a town or village in Ireland today that one can drive through without passing a credit union office. That is correct. There is scarcely a town or village in Ireland that does not have a committee comprised of voluntary workers, working in a civic spirit for the regeneration of their community. In an era of county enterprise boards, Leader programmes, back to work schemes, FÁS, Forbairt, IDA (Ireland), Forfás which seek to create employment, the credit union in its modest business activity is a great engine for growth, particularly for people seeking finance to pursue their entrepreneurial ideas. I see little expression of that either in the Bill or in the Minister's contribution on Second Stage. I would like to see that idea advanced.

Given the way in which the Bill is drafted I see the hand of other credit institutions, for example, finance houses who probably said there are 450 odd credit unions throughout the country who are taking business from them. I say well done to an open friendly institution, known to the people of its area, where members can do their business in a more informal and relaxed way than in the main financial institutions. I hope they will feel the hurt of successful credit union offices as they expand throughout the country.

I recognise this as a crossroads opportunity for credit unions. They must move forward, expand and develop but, in tandem with that, they must keep faith and trust with those who set them up. Given the pioneering spirit of Nora Herlihy and her ilk, that balance must be maintained. I will give the Minister the book as I would like him to read it.

Mr. Rabbitte

I have read it.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am disappointed the Minister did not mention her. He who talks about rocking the baby and having to go home to mind his kith and kin would do well to read this book. The Minister will recall the night he had to go from the Dáil to mind the baby. It is important that we keep in tune with the pioneers of those days and the community development, encouraged by the President, Mary Robinson, which we all applaud. Community development is the hallmark of the credit union movement, the Irish agricultural co-operative, and the pioneering spirit of Sir Horace Plunkett, the ICA, Muriel Gahon and her women who gave the nod to Nora Herlihy to be their nominee on the consultative committee which drew up the relevant legislation in the 1960s. Those who work within credit unions today are imbued with the same spirit.

The Minister of State should view credit unions as an asset which can be developed and nurtured. Following my deliberations and discussions with their representatives at local, regional and national level, I am sure they are more than ready to respond. They stand poised to renew the pioneering co-operative spirit in meeting their clients' everyday needs.

Mr. D. Ahern

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The vast majority of the members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party have been lobbied intensively by credit union representatives in their respective constituencies. Following publication of the Bill, with all of my Oireachtas constituency colleagues I was invited to a meeting organised by the credit unions in the constituency to make us aware of the position at national and local level. It was intriguing to learn the credit unions in the constituency, in which there are approximately 65,000 registered voters, administer 65,000 accounts. This brought home to us the huge impact credit unions have on the daily lives of our constituents. As a solicitor by profession, I am acutely aware of how, during the years, credit unions have helped those who have not been in a position to approach banks and building societies. In recent times they are to be congratulated for having broadened the range of services on offer and made finance available to a much broader spectrum of clients. The Minister of State is wrong to try to tie them down to a certain figure in terms of the amount they may lend. He may well give a commitment on Committee Stage to increase this figure.

As party Whip, I was approached informally to see if the Bill could proceed to Committee Stage quickly. My response was that most Fianna Fáil Deputies who have been lobbied intensively by credit unions wished to outline their views on it. It was not my intention to contribute but I have been forced to do so because of a letter, dated 10 March, sent by the Minister of State to the secretary of the Irish League of Credit Unions, a copy of which has been forwarded to all of the credit unions affiliated to it. For sheer arrogance and hard neck, it is both mind-boggling and breathtaking. The Minister of State knew when he wrote it that it would find its way into the public domain. It states:

I feel I should briefly bring you up to date on the progress of the Credit Union Bill through the Oireachtas. Unfortunately due to an organised filibuster by the main Opposition Party, the Bill did not proceed last week to Committee Stage as expected.

I want to nail that lie, there is no organised filibuster by my party.

Mr. Rabbitte

Does the Deputy think I am a fool?

Mr. D. Ahern

On other occasions I have had difficulty in getting people to speak but, judging from subsequent correspondence between the Minister of State and the Irish League of Credit Unions, it accepts no effort has been made by my party to organise a filibuster. I did not ask people to keep the debate going, they contributed of their own volition. On one occasion the debate could have collapsed if the Minister of State had been present.

The Minister of State went on to berate the Irish League of Credit Unions:

Meanwhile I am aware that the League has organised a number of "roadshows" where, judging from the first one in Cork, a presentation is being made as if none of the above was happening... I don't know who or what is guiding a filibuster in the House on the Second Stage of the Bill...Since an almost unprecedented 52 speakers have spoken, I am puzzled as to why progress to Committee Stage is being held up. I am also puzzled as to why a parallel campaign of "roadshows" are being orchestrated by the League...Parliamentary gamesmanship is probably inevitable but if the game playing generally could be contained, I could get on with processing a Bill for the development of the Credit Union movement that will stand the test of time.

Dr. McDaid

The Minister of State should apologise.

Mr. D. Ahern

In a different forum there have been interesting nuggets of information about the transformation of Democratic Left into a supposedly democratic party. The Minister of State should take the name Democratic Left at face value and understand what democracy is all about. It is about members of Parliament discussing legislation, whether from the Government or Opposition side. Last week the Taoiseach, the great reformer, jackbooted the Education Bill through the Dáil in six hours and tried to suggest the debate could take place at the appropriate committee. The Minister of State wants to curtail the democratic discussion of this Bill. The reply sent by the secretary of the League of Credit Unions to the Minister of State on 12 March stated that the right of any Deputy to speak in the Dáil is a fundamental democratic right, subject to the Standing Orders of the Dáil. He reminded the Minister of State that over 20 of the 52 speakers who had then contributed to the debate were Government Deputies and mentioned that this had been stated on a number of occasions, so obviously the Minister of State had complained about it. The league had no part in organising any filibuster of this Bill with either the Opposition or Government parties.

Another point made by the secretary refers to the Minister of State's letter as being unfortunate, upsetting and having an unclear purpose, which says it all. The secretary goes on to say that the league exerted no undue influence on the democratic operation of the Dáil. I confirm that. It is reprehensible that the Minister of State tried, in effect, to muzzle those who were lobbied by credit unions. The Minister of State may say this can be discussed in committee; he knows well how committees operate and that Second Stage is the only real forum where a backbencher who is not a member of a committee can deal with this Bill.

The Minister of State should at least be gracious in his response and acknowledge that the Opposition has not tried to filibuster. I thought I would be the last Fianna Fáil speaker on this Bill but there may be two extra speakers who wish to give their views. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív told me that he has tried to speak on this Bill on several occasions and he will confirm that neither I nor any other Fianna Fáil Member exhorted him to speak on it.

I remind the Minister of his duty as a supposedly democratic politician. Either democracy means that we can give our views on legislation or it means we cannot do so. If the House is only to be a rubber stamping mechanism for cabals that this Minister of State, or other Ministers, might meet on legislation such as happened with the Education Bill, then shame on the Minister of State and the Government. The Government spoke in flowery terms about opening up the Dáil, letting the light in and much nonsense about transparency, openness and accountability in the programme for Government. The Minister of State should accept that he was trying to muzzle our Deputies as happened with the Education Bill, about which there will be more another day.

I feel strongly about this issue and have certain views on the credit union movement. The Minister of State should not see sitting through these debates as a chore but as an education.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Mar a dúirt an Teachta Dála Dermot Ahern, táim ag fanacht go fada le deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an mBille seo.

I take grave exception to the letter from the Minister of State. I worked for over 20 years as manager of a small development co-op. During that time, the provision of finance for rural development was my life. It is strange that the Minister of State, instead of being pleased at the huge interest in this Bill and that so many Deputies want to speak on it, alleges that a filibuster has taken place. It is strange that in many recent cases the Parliament has been seen as a nuisance to Ministers, who will talk to any group except Members of the House. The unwillingness to enter into debate with the representatives of the people, whether it is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht on SACs, the Minister for Education on the Education Bill or the Minister of State on this Bill, is not only a slight to this House but to those who elect us. There is plenty of time to speak to all kinds of interest groups but no time for debate with elected representatives.

I was pleased, as chairman of the local co-op and its manager for years, that we enticed a local credit union to set up a branch office in that co-op. I had hoped to do that for a long time. Most people see the credit union as having the right balance in lending policy, having a human view, and encouraging saving. It is probably true that many speakers' points have been repetitious. Some of the weaknesses in the Bill have been pointed out to Members and have obviously been repeated. I have a comprehensive dossier of points on the Bill but it would be more reasonable to keep those for Committee Stage.

However, the Minister of State should consider some fundamental issues between now and then. As a co-op manager, I concluded that under-regulation can be a problem, but over-regulation can lead to as much abuse and as many problems. There seems to be so much regulation in this Bill that it will be difficult for the smaller, community-based operations to adhere to them all. All the regulations are brought into disrepute when that happens and the serious transgressors cannot be distinguished from those who did not comply with a minute regulation. All of this is unnecessary because the Bill makes provision for the Minister to make regulations as he or she sees fit over time. There is a good case for the Minister of State, when reconsidering this Bill, to go back over all the regulations, decide which ones are not absolutely necessary and remove them. If, over time, it is discovered that further regulation is needed, he can use the powers that the Bill confers upon him to introduce further regulation. It seems much better to start with a core regulation and to add more if necessary.

I do not know how the registrar will police this unless a huge new bureaucracy is to be created to handle masses of paperwork. One of the faults of our modern society is that we think we can legislate away any possibility of wrongdoing or carelessness. By bringing in more and more regulations, we feel we can ensure that nothing goes wrong. That is not true, as the good operation of credit unions is totally dependent on the efficiency and dedication of those who run them. The voluntary nature of credit unions could be lost if there is too much bureaucracy. Many people give their time voluntarily but over-regulation will make it more difficult for them to handle the sheer volume of paperwork that will result from the regulations the Minister of State is introducing.

However, their voluntary nature could be lost if they are subjected to too much bureaucracy. Many people give much time to the credit unions on a voluntary basis and if the credit unions are over regulated it will be more difficult for those voluntary workers to handle the volume of regulation and red tape.

The Bill contains some extraordinary provisions. It provides for a meeting ten months of the year yet it also provides that a list of members must be brought to a board meeting each month. Those provisions are incompatible.

Mr. Rabbitte

Tá an cheart ag an Teachta.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Those provisions should be simplified, along with other matters.

For reasons which perhaps the credit union movement has not raised, I am concerned about the ceiling proposed for loans. In rural areas the biggest inhibiting factor for rural development has been the inability to get small commercial loans at reasonable terms. The great strength of the credit unions when it comes to lending money is that they know the people with whom they are dealing. They can make judgments based not on bricks and mortar or a track record but on their knowledge of the individuals involved. While some credit unions made loans that were not repaid, overall their lending policy has been good. In the context of creating jobs through enterprise a role could be developed for the credit unions in the economic and in the social development of their areas. However, if tight limits are imposed on lending that will not be possible.

A problem we have faced in the west is that while there has been a tradition of saving with local banks, those banks have not invested the money in the community from where the money came but in projects in other areas, usually urban. We should examine how we can ensure the money of a local community would be at the disposal of that community for its development. It will not be possible to do that through the conventional commercial banking system, given their lending criteria used in decisions made at a remove from the small communities. They will not reinvest in local development unless the terms are right for them.

There is a great opportunity in this context to develop the credit unions. They would seem ideal for rural development. However, I cannot see how this could take place within the confines proposed in the Bill. How much is the Bill simply regulating what exists already but confining it within a strait-jacket. The Minister of State should consider this matter seriously before the Committee Stage. Recycling money as I propose would be much better than pumping money into areas in the form of grants. Grants have many attendant problems which lending money at low interest rates on a basis of trust do not.

My experience in rural development work was that it was easy in a small community to pick people who, if they got money and opportunity, would make good, despite not having large resources of their own. When we selected people and set them up in enterprises we rarely had failures because we had local knowledge of the likely commitment of the individual to the project, his or her personality and ability to stick with it through thick and thin. Grant aid systems cannot take these matters into account because they must treat everybody in an identical fashion. In this respect lending funds can be much more flexible.

I have always maintained that one could give four or five people the same opportunity under the same circumstances and two or three of them would succeed. State agencies and other grant giving authorities are not able to make the necessary value judgments because they have to treat all similar applications in the same manner. However, a credit agency, such as a credit union, operates on the basis of making value judgments on the likelihood that the money will be repaid. In that way, where there is a shortage of security or there is no track record, they are well placed to make a value judgment whether to take the chance on the individual because they can assess the probability that the individual will succeed. I see no evidence of such thinking being developed in the Bill. The Bill attempts to regulate matters as they are so that they will remain so for the future.

I am glad the Minister of State indicated that he will recognise the role of the League of Credit Unions which has done great work over many years. I am not clear as to the difficulty in giving the league recognition in the Bill. In the Education Bill, 1997, which was half debated in the House recently, the National Association of Parents is recognised specifically. Why could not a similar provision be used in this Bill to recognise the League of Credit Unions? Most credit unions are attached to the league and more of the regulation should be left to the league rather than to the registrar.

Mar a dúirt me ag an tús, caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil díomá agus olc orm go gceapann an tAire Stáit go mba cheart go mbeadh díospóireacht níos giorra ar an mBille seo. Is Bille fíor-thábhachtach é mar is beag pobal in Éirinn nach bhfuil comhar-chreidmheasa ann. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil na comhair-chreidmheasa tar éis an-chuid maitheasa a dhéanamh trí airgead a chur ar fáil do dhaoine ar chostas réasúnta agus freisin trí cúnamh a thabhairt do dhaoine airgead a choigilt i measc pobal nach raibh an nós sin iontu cheana.

D'fhéadfá a rá gurb é an comhar-chreidmheasa an banc do na daoine bochta. Is é an banc é atá gar do gach pobal agus is cinnte go mbraitheann na bancanna móra go bhfuil iomaíocht ann nach mbeadh ann mura mbeadh na comhair-chreidmheasa. Bheadh díomá orm a cheapadh gur tháinig brú ó na bancanna móra agus ó na h-eagraíochtaí eile iasachta ar an Aire chun smacht a chur ar na comhair-chreidmheasa ar mhaithe leo féin. Tá údar imní amháin orm maidir leis na comhair-chreidmheasa agus is é sin má thosaíonn siad ró-láidir agus ró-mhór go n-imeoidh siad ó na pobail ina bhfuil siad fréamhaithe. Tá súil agam nach bhfeicfimid amach anseo comh-nascaithe ar bun idir comhair-chreidmheasa agus nach bhfeicfimid iad ró-láidir dóibh féin ar an mbunús sin. Creidim gurb é bunús na gcomhar-chreidmheasa ná an pobal in a bhfuil siad fréamhaithe, an neamhspleachas atá ag gach comhair-chreidmheasa ón a chéile agus an chaoi gur ag an pobal áitiúil agus ag an dream atá ag sabháilt ann atá an úinéaracht. Chonacamar le blianta beaga anuas athruithe móra bunúsacha ag teacht ar na cumainn foirgníochta — go leor acu ag athrú ina gcuid PLCs. Ba bhocht an scéal é da bhfeicfimis na comhair-chreidmheasa ag dul ar an mbóthar céanna.

Dá dtarlódh sin is é a thárlódh ná go mbunofaí cineál comhar-chreidmheasa nua mar go bhfuil éileamh ag an pobal ar eagraíochtaí beaga neamhspleácha a mbeadh smacht acu féin orthu. Is é láidreacht na gcomhar-chreidmheasa ná an t-eolas agus an aithne phearsanta atá ag na baill ar na daoine a bhfuil siad ag tabhairt iasachta dóibh. Má imímid ón bhunprionsabal sin táimid ag imeacht ó phrionsabal na cóiríochta ar a bhfuil na comhair-chreidmheasa bunaithe. Tá sé feicthe agam féin san obair a bhí ar bun agam agus san obair atá ar bun ag na comhair-chreidmheasa an obair íontach is féidir le daoine deonacha a dhéanamh. Tá ról an duine deonach chomh tabhachtach anois is a bhí 20 agus 30 bliana ó shin agus tá páirt ghnáth-dhaoine i reachtáil a saoil chomh tábhachtach agus a bhí riamh.

Ba mhaith liom moladh faoi leith a thabhairt do na daoine ar fad a thugann a gcuid ama agus dúthrachta ag plé leis na comhair-chreidmheasa. Tá fhios agam gur tháinig siad chuig gach Ball den Dáil ag déanamh pointí maidir leis an Bille seo.

Tá fhios agam go mbeadh díomá orthu murab fhiú linn seasamh suas sa Dáil agus labhairt ar an mBille. Shíl siad go raibh pointí tábhachtacha le déanamh acu. Shíl siad go mba cheart dóibh labhairt le gach Teachta Dála in a gceantar féin. Sin nádúr an chineál eagraíochta a bhfuil an tAire ag plé leis. Bheadh an-díomá orthu da gceapfaidís go rabhamar tar éis éisteacht leo, go rabhamar tar éis cainteoir nó dhó a chur isteach sa Teach seo agus gurb é sin deireadh leis an díospóireacht.

Ag deireadh an lae cén difríocht a dhéanfadh sé an rud seo a chur siar seachtain nó dhó agus deis a thabhairt do gach Teachta Dála gur mian leis labhairt ar an ábhar seo? Cén difríocht a dhéanfadh seachtain nó dhó má bhíonn plé foirfe ar an mBille ag deireadh an lae agus má éiríonn linn Bille níos foirfe a chur tríd an Dáil?

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Mr. Rabbitte)

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on what I think all sides of the House agree is significant legislation which will allow for the expansion and development of the credit union movement into the next century and of which the credit union movement and I, as sponsoring Minister, can be rightfully proud when it is enacted.

I agree with the consensus in the House that the credit union movement is one of the success stories of modern Irish society. Speakers on all sides of the House put on the record the tremendous contribution made by people, predominantly on a voluntary basis, to the growth and development of the credit union movement in their areas or workplaces, providing a source of personal finance to members who in many cases would not be able to get similar credit from the conventional credit institutions. Having regard to the time which has elapsed since the credit union movement indicated new stand alone legislation was necessary, this Bill, which provides for an enhanced role for the movement, is overdue.

It is relatively easy to criticise a Bill but it is not so easy to cause a considered Bill to come before the House. I take with a pinch of salt some of the criticism inasmuch as it came from people who had the opportunity over many years to produce such a Bill but did not manage to do so. However, I accept that the role of the House is to scrutinise legislation line by line, and if a great many of the lines were repetitive it probably does not make them any less valid. This is the seventh Bill I have brought before the House during my two years in office and I have approached it in the same fashion as I approached previous Bills, some of which Deputy O'Keeffe was concerned with. If there are meritorious amendments from the other side of the House or other sources I will be more than happy to take them on board. That has always been my position. I have no difficulty or sense of defensiveness in doing this as it is what this Chamber is about. If there are meritorious amendments I will be happy to take them on board. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe will be able to testify that I have done this on previous occasions.

Similarly, the views of the vested interests to which Deputy Batt O'Keeffe referred also have to be taken on board. The main vested interest in this case is the Irish League of Credit Unions and the individual credit unions, several of which I have met, including one in Deputy O'Keeffe's native city of Cork which I met only last week. I make no apology for meeting these vested interests or for how frequently I have met them. This process has been very helpful and will result in an improved Bill at the end of the day.

I do not wish to dwell on the main contributions by Members on the other side of the House tonight which were concerned with a letter I wrote to the credit unions in which I adverted to the fact that an organised filibuster was under way in the House. I do not particularly wish to trade insults with either Deputy O'Rourke or Deputy Ahern, and I hope both of them will acknowledge this is not an admission of an inability to do so on my part. However, I ask them not to insult my intelligence. I know a filibuster when I see one and I would be very grateful if they did not seek to insult my intelligence. The Deputy last into the fray when the debate was last adjourned was not present tonight even though he only spoke for two minutes.

I also do not want to break parliamentary convention by dwelling unnecessarily on this point, but Deputy Dermot Ahern, for whom I have some regard, frequently manages not to fight by Queensberry rules. He made reference tonight to the fact that, had I been in the House at an early stage of this debate, I could have collapsed the debate. I have been in the House for every minute of this debate except when otherwise briefly detained on Government business. If I had been here at that early stage, I would not, unlike Deputy Ray Burke on a previous occasion, have collapsed the debate. It is a matter of some gratification to me that the Bill has provoked such widespread comment and caused so many Deputies to contribute.

It is often the case that there is no necessary relationship between the amount of work put into the preparation of a Bill and the comment it attracts either in this House or outside it. In this case, a great deal of work has gone into the preparation of this Bill, and I pay tribute to my officials who worked diligently and attentively to meet the pre-Christmas deadline we imposed on ourselves. I would like to thank the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the work above and beyond the call of duty he put into the Bill. I thank also the invaluable voluntary assistance of the Irish League of Credit Unions which has been involved from the very genesis of the Bill and which has made an important contribution.

I repeat what I said on previous occasions, which was misrepresented, for reasons unknown to me. I never said the Bill produced was the Bill agreed with the Irish League of Credit Unions. Whereas I have had unprecedented consultation in advance and subsequently with the Irish League of Credit Unions, I never said the Bill was agreed with the league. Changes were necessary, partly as a result of the legal advice of the law officer to the Government and partly as a result of political judgment I made on a number of particular issues.

I particularly welcome the dedicated attention given to the Bill by activists in the credit union movement. I cannot find a ready precedent for the extent of involvement by so many people in a legislative measure designed to impact on their own lives. Rarely do so many people scrutinise legislation line by line and constructively offer suggested changes or improvements. As I have remarked previously, I took the virtually unprecedented step of attending a special conference of the credit union movement in Limerick convened for the purpose of scrutinising the legislation before it came into this House. It is the task of this House to make law, but it was an invaluable prelude to that process that so many interested people addressed themselves constructively to the published Bill.

The Irish League of Credit Unions, in keeping with its own involvement at all stages of the preparation of the legislation, has been to the fore in guiding the public debate. Simultaneously with this public debate, senior personnel from the Irish League of Credit Unions have been participating in worthwhile meetings with my officials and myself in respect of various amendments they are advocating. Separately, my officials and I have also met several individual credit unions, and again the diversity of opinion has been immensely helpful.

There is not a single credit union view on this Bill, and it would be surprising if there were. We will have better legislation as a result of my having listened to that diversity of view. At what point, however, does this genuine expression of constructive campaigning stray into internal politicking? Politicians know what it is like to have to sing for their supper, but it is not customary for a countrywide campaign and roadshows to be organised in opposition to sections of a Bill that are, at the same time, the subject of negotiations with the Minister and his officials. Any precedents that exist relate to legislation being opposed in principle by those affected and in circumstances where the Minister of the day had slammed the door to reasonable dialogue. In this case, my door has always been opened even to those who want to go forward with an amendment in one hand and a megaphone in the other.

I appreciate that the persons directing this campaign have a constituency to serve and are zealous only in the interests of the credit union movement. There is, however, quite a needless frenzy being orchestrated among what I would respectfully call the activists of the movement. I must also confess to disappointment that, in the course of this campaign, my own position has been misrepresented for reasons that remain unclear. The fact remains that there has been unprecedented co-operation, discussion and dialogue, and I am satisfied that the Credit Union Bill eventually enacted will benefit from that process.

The numerous representations I have received from the Irish League of Credit Unions, individual credit unions and other individuals, and the invaluable contributions of some Members of this House on the content of the Bill have been taken on board by me. Having read the various submissions received, and having met the league on a number of occasions and various credit unions on an individual basis, what has struck me forcibly is that there is no single credit union view as to what the Bill should contain. My Department and I have examined each of the submissions received and I have selected a series of amendments which will meet the needs of the majority of credit unions, if not all credit unions. Not everyone will be happy with the amendments which I will publish in due course, but the House can be assured I am making genuine efforts to accommodate the needs of credit unions to facilitate their future development.

I have to date referred over 30 Government amendments to the parliamentary draftsman. These cover matters raised in the debate by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe and several of his colleagues, as well as colleagues on my own benches. The amendments relate to the issues of savings and loan limits.

Mr. S. Ryan

Excellent.

Mr. Rabbitte

Deputy Keaveney drew my attention to the question of tenant purchase finance. She gave practical examples of her experience as a county councillor, which were helpful. I hope I can meet them in dealing with the loan limits question. I want to meet Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív in the matter of facilitating co-operative development and micro business. That has been and remains my intention.

I will also publish amendments in relation to the regulation of credit unions and clarify recommendations in respect of credit union property. I will deal with the question of additional credit union services and the question of the recognition of the Irish League of Credit Unions, an issue which holds large over this debate. It is a difficult issue because it appears some people are reluctant to accept that, as a Government Minister, I cannot promulgate an amendment to legislation that I am advised by the law officer to the Government is not consistent with good practice, the Constitution or is legally infirm in any way. My fervent political wish, having listened to the league, is to see the role of the Irish League of Credit Unions recognised in the Bill. Although I have referred that wish to the office of the parliamentary draftsman, I have not yet been successful in getting back an amendment that manages to do that. Essentially, it concerns the fact that the league is an unincorporated body, and I am advised it is not possible in legislation to give expression to the role of an unincorporated body that is not a legal person and that cannot be sued in its own right. I have asked the Attorney General to see if it is possible because, at my last meeting with the league——

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

What about a comparison with the co-operative movement and the ICOS, which is a new area of responsibility for the Registrar of Friendly Societies?

Mr. Rabbitte

That comparison is being tested. I am advised it does not hold up, that it is not exactly comparable. At the last meeting I had with the league, they expressed this in terms of wanting recognition, which is a different matter from the wider role of regulator. I am having that question of recognition looked at.

With regard to the issue of league recognition, Deputies will be aware the league is pressing not only for formal recognition in the Bill but also for some form of self-regulation. This is an issue which is proving most difficult to advance, but the parliamentary draftsman and the Office of the Attorney General have strongly advised against making any reference to the league in the Bill on the basis that the league is an unincorporated body. I have been advised that an unincorporated body has no existence in law outside those who make it up and that it is impossible in law to sue or prosecute such a body. The attention of the Office of the Attorney General has been drawn to section 94 of the Central Bank Act, 1989 which applies only to the International Financial Services Centre and which the league is promoting as a suitable self-regulatory model in Irish law for inclusion in this Bill. In reply, the Office of the Attorney General has noted that under that section the Central Bank is to specify the legal character of the self-regulatory body. Having regard to the fact that the league refuses to incorporate, the Office of the Attorney General has indicated that the league cannot reasonably be expected to be treated as a legal entity. On that basis the Office of the Attorney General does not recommend including such a provision in any credit union legislation.

As a Government Minister, I am not in a position to ignore the legal advice coming from the Government's legal adviser. At the same time, however, I have made it clear in direct discussions with the Attorney General, as has my Department in discussions with the Office of the Attorney General, that it is politically necessary that the league be formally recognised in the Bill, given that it is a long established and recognised representative organisation for credit unions. From a practical perspective, I have indicated that I see little difference between the Bill recognising the name "Irish League of Credit Unions" from the day of the Bill's commencement and the registrar doing so under section 12(4) immediately following its commencement. I am still awaiting a definitive response from the Office of the Attorney General to these representations. It seems unlikely, therefore, that we will be able to solve this issue in advance of our starting Committee Stage next Wednesday — the Committee agreed, today, to take Committee Stage next Wednesday but, in keeping with the attitude of the main Opposition Party, that was not facilitated; it threatened to boycott it and, unfortunately, Deputy Bell had no choice but not to proceed next Wednesday.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

That is untrue.

Mr. S. Ryan

It is correct.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please do not attribute to any Member of this House that he was guilty of an untruth.

Mr. Rabbitte

I regret that people who want to see the Bill amended will not allow me to proceed to the Stage where it may be amended. However, I assure the House that everything possible is being done to obtain some acceptable legal mechanism for adverting to the league by name in the Bill.

So far as the other amendments are concerned, my Department needs to obtain formally from the parliamentary draftsman's office the text of all Government amendments and have these printed and published for the House as soon as possible. Accordingly, I hope in the Select Committee we will shortly be able to start the process of examining the detail of the Bill. I expect we will be able to make significant progress in addressing some of the major issues of concern to credit unions in relation to that. I was again prevented from putting down the requisite financial motion tomorrow or, indeed, next Tuesday, which I must do before I can proceed to Committee, but the Opposition whip would not facilitate that — presumably there is some reasoning behind that.

Deputies Ned O'Keeffe and O'Hanlon referred to the credit unions having the High Court as their only court of appeal against the decisions of the registrar. The parliamentary draftsman and the Office of the Attorney General are of the opinion this is the appropriate court of appeal because they regard the registrar as having the status of a District Court in exercising his judicial functions under the Bill. I will raise this issue with them again in the light of Deputy O'Keeffe's comments.

In reply to Deputy Molloy's request for clarification on the issue of corporation tax, the Deputy will be aware that the subject of taxation is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Finance, not for this legislation. This Bill does not alter the non-profit making status of credit unions which is the basis on which they currently enjoy exemption from corporation tax. Consequently I fully support their continuing to enjoy that exemption.

I assure Deputy Pat Gallagher the Bill does not impact on the insurance products provided through ECCU which is a licensed insurance company under the insurance Acts. This position does not hold for CUMIS, and I am considering how that matter should be handled in the Bill. I am also giving consideration to Deputy Gallagher's suggestion that some of the objects for which a credit union is established under section 6 should be made compulsory while others remain optional.

Deputies Pat Gallagher and Sargent referred to the restriction in section 68 on the remuneration of certain officers of a credit union. I will look again at this area and I am likely to be able to propose an amendment.

Deputy Rory O'Hanlon was also concerned that credit unions were being restricted as to what they can do with their surplus funds. The relevant section 43 is intended to ensure that surplus funds are put into secure investments. It is not, therefore, very different in its purpose from existing legislation.

An innovation in the current Bill is the provision in section 44 allowing credit unions to establish a special fund for social, cultural and charitable purposes in their community and I am likely, on Committee Stage, to propose an amendment to improve the start-up position of such a fund.

Deputy Andrew Boylan expressed concern that the three year term of office for directors is too short. I refer the Deputy to section 53(4) which stipulates that, unless the rules of a credit union provide otherwise, a retiring director may be eligible for re-election.

On the point made by my colleague, Minister of State Deputy Gay Mitchell, this evening, it is important to make the point that on the death of a member of a credit union any loans he or she may have outstanding to the credit union are written off. It is also the case that the member's shareholding in the credit union is topped up. Both procedures are effected by insurance taken out on behalf of the member by the credit union and have the effect of alleviating the financial hardship which comes with the death of a member and, in particular, in covering the heavy cost of funerals. I have asked the Registrar of Friendly Societies to examine the suggestion by Deputy Mitchell, and I am awaiting his reply. I do not see anything in the Bill which would preclude credit unions getting involved in this area. Section 26(2) provides that a credit union may "do anything expedient for accomplishing, or conducive to or consequential upon, the objects for which the credit union is formed". In the same way as credit unions effect insurance on behalf of their members for other purposes, I see credit unions being able to get involved in covering the cost of funerals. This may well be the most effective way for credit unions to directly help their members in relation to funeral costs. I also imagine parties interested in formally establishing a funeral co-operative would be able to apply to the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Socities Acts. While I am not aware of any funeral co-operative having already been approved, I see no reason they could not be established with or without a direct involvement of the local credit union. I am awaiting the formal reply of the registrar and I will contact the Deputy on that matter.

On the question of regulation, I would like to deal with some of the major themes which emerged from the contributions of Deputies. Many rightly applauded the growth of the credit union movement over the past 40 years, but some Deputies, such as Deputies Bobby Molloy and P. J. Morley, tried to argue that the controls which were considered appropriate to the small scale of credit union operations in the 1960s and 1970s did not require to be changed some 20 years later. Credit unions have from their inception operated under the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. That is a basic point that seems to be overlooked. Some Deputies have argued for little or no regulation as in the US, and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe pointed out that these Deputies have forgotten the Savings and Loan Association experience in the United States when many associations invested in the now discredited junk bonds and other high-risk investments and investors suffered accordingly. The US government had to provide billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out these institutions and thereby prevent a damaging blow to the whole US financial system.

A number of Deputies, for example, Deputies Ned O'Keeffe and Micheál Martin, have complained, with their tongues firmly in their cheeks, of the banking ethos in this Bill, and the mother of all Deputies on the other side of the House, Deputy O'Rourke, was sufficiently mischievous to say she saw the hand of the financial institutions in the preparation of this legislation. I repeat for the umpteenth time in this House that no banking institution or building society was met, nor was there correspondence from them, nor were they communicated with in any other way before the publication of this Bill. Despite requests and submissions to me, I have met neither a bank or building society on this issue. Colleagues of mine recently had a meeting with the banks at my request.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It is the same thing.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Bill was already published at that stage. The Deputy cannot keep a straight face while suggesting that I take my riding instructions on the preparation of this Bill from the banking institutions. I would argue that the regulatory controls have to be equally effective. Like banks and building societies, credit unions manage people's money. They are now significant players in the personal finance area and continue to grow at annual percentage rates in double figures. Because they are entrusted with a significant amount of funds, it is proper that they be subjected to sufficient controls to ensure that members' savings continue to be given a high standard of care. That was the only concern I had in preparing this Bill.

I will not be over-influenced by what banks and building societies have to say to me because their record in meeting the needs of many ordinary credit union members in recent years has been poor. While they may have competitive concerns about the Bill's new regime, it is a concern which I welcome having regard to the large amount of profits which banking interests are currently making. I do not deny their right to make a respectable profit, but equally I welcome whatever additional competition may be offered by credit unions when the Bill becomes law.

A number of Deputies including Deputies Crawford and McGahon rightly praised the contribution of credit unions to the development of their areas and their excellent track record in maintaining the security of members' money. Members have not lost money because of the initiative of the league many years ago in providing anti-fraud insurance for credit union members. It is not the case, however, that there has been no wrongdoing — I understand it is normal to have a case or two before the courts most years. I accept that, given the size of the movement, this record is an exceptional one, but it also means that vigilance must continue to be exercised by individual credit union managements and by the registrar to help maintain the security of members' savings.

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, who is normally a very polite Member of this House, in an unguarded moment, expressed resentment at the regulation of credit unions by what he called a faceless person, by which he means the registrar. It is only fair that I correct that statement. The registrar was publicly acknowledged at the league's special general meeting in Limerick in January as performing a valuable supporting role for credit unions. I recently met a major credit union which described the approach of the registrar and his staff as very professional in their examination of the credit union's affairs and very helpful in their advice on credit union operations.

There is a fundamental inconsistency in those arguments which favour an extension, on the one hand, of the range of credit union services while at the same time supporting reduced regulation or the status quo. The same Deputies who asked me to be accountable during the Taylor affair would do the same thing if I did not prudentially provide for regulation of the credit union movement.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Minister should not compare Taylor with the credit unions.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am not comparing them. We are talking about billions of pounds going through the credit union movement and to suggest that movement should not be prudentially regulated does not hold water — I do not think Deputies on that side of the House seriously recommend that.

I draw the attention of Deputy O'Keeffe, an avid reader of erudite journals, to the February 1997 edition of the Commercial Law Practitioner which, under the headline The Credit Union Bill — Balancing Freedom and Regulation, makes a number of interesting comments, which I commend to the Deputy. It states:

Commercial Law Practitioner is of the opinion that the Minister must exercise great caution in relaxing any of the proposed controls. People who handle other people's money must be subject to scrutiny and regulation. On the one hand, the ILCU appears to welcome the development of the range of services which the Bill will permit the credit unions to offer. Indeed, it would appear not to be satisfied with the proposed limits of £20,000 on loans, shares and deposits and wants these increased. Ironically, far from recognising that increased powers necessarily imply greater duties and outside scrutiny, the ILCU is objecting to the Bill's proposals on regulation by the Registrar of Friendly Societies which it considers excessive.

When one considers that a credit union may be formed with as few as 15 members, that the officers of many credit unions will often possess no formal qualifications and that in many cases ordinary people are entrusting their life's savings to the credit union, the case for proper and effective supervision and regulation would seem to be beyond question. Indeed, one must also question the degree of control which the ILCU has over all of its members. At the moment the ILCU carries out its own inspections, but wishes this to continue in preference to inspection by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Again, one must question the effectiveness of the ILCU policing its own members without the might of law, which the Registrar of Friendly Societies would have. We shall have to await the outcome of negotiations to see how the balance has been struck.

Those views by a reputable independent commentator are worth serious attention by all Deputies. I respectfully suggest that a cautionary note should guide all our deliberations, despite the enthusiasm of the Irish League of Credit Unions to push out the boundaries of the Bill. Unlike some Deputies, in fairness to the league, it narrowed its criticism in this area to separating the question of prudential regulation from the question of day to day intervention. That is a point on which I will have to reflect, that perhaps the Bill is overly prescriptive in terms of the daily intervention of the registrar, but there is no argument on the question of regulation.

The credit union movement ought to be on its knees thanking its lucky stars it has a person of the calibre of the present registrar and that a system is in place on which it can fall back in terms of regulation and so on. It has an excellent relationship with the present registrar and I have no reason to believe that will not continue. It has an outstanding record in terms of this aspect of its affairs. I am considering the question of the daily intervention in the operational affairs of credit unions, but in terms of minding other people's money I have made up my mind and I think the league has come around to agree with that position, provided it is not unduly irritated in terms of the daily work it has done so spectacularly well down the years.

A number of Deputies such as Deputy Nolan spoke in support of giving the league formal recognition in the Bill. I have dealt with that question. If the Attorney General's office comes up with a formula, I will be the first to applaud it because, having regard to the role played by the league on a voluntary basis in guiding the movement to where it is today, I would like to see that included.

Deputy Gallagher and other Deputies spoke about the offences and penalties provisions. The point was made that they will frighten prospective volunteers, particularly directors and officers who exercise responsible duties in their local credit unions. I would like to think no-one need fear any provision of the Bill if they are doing their job honestly and conscientiously. There are two issues here, the first of which is the substantive issue of the level of penalties prescribed in the Bill. While appreciating that we are dealing with a largely volunteer movement, I hope the effect of regulatory supervision elsewhere in the financial services will equally apply here.

The second issue is more a question of drafting style than substance. The point has been made by the league that the offences and penalties provisions should be consolidated into Part XIII of the Bill rather than have repeated references to offences and penalties throughout the Bill. There is merit in leaving the drafting as it is because it makes everyone working in a credit union aware of the serious responsibilities they are discharging in looking after the savings of credit union members. At the same time I have sympathy for the league's view that it may discourage credit union members from contributing to their community by becoming involved in their credit union. Consequently, I am prepared to review, in consultation with the draftsman, whether the offences and penalties provision might be restructured in some way to remove any perception of heavy-handedness with which credit unions feel they are involved.

Deputy Browne and others raised the question of additional services. Following discussions between officials of my Department and the league, I intend to introduce a number of amendments to alleviate the requirements imposed on credit unions under sections 48 to 52. This is likely to take the form of a shorter timescale for the approval of services where credit unions propose to offer services on an agency basis for a reputable principal.

The property provisions attracted comment from a number of Deputies, including Deputies Ring and O'Hanlon. I am committed to removing some of the misconceptions under which many in the credit union movement have been labouring due to the construction of section 41. Following discussions between the league and officials of my Department, I hope to table amendments on Committee Stage to meet the needs of the general membership.

A number of more detailed suggestions were made by various Members, the credit union movement and other interested bodies. I do not intend to deal now with every suggestion made, but Members can be assured that I have noted their comments and will consider introducing their ideas as best I can on Committee Stage.

The motion passed in Limerick was raised by Deputy O'Keeffe and in a remarkable act of ventriloquism by a large number of other Opposition Members. A special two-day general meeting took place in Limerick to consider the provisions of the Bill. The resolution was adopted before I was given an opportunity to address the meeting. I suggested to the league that it would make more sense for me to introduce the Bill and explain its provisions at the beginning of the meeting so that delegates would be better informed of the considerations underlying its provisions before debating its merits. However, the league decided — as it is perfectly entitled to do — to conduct its business the other way around. Consequently, my address to the special general meeting took place after the adoption of the resolution. When I spoke to the delegates I was able to point out a number of misinterpretations of key provisions of the Bill, including the question of property. I also indicated my willingness to review the loan limit and undertook to make my officials and the registrar available to meet the league to discuss its concerns. My comments reassured the credit union delegates that I was serious about addressing their concerns.

The meeting in Limerick was one of the most congenial I have attended during my time as Minister of State.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Minister of State had a good day out, I hope he enjoyed it.

Mr. Rabbitte

I enjoyed it a great deal more than the repetition to which I had to listen in this House.

A number of other matters were referred to, but I am anxious to proceed to Committee Stage to deal with what all Members agree is very important legislation. I have indicated the major areas on which I will quickly stamp amendments from the Office of the Attorney General and I trust I will have the assent of Members opposite to publish them, as they are delaying the taking of Committee Stage.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

That is nonsense.

Mr. Rabbitte

When we take Committee Stage I hope they are well armed with the amendments they have been promising and that, with their co-operation, we can produce meritorious legislation.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. S. Ryan

On a point of order, when is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand it is intended to refer the Bill to the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy.