Mr. Pat Owens:

That is quite possible. If legislation pushes an operation in a certain direction which is not the direction it believes it should be taking, those involved will try to find a way of working around it, while remaining within the legislation. The Deputy's suggestion might be possible. The problem is that a person who is appointed in that way will carry absolutely no weight. The regulator will have absolutely no engagement with that person because it will not recognise him or her. The fact that credit unions are about and start with their members has been lost in all of this. We have a serious concern that members are being sidelined during the rush to ensure this legislation is put through on time, which is being done to meet other requirements. That is why we are concerned about the removal of the direct link between the member and the finances of the credit union. I could present the accounts at an AGM without a problem, as I deal with them every day. I am well aware of all the accounts and could answer all the questions members would have. Perhaps that would be seen as a good thing in some cases. We certainly believe that by electing a board to run the credit union on their behalf, the members are imposing certain duties on them. The most important thing for a credit union is its finances. That is the most important thing the board of a credit union is charged with running. We understand there is an official view that all the directors of a credit union are equally responsible for its finances. There is a concern that if one director was nominated to take sole responsibility for the finances of a credit union, it might give the other directors the "get out of jail" card of saying "it is the treasurer's job and nothing to do with me." We do not believe that is the case in the existing structures, or will be the case in any future structure. We believe directors are well aware of their responsibilities to members and the financial security of the credit union.