Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's commitment to extend the number of years a director may serve in a 15-year period. On subsections (15) and (16), I agree that renewal is good. Nobody in the credit union movement wants the same people to remain in place permanently. The problem, however, is that this sometimes becomes the reality because the pool of people available to serve as directors is small. All genuine members of credit unions would like to have a rush of people seeking to become members and directors.

Why could the Minister or I not table an amendment on Report Stage to write into the legislation a provision that subsections (15) and (16) will be complied with in full, except in circumstances where the approval of the Central Bank is obtained? This would allow limited flexibility on the three-year and nine-year limits on terms of office, which the Minister has agreed to change to four and 12 years, respectively. I propose that where it is not possible to comply with the limits laid down in the Bill, the Central Bank would have the final say. Such a measure would allow for a set of circumstances that may never arise but would put the minds of members of credit unions at ease as it would allow them to make a case to the Central Bank when unforeseen circumstances arise. If, for example, asking an officer to step down at the end of a four-year term could have a detrimental impact on the credit union in question because there are no other candidates available for the position, the credit union could make a case to the Central Bank. Allowing such flexibility would not open the floodgates and the principle of renewal would be maintained. It would give small credit unions the safety net of being able to make a case and have the Central Bank make a judgment call.