Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's comments about re-examining it in some areas are welcome. I will bank that and move on.

There are still some matters on which the Minister has not provided me with any comfort. One is the issue of voluntary assistants in credit unions. The Minister talked about the possibility of excluding voluntary assistants of other credit unions from the provision, because there would not be a conflict of interest. He mentioned in particular that there would not be any financial or employment benefit for them, because they are in another credit union. However, this is too rigid. There is no definition of a voluntary assistant in the legislation. I assume a voluntary assistant in a credit union means somebody who helps out in that credit union. That could extend to somebody who has painted the local credit union because he believes in the credit union. A parent of his might have worked there or he might have been a young saver in the credit union. If he decides to help out by painting the building or by coming in and cleaning it at the weekend, he is now not eligible to be a member of the board of directors. That individual, because he or she assists voluntarily, gets no financial or employment benefit. The provision is very rigid. We would like to include voluntary assistants of the credit union.

The board of directors would more than likely come from the local area, and the majority would be volunteers. The pool available consists of the people who are volunteering. The people who are giving of their free time and energy are more likely to do the required training and comply with the different regulations and tests that are laid down. It is not the person who sits at home and receives their statement every year stating what dividend they will receive and the current position of their loan and savings; it is more likely to be the person who is hands-on and providing his or her time for free because he or she believes in the credit union. I realise I am preaching to the converted and that the Minister understands volunteerism. I also understand the conflicts we must prevent. That is why exclusion is perhaps not the best way, if another amendment is tabled. The provision is far too harsh in excluding volunteers in credit unions across the board. I urge the Minister to reconsider this to see if there is another way to deal with it. Certain rules must be laid down on conflicts of interest. That could be strengthened to deal with the volunteers as well. I do not have a solution for the Minister aside from what is here, but I would be open to supporting something else. For many people it is a red-line issue in the legislation.

I welcome the Minister's commitment in other areas. I am not belittling it and I appreciate his genuine approach in expressing his intention to examine the issues. The other matter he said he would not consider was that referred to in amendment No. 32 - that is, individuals who are in arrears for 90 days consecutively. I understand the Minister's point about deciding on rates for people who are in arrears and what structures should be put in place. If somebody is a saver in a credit union, the directors would also have a benefit there. This refers to subsection (11). We are dealing with subsection (10), which gives the list of exclusions. However, it does not stop there, because subsection (11) provides that a person who would not be fit to be appointed as a director to the credit union must resign. Subsection (10) outlines the people who are not fit to be appointed as directors.

I understand the validity of the Minister's argument about somebody who is in arrears and so forth, but consider an instance in which I, for example, am an existing director of the credit union and I work as a Deputy. Let us say I have a loan from the credit union and I lose my job. My financial situation has become dire and I am in arrears for three months. I am still making payments to pay off the loan, but I am still in arrears because I cannot make the full payment. It means I must resign as a director of that credit union. Consequences flow from the exclusions set down here. Again, I believe it is a little too regimental. I do not believe somebody who might have provided eight or nine years of service as a director, who has gone through all the training and skills improvement and who might be the key person there - sometimes there are a number of key persons within the credit union - should have to resign because of something that happens externally and causes a financial imposition. It might not even be the loss of a job; it could be due to a child getting sick or some other situation. The provision is too rigid in stating that after 90 days one must resign one's seat on the board. Perhaps the Minister would examine that again.