Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)

I was amused by the Ceann Comhairle's reference to precedence under Standing Orders. He appeared to put significant emphasis on the railways legislation from the 1920s. It is no coincidence that this Bill is being railroaded through the House.

I feel a grave sense of unease at discussing a Bill for the first time at 10.30 p.m. on the evening before the Dáil rises for three months. That does not reflect well on the Government and it is not a good move for the legislators. It is not a good day for democracy to move legislation through the House at what is close to the 11th hour. This legislation should be debated fully and any proposal to make changes in the mutual status should be debated fully by all those who will be affected. I am concerned that we are simply pushing this measure quickly through the House

I propose that the Bill should only come into operation following a period of consultation with building society members and borrowers and following an analysis of the likely advantages and disadvantages to all future building society members and borrowers and after all ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman for financial institutions into building societies' charging practices are complete and the report published. We are moving too quickly on this issue. It is a bit like electronic voting — we buy all the equipment first and then do the testing. We are lashing this Bill through the House this evening not having had the in-depth period of consultation I believe is necessary.

Demutualisation should not be possible without genuine prior consultation with the members and borrowers. It should not be possible without a study of the way it will impact the Irish mortgage market. We need to see the results of the investigations under way. If charging practices while the company is not a mutual one are not fully investigated and acted upon before the company is sold, it would be damaging to Ireland's reputation in the international financial area.

The Green Party opposes section 19. The current Act stops members from proposing a demutualisation motion but instead of removing this, the Bill would prevent members from even discussing demutualisation. It gives members even less of a role in running the society, which is not good.

There should be some greater element of equality in what may occur, and the expected sale profit of perhaps €1.5 billion should be divided in an equitable manner, but the Government's Bill fails to provide for the way the profit will be divided and effectively hands the board a blank cheque. That is not the way to do business in this House or elsewhere. Furthermore, the Green Party believes that a members oversight committee should be appointed. That committee would review any demutualisation proposal. It is best practice in corporate governance that a members oversight committee be established to monitor a demutualisation proposal. Rather than putting legislation through the House that allows the directors to do what they want, we should carefully analyse any change. Any building society's board of directors should have a minimum of seven non-executive members and a maximum of two executive members. Otherwise, we are simply handing over the blank cheque. Best practice and corporate governance would suggest that prior to considering any demutualisation proposal, the board of directors should be reformed to ensure it is not dominated by the interests of a small group of individuals.

I am concerned about putting legislation through the House that is clearly motivated by one or two cases. It would be more appropriate if we were passing legislation that had a wider remit. I am concerned that we are looking after the interests of particular companies and individuals in the type of legislation being put forward.

The Green Party opposes the Bill in its current form. We have submitted amendments on the legislation and there is a risk, as Brendan Burgess points out, to our international reputation if, for instance, a foreign company buys the Irish Nationwide Building Society and then has to spend hundreds of millions of euro sorting out outstanding claims against it. We will be accused of not acting correctly and our financial reputation could suffer. We must reform this area but the legislation should be broader in its content and should not be seen to facilitate changes in any one organisation. To that end, the Green Party opposes the Bill.

See this speech in context