Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:“(3) Notwithstanding this section a person who wishes to carry on a regulated business can apply to the Central Bank of Ireland for authorisation to carry on such a business under the Central Bank and Financial Services Act 2003.”.”.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He will be glad to hear that this is a friendly societies Bill. In that spirit, and arising from what we said on the last day, I have proposed amendments for his consideration.
Ireland needs a good portfolio of financial institutions, particularly given what has happened to banks, insurance companies, accountancy firms, pension funds, credit unions and building societies. There is an immense array of difficulties in the sector, as he will know because he is part of the work to correct them. Into that mosaic I would place friendly societies.
Let me explain what friendly societies do. They provide small life assurance benefits, sick benefits and death benefits to the members. I would not like to close the door on that happening again, particularly in the wake of such uncertainty about financial services. I recall the Minister for Finance's efforts to get new banks into this country, given the pillar banks' obsession with property and the danger of a cartel. Therefore, we need a new landscape for financial services.
I propose to amend the first section because it would mean that one could not form a friendly society in the future, ever. The second amendment proposes a restriction on the rating of new capital.
My third amendment seeks the following. If the Central Bank agrees to allow a new friendly society to be set up, and agrees to the new capital limits, would that be a way to solve the very slight difference of opinion between myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock? One of the statements on the Bill that he made on the last day reads:

.... preliminary step in the process of establishing a system of the most appropriate supervision of certain existing societies, especially operating in the area of financial service provision. That is the ethos under which we are trying to introduce the legislation. It is intended that the group of societies would be subject to Central Bank supervision and that this would be the closed group.

The only words that I differ with him on are "the closed group." What if new people want to set up friendly societies? Such societies have played a major part, and still do, in the adjoining island. They look after the savings and investments of 4.5 million people and have a total fund of £15 billion under investment.
As the Minister of State will know, friendly societies have not participated in some of the financial collapses that have occupied so much Government and parliamentary time in recent years. However, they could play a role and be regulated by the Central Bank. It is in the spirit of the very constructive discussion that we had on the last day that these amendments have been tabled for his consideration. Also, I will not push them to a Vote. They are available for consideration by him, as the promoter of the Bill, and by his Department. They are also in line with the McDowell report on financial regulation in Ireland. In fact, the Minister of State has spoken about his knowledge of friendly societies in the Mallow area and, I think, Horace Plunkett was mentioned as well.
I would not write friendly societies or an expansion of their activities off. As he said himself, there seems to be a movement towards the Central Bank. It was also mentioned in the McDowell report. Would he afford the option as he brings the Bill through Parliament?