NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

russdaan

A few thoughts on shares and devolution

Shaun Woodward does refer to investors because the first £20,000 was in exchange for shares.

Shares would normally imply risk capital.

This could be Shaun Woodward looking for a way to avoid responsibiliy but I think this is simplistic on his part.

The EEC directive which obliges the UK to have in place a investor protection scheme includes some shares in UK building societies. I dont know but guess this may be because those who have such shares would not regard themselves as speculating. unfortunately I think the directive does not apply to any other shares.

Also look at credit unions. In GB their shareholders are protected just like depositors at least provided the union is regulated by the FSA as oppossed to just registered with them. The report of our Assembly on credit unions looks like covering shares in credit unions under the investment protection scheme if the union registers and is regulated by the FSA. Before the FSA is prepared to take over registering and regulating NI credit unions it wants the Northern Ireland Act amended to have the references to credit union legislation returned to Westminster contol. I guess the same would apply to Industrial and provident societies. Clearly the DETI cannot amend the Northern Ireland Act so it has to be simplistic to say "the problem is a devoved matter"

The UK government should also bear in mind that when the DETI produced a report on regulation of credit unions and Industrial and provident societies in about 2004/2005 the Minister in charge was I think Ian Pearson. He was a direct rule labour minister. I think the report suggested increasing the controls of Industrial and provident societies. I am sorry to be vague on this point but cannot find the report on the internet. It must exist somewhere because there are consultation documents ect out there.

I am sure most of this is already known or perhaps irrelevant but if it is any help to those involved in trying to get government assistance good luck.

crazymess

Public Bill Committees

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill

• Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill, 1st sitting (1 speech)
  [Frank Cook in the Chair]
  • Clause 1 (1 speech)
    Registration of societies as co-operative or community benefit societies
  • Clause 2 (3 speeches)
    Re-naming of Industrial and Provident Societies Acts
  • Clause 5 (13 speeches)
    Power to make provision corresponding to provision applying to building societies

Committee Membership and attendance (out of n/a)


Chairman

• Frank Cook (1)

Members

• David Lepper (1)
• Nick Palmer (1)
• Alun Michael (1)
• Colin Breed (1)
• Malcolm Wicks (1)
• Tim Boswell (1)
• Ian Pearson (1)
• Mark Hoban (1)
• Nicholas Winterton (1)
• Brian Binley (0)
• Linda Gilroy (1)
• Meg Munn (1)
• John Pugh (1)
• Ann Coffey (1)
• Mark Pritchard (0)
• Mark Lazarowicz (1)

Wednesday, 10 June 2009



Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill

Clause 1


Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill « Previous clause Next clause »



Registration of societies as co-operative or community benefit societies


4:30 pm



Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr. Cook. I am pleased that we have been able to encourage such a distinguished group to be members of the Committee. The members are known for not only their intelligence, but, on occasion, their brevity.
The purpose of the Bill is to modernise and update the law for industrial and provident societies by changing their name, by improving their corporate governance, and by giving the Treasury the power to modify certain aspects of the law for co-operative societies and community benefit societies in line with company law. In addition, certain aspects of the law for credit unions will be modified in line with building societies law. This follows extensive consultations with the industry.
As you have mentioned, Mr. Cook, no amendments have been tabled, which reflects the fact that we had a very through and good debate on Second Reading that was characterised, as on so many recent occasions, by consensus on both sides of the House. Although the Committee will determine the form of the detailed scrutiny that the Bill is given, all things being equal there is no reason why the Committee should require a subsequent sitting, although time will tell.
Clause 1 provides that all new societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 shall be registered as co-operative societies or community benefit societies. It sets out the basis on which societies may be registered. The criteria are essentially those already in existing legislation, so no major change is made to the qualifying criteria. The introduction of the requirement will also ensure that such societies can be properly supervised by the Financial Services Authority, thus improving corporate governance over the sector. By modernising the name from “industrial and provident society” to terms that are in common usage, we can help the sector adopt a modern, 21st-century persona.
The clause deals with the treatment of those societies already registered, or treated as registered, at present. Such societies did not have to register as a particular type of society. A “pre-2009 Act society” is not to be affected by the definitions of co-operative society or community benefit society in the Bill. The clause also makes consequential amendments to other legislation to reflect the changes made to the 1965 Act. Amendments are also made to section 16 of the 1965 Act, which deals with circumstances in which a society’s registration may be cancelled, to reflect the new registration provisions. The FSA, as registrar, will be able to cancel the registration of a society where it does not meet the new statutory definitions. Again, the status of societies registered, or treated as registered, under old section 1 of the 1965 Act is catered for.

Question put and agreed to.


Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.


About us Contact TheyWorkForYou Link to us House rules API / XML Source code

russdaan

The Hansard report about the GB societies regulated under the 1965 illustrates the problem in NI.

Stormont could change (could have changed) our 1969 legislation but not to include FSA registration or regulation.

The 1969 Act is devolved but the FSA is not.

If the UK government does not help they will focus on the devolved aspect and the DETI will focus on the non devolved. neither is completely correct but the UK government in a sense created the legislative problem in the drafting of The Northern ireland Act. When responsibility is split things can fall between two stools.

goodbyepci

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/pm-must-come-to-the-aid-of-presbyterian-savers-says-first-minister-14339800.html

goodbyepci

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0616/1224248899642.html

crazymess

30 p in the £1 - hope the Irish News has mis-reported this!!!

Does Peter Robinson know something we don't?


We have been waiting and waiting for this meeting with GB - hope it just isn't tagged on to tomorrow's meeting and will be dealt with as a very serious issue.

goodbyepci

http://www.u.tv/News/First-Minister-to-meet-over-PMS-collapse/a855d6ae-89dc-4fd3-bb9f-dd575efc2646

crazymess

Just a suggestion:

With reference to the previous post - click on utv and then leave some details regarding our plight on the submit form -

This might give us some extra coverage - if we tell our stories:

£1 in £1 out with interest yearly - same as every other high street financial institution -

Regulation seems to be big issue - either Directors didn't apply or facility wasn't in place re legislation to get regulated. Savers are not at fault here.

Good luck all for tomorrow.

Toastandbutter

From assembly on Monday
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/090615.htm


Presbyterian Mutual Society
4. Mr Kennedy asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on any discussions it has had with the Prime Minister and HM Treasury on the Presbyterian Mutual Society. (AQO 2954/09)
The First Minister: Every Member will be acutely aware of the difficulties that members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) face. When the deputy First Minister and I met the Prime Minister on 25 February 2009, we took the opportunity to register our concerns about the PMS situation. After the Prime Minister received the report on the PMS, he agreed to a further meeting with us to specifically discuss the matter. That meeting will take place on 17 June. We have also been in contact with the Secretary of State on the matter. Furthermore, on 29 April 2009, my colleagues Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster met the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper, to discuss the PMS issue.
That constructive meeting entailed an exchange of views, as well as information about the particulars of the PMS situation. Members of the society have been living with uncertainty as to the state of their savings for some considerable time. The administrator who is appointed to wind up the society’s affairs has indicated that it would be helpful to know whether the Government are prepared to offer assistance.
For those reasons, we are keen that when we meet the Prime Minister later this week, we can leave with some firm decisions as to his Government’s intentions. The ambiguity of the current situation is harmful and hurtful, not only to members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society but to the wider community.
Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the First Minister for his reply. I declare an interest; I have a modest sum of money in the Presbyterian Mutual Society. I welcome the fact that First Minister has indicated the cross-party and cross-community nature of this issue. All Assembly Members are aware of the acute and severe financial hardship that a great many find themselves in through no fault of their own.
Does the First Minister agree that when Gordon Brown tells the House of Commons that no UK saver will lose out as a result of the current banking crisis, that guarantee should extend not only to members and savers of the Dunfermline Building Society but to those of the Presbyterian Mutual Society?
The First Minister: As a general principle, we can all support that. He will be aware that the Government make a distinction between savers and investors. The Prime Minister has been quick to point out, as was the Secretary of State, that Presbyterian Mutual Society depositors were investors, rather than savers. I do not accept that distinction. It was not in the mind of anyone who deposited funds in the Presbyterian Mutual Society that they were speculating, hoping to make a quick pound. They were, in every sense, savers. If the Secretary of State can tell the House of Commons, as he did on 3 June, that bureaucracy should not stand in the way of doing the right thing, we would all judge him severely were he to make semantics an obstacle to progress.
I trust that the Prime Minister will recognise the genuine determination on the part of those who deposited funds in the PMS that they are on a level playing field with savers in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, the Dunfermline Building Society and the third mutual society that was reported to be in difficulty at the weekend. For those reasons, the Government need to assist the PMS. We will make that case.
We recognise that it would be altogether better, from the point of view of the depositors, were a bank to take an interest in the PMS and, therefore, cover it by the guarantees that are available to banks. That is outside our control, although the Government, who have a stake in several banks, might like to encourage people to look at that option.
Mr Durkan: I assure the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they go into that meeting with the encouragement and endorsement of all Members.
The First Minister rightly picks up on the false distinction that the Government make between investors and savers. As he says, those who saved in the Presbyterian Mutual Society thought of themselves as savers. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, cite Financial Services Authority concerns that money was being taken in the form of deposits, because that is essentially the business of banking, and, on the other hand, indict the savers as though they were investors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: You must ask a question.
Mr Durkan: Will the First Minister make it clear that several charities are among those who have invested over the shareholder limit? The Government’s suggestion that they are speculative investors is downright insulting.
The First Minister: We are happy to do that. I appreciate the Member’s comment that there is overall support around the House for the case that we will take to the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, those who invested more than £20,000 with the Presbyterian Mutual Society are regarded as having provided it with a loan and, therefore, have first call on any funds that become available. That means that people who made investments of less than £20,000 will be hurt most. I do not know the category into which the Member for Newry and Armagh falls. It means that many people who had put away a nest egg will be unlikely to get more than 30 pence in the pound for their savings. That is regrettable. That is the area into which the Prime Minister must look most closely.
3.00 pm

Ballygal

Has anyone else received their report from Mr Boyd. home for a quick bite of lunch to fnd it on my doorstep! Not best lunchtime reading and as usual first thought is i am in the wrong job! Now wouldn't it be great to get £185 (PER HOUR!)!!

While an estimated recovery had been given on the loan book of £107 million from advances of £179 ( he hasn't even been able to give an estimate from the buy to let/development land!(not good!)
also with some tenants such as Woolworths Principles nd Rosberys going into administration it means that even reviewing present rent agreements the projected rents will be staying the same at £7.8 million not going up!!
So news again not good!
I'd be interested in people's first response to it. I shall have to wait till i have a closer look this evening but i dare say it will not read or make me feel any better on a second viewing!!!