NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

Presbyterian Mutual Society

Office Of The First Minister And Deputy First Minister

Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 19 October 2009, 2:30 pm


All Northern Ireland Assembly debates on 19 Oct 2009 Next debate » « Previous debate





Danny Kennedy (UUP)
4. asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister what progress has been made in negotiations with Her Majesty’s Government regarding compensation for savers with the Presbyterian Mutual Society. (AQO 234/10)


Peter Robinson (DUP)
We are very aware of the anxiety and distress caused to members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) by the prevailing uncertainties around their savings. We are encouraged by the Prime Minister’s speech in Brighton, where he said, “Not one British saver has lost a single penny.”
We are doing all that we can to work towards a solution for PMS members. The PMS administrator wrote to members of the society on 22 September to provide an update on his work. His recommendation was to await the outcome of the Government assessment on what assistance they could give before taking further decisions. I assure Members of the Assembly and members of the PMS that the matter is receiving our close attention.
We met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 October to review progress on finding a solution to help PMS members and received an update from officials on progress. We emphasised the need to find an acceptable resolution as quickly as possible. Initial discussions at official level with some local banks have already begun. We highlighted that it would be necessary to progress those talks further.
We should know the outcome of the discussions shortly and are expecting a full paper on the options open to resolve the PMS problem to be presented to the ministerial working group within the next three weeks. When we receive that paper, we will decide on the best way forward.


Danny Kennedy (UUP)


I register my interest as one with a modest investment in the PMS. I thank the First Minister for his reply. He will be aware, as is the entire House, of the overwhelming support from all political parties for the plight of PMS savers and investors. Will the First Minister reflect that support in any future discussions with the Prime Minister, the Treasury and the ministerial working group? Will he assure the House that he will not allow the Government to use the PMS as a political pawn in their discussions with any party on the possible devolution of policing and justice?


Peter Robinson (DUP)
The Member’s investment is the only modest thing about him. He should be aware that it is only he and his party leader who are linking the PMS to policing and justice; neither my party nor I have made a proposal to the Prime Minister to link the two. The issue stands firmly on its own two feet.
It is clear to us, on the basis of what the Prime Minister has said, that savers in the UK will not lose money, and we want him to stand by that. People who have put funds into the PMS regard themselves as savers, and the rule books identify them as such. We hope that the Prime Minister will take that into consideration when he receives the report from the ministerial group.
The deputy First Minister and I, along with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who were present at the last meeting, felt that officials had seriously engaged on those issues and that they were considering proposals. As I said in my initial reply, we regard the involvement of a local bank as the best way forward, if that is achievable. However, that would require us to examine legal and European regulatory issues. Of course, we need to have regard to the interests of the bank, which will want to know details of the Government’s involvement.
We hope to take the matter forward. We have agreed to meet in three weeks’ time, and I hope that we will agree one proposition that should be put to the Prime Minister at that stage.


Stephen Moutray (DUP)
The First Minister said that he is all too aware of the hardship that the issue has caused individuals and churches. I thank him and others for the efforts that have been made on behalf of the people involved. Does he believe that the Government at Westminster are committed to finding a solution to the matter?


Peter Robinson (DUP)

The deputy First Minister and I have had a number of conversations with our officials who have engaged with HM Treasury in Whitehall. I get a clear impression that that engagement has been serious. It is not simply a case of propositions being identified — follow-up work is being done. After looking at the options that are under consideration, I hope that we can opt for some of the earlier propositions rather than having to fall back on hardship funds and so on.
We are keen to engage the banks on the matter, and some banks have expressed an interest. Discussions have already taken place, but a phase of due diligence is necessary from the banks’ point of view. We will have to look at some regulatory issues thereafter, but we are moving forward. I am aware that the administrator had to postpone a planned meeting with members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, and I recognise that some people who have savings with the society are experiencing considerable hardship. Some of those people need to access their funds, but they cannot do that. The sooner we resolve the matter the better. We are putting pressure on HM Treasury to complete its discussions so that the Prime Minister can make a final decision.


Mickey Brady (Sinn Fein)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is there any evidence that the board of the Presbyterian Mutual Society operated outside its legal authority?


Peter Robinson (DUP)

A report has been produced that includes criticism of the board of the Presbyterian Mutual Society and others who had a role in auditing and overseeing that organisation’s operations. Given the potential legal consequences, we would be better to wait for the publication of the report — if that ever happens — before pointing fingers in any particular direction.

D.A.

crazymess wrote: »

A report has been produced that includes criticism of the board of the Presbyterian Mutual Society and others who had a role in auditing and overseeing that organisation’s operations.

There's a surprise.

Bet you it'll never be published though.

Dr._Who_2

Surely the Directors/auditors would wish to "clear their names" when something has been publicly said in the Assembly which would suggest that there was a degree of mismanagement/negligence/laxness?
Surely the Directors must now respond? Surely the truth needs to come out?

By the way, Ministers have been requested to place before their Congregations two resolutions issued by the General Board of PCI - hope this happens.

Don't know about Ministers withdrawing money because they were "in the know": many were, like the rest of us, unaware of the situation and didn't, like the rest of us, have opportunity to withdraw money.

Some Congregational Committees also decided to withdraw money from PMS.

ballyblack

Today's Belfast Telegraph, Alf McCreary

For how much longer will the PMS members be left in dark?

A statement from the Prime Minister's working party on the Presbyterian Mutual Society is needed urgently to reassure worried savers, writes Religion Correspondent Alf McCreary


read it here;

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/for-how-much-longer-will-the-pms-members--be-left-in-dark-14537359.html



.

crazymess

House of Lords 20th ~October at 7.30 pm

Credit Unions - Question for Short Debate (20 Oct 2009)
[URL="mhtml:{D04F8A61-5E54-4334-8412-F1D2F2AB6917}mid://00000043/!x-usc:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-10-20a.638.0&s=presbyterian+mutual+society#g642.0"]http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-10-20a.638.0&s=presbyterian+mutual+society#g642.0[/URL]
Lord Rogan: ...Scheme. Credit union members in Northern Ireland do not
enjoy the same protection as credit union members in Britain or, indeed,
in the Republic of Ireland. Just look at the current plight of the
*Presbyterian Mutual Society* savers-and they were savers. Secondly,
credit unions in Britain can apply for funding under the Growth Fund.
Substantial assistance can be obtained for credit...


AND THEY WERE SAVERS!!!!!!!

goodbyepci

Scroll nearly to the end
Quoting Lord Myners
(Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury; Labour)

"The noble Lord raised the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and its cost to the credit union movement. The cost is relatively small. It is less than £1,000 for the majority of credit unions and not much more than that for the largest. The credit union movement wanted to be conjoined with other deposit-taking institutions. It was invited to indicate a wish to be treated separately, but it concluded that it was in the interests of credit unions to be conjoined with other deposit-taking institutions. Credit unions have clearly benefited in terms of depositor confidence and assurance from the security that the compensation scheme provides"



some questions

1. Did the FSCS apply to Industrial and Provident Societies?
2. How much was it?
3. Have we lost out on it for the sake of "not much more than £1000"?

totallyletdown

I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting fed up waiting.
It makes me so sad to hear about the hardship stories of some people and the lack of comfort they are getting from their local church.
I must confess I cannot mention the PMS situation to any minster because any experience has been a completely defensive and quite uncompassionate attitude.
Very sad and I guess its at times like these you truly know who are your friends.

BETRAYED

goodbyepci wrote: »

some questions

1. Did the FSCS apply to Industrial and Provident Societies?
2. How much was it?
3. Have we lost out on it for the sake of "not much more than £1000"?

As I understand it The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 brought all Industrial and Provident Societies on the mainland under the FSA.
Any society (on mainland) who wished then could apply to be brought under the FSA Compensation scheme.
Northern Ireland was not mentioned in that act. This was probably because previously N. Ireland had the power to bring in its own legislation.
We still operated with the Industrial & Provident Societies Act 1969. That act was never repealed.
The direct rule minister at that time did nothing about N I legislation.
(Pearson who is now on the working committee).
When the NI Assembly got up and running they did nothing about it.
Did our Directors ever ask for any new legislation for NI ?
I suspect not because they were doing things which now appear improper and they never considered the possibility of the great economic downturn.

The 2008 PMS Annual Report reads "Risk Management...The directors have conducted a review of the major risks to which the Society is exposed. These risks are considered regularly by the directors and they have developed systems to monitor and control these risks in order to mitigate any impact they may have on the Society".
PMS were giving one builder/developer a loan of over 11% of our total assets.
This would not have been allowed under FSA.

I think why a bank take over is the easy answer is that it gets both governments, PMS directors ( and PCI) all off the hook.

I don't care now as long as all our savers get their money all back.

D.A.

BETRAYED wrote: »

Did our Directors ever ask for any new legislation for NI ?

Don't know, but the Credit Unions were virtually begging for it (to allow them to issue mortgages, amongst other things) - they were on the radio for years asking for it, but government never bothered doing anything about it.

Then again, the Credit Unions are presumably run by people who had a clue what they were doing. Whereas the PMS seems to have been a bunch of ministers and others playing at being bankers...

freddiemae

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Critical-report-on-PMS-may.5756357.jp


"Critical report on PMS may be published"