NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Letter from Jim Allister Q.C. to Sammy Wilson MLA 16 Nov. (From TUV website.)

Re: PMS
Arising from your answers this week in the Assembly on the PMS, there are a number of matters I would like you to clarify.
You said, “However, a number of local and EU agreements are required before payments can be made. Executive and Assembly agreement to the overall package can be secured as part of the Budget process. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) will take the lead on the Assembly legislation necessary to seek EU state aid approval for the loan. I hope that that work will be progressed as quickly as possible. We are working towards resolving all the issues for the 2011-12 Budget. However, I remind Members that any delay in establishing and agreeing the Budget will have a knock-on impact on the PMS solution.”
1. Should one conclude from the above that as of now there is no Executive approval for the package?
2. Why are you linking Executive and Assembly approval for the package with approval of the Budget, which patently is a fraught process? Surely, the PMS package can and should be a free-standing project, because as you said later the £175m loan will not impact on the Assembly’s capital programme? So, why not get on with it, rather than tag it to the Budget?
3. What Assembly legislation is necessary to seek EU state aid approval? State aid applications do not generally require legislation, so why in this case?
4. Indeed, surely the groundwork has been laid for any state aid application (if such is necessary in view of the fact that these rules exist to prevent distortion of competition, which it is hard to see here), given that as far back as 26 April 2010 Peter Robinson told the Assembly the PM had assured him “that he would have his officials move to try to clear state aid issues” ?
5. Thus has relevant work not already been done with Brussels and in any event in view of the Commission’s special guidance in 2008 on bank bail-outs, which anticipated approval as quick as within 24 hours, is it right to create the impression that state aid approval could contribute significant delay?
You then said, “Obviously, the bigger the mutual access fund, the more money there will be to give to small investors. The Government at Westminster have put up £25 million, as have the Executive, and the Church has committed £1 million. Obviously, if the Church could provide additional money to increase that mutual access fund, there would be an ability to give much greater sums of money back to small investors.”
6. Does this mean that the mutual access fund of £51m is not big enough to meet the needs of the small savers?
7. If £51m is not enough, then why was more not sought, given the governmental boasts about no savers losing money in the banking crisis?
8. If £51m was not the sum required to restore pound for pound satisfaction, then what was the rationale in settling on this figure?
9. Is there significance in your use of the term ‘small investors’, as opposed to ‘small savers’?
Finally, you said, “The indications are that the £175 million loan that we will take out, which will not impact on the capital programme for the Assembly as it will be over and above what we have been allowed to raise through loans for capital projects, will be not only serviced but paid back. From the surplus, we will be able to reimburse the money that will be put up for the mutual access fund. That is the intention. The quicker the property market picks up, the quicker that money can be paid back. It is on that basis that we have proceeded.”
10. From the above it seems clear that you expect repayment from eventual realisation of the PMS assets not just of the £175m loan, but all the interest accumulated. Is that correct?
11. Additionally, you anticipate the Executive’s £25m also being reimbursed from the asset recovery? Is that also with interest, and will the same apply to the Treasury’s £25m and the Church’s £1m?
12. So, when the assets are realised, and should there still be money owing to savers and/or investors, where will they rank as creditors vis-à-vis government? Could a situation arise where savers and investors go short because government must be paid back first?
I would appreciate it if you could take time to answer these questions in as detailed a manner as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Allister QC

brick

BETRAYED wrote: »

Letter from Jim Allister Q.C. to Sammy Wilson MLA 16 Nov. (From TUV website.)

Here's the URL http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/836/allister-presses-pms-concerns

BETRAYED

A Plea to my Church
This will be the third Christmas that small savers (shareholders) have not had access to their psaltery savings.
In view of the hardship being experienced by the smallest of these savers in PMS I beg PCI to fast-tract some help for their benefit.
Increase PCI contribution to hardship fund from 1m to 5m.
Some 7,000 savers would get £700
I would imagine that the Administrator could get permission of the High Court to release to PCI the names of the shareholders.

Excap123

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Excap123 - it seems as though you are unintentionally muddying the waters.

The question is not whether PMS and Equitable Life were the same or not.

The question is whether there was a failure of regulation for the PMS.

The Treasury Select Committee (TSC) said there was;

The chancellor said there was;

The government response to the TSC report repeatedly accepted it implicitly.

It seems true that DETI had no specific prudential regulatory responsibility for the PMS.

However it also seems true that DETI failed in its responsibility to maintain a current, fit for purpose regulatory framework, as TSC put it.

DETI did not instigate legislative reforms it should have and which were made in GB in the wake of the Financial Services Marketing Act 2000.

The following article illustrates the situation well, it seems;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Government-admits-to-PMS-regulation.5343753.jp

Lord Trimble noted that the FSA investigation found the PMS was offering financial services but that it decided to take no further action against the directors. "I read into this a tacit admission that there had been a regulatory failure on the part of DETI or FSA or both," he said.

He also said the Government had ensured that societies like the PMS were tied to the FSA in England but had " failed to achieve that object concerning Northern Ireland".

A spokesman for the FSA did not deny Lord Trimble's claims.
"Any Industrial and Provident society regulated with the FSA in Great Britain has an obligation to send annual accounts to us on an annual basis," he said.


There is also the question as to whether DETI lived up to its responsibilities as registrar. The FSA told the TSC that it appeared there may have been unlawful banking going on after only looking at the last PMS annual return and its rule book. This prompted the FSA to do a full investigation... prompted by info DETI had at its fingertips.

DETI was responsible for authorising the PMS rule book to ensure it was legally properly registered as an industrial and provident society. Yet the PMS annual accounts appeared to show glaring conflicts with the rule book, said the FSA.

As for the findings of the Treasury Select Committee being "just" that of a parliamentary committee....

Just because an interested party has not yet got into the position to sue DETI does not mean DETI would easily escape a legally binding adverse finding with regards to maintaining a proper regulatory framework and properly discharging its responsibilities as registrar.

It is also worth noting that DETI has not been slow to make sweeping changes in related regulation since PMS's demise.

But not because of any regulatory gap you understand....



T&B

So go and sue them.

Toastandbutter

Betrayed

ref Christmas help for PMS savers.... it is a fact that there is universal hardship fund across the church which any Presbyterian can tap into with the support of their minister.

I understand it can help out with sums of up to £1000.


Also.... another rather pointed rebuttal to Mr Sterling's "no terrible failure of regulation" claims in today's News Letter letters page.

How many replies is that to him so far?

BETRAYED

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Betrayed

... another rather pointed rebuttal to Mr Sterling's "no terrible failure of regulation" claims in today's News Letter letters page.

How many replies is that to him so far?

DETI is a very big Department. Employment and Investment must be of prime importance for the future well being of all the people in N. Ireland at this time of recession.
Industrial and Provident Societies are in their remit. They have a post of Registrar of Industrial and Provident Societies.

It beggars belief that the Minister permits her Permanent Secretary
to reply to letters in the papers when there surely is so much to be done in her Department.

brick

Is the administrator still counting the voting forms? - since 5:00pm last Friday (19th).

At least nothing about outcome that I can see at http://www.presbyterianmutualsociety.co.uk/

goodbyepci

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11842790

ballyblack

UPDATE on above

"Church not asked"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11844777

loganjh

ballyblack wrote: »

UPDATE on above

"Church not asked"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11844777

Perhaps they could just make the offer without being asked