PMS 'hardship fund' considered

Published Thursday, 18 February 2010

Stormont ministers are considering three options including a last ditch "hardship fund" to help members of the crisis-hit Presbyterian Mutual Society who are most in distress.

The announcement came as Stormont was slated by an influential group of MPs for its handling of the crisis.

The report from the House of Commons Treasury Committee claimed that a "fatal gap" in regulation was to blame for the PMS collapse, adding DUP Minister Arlene Foster's department of enterprise could have taken preventative action.

"Auditors, solicitors and directors are there to do a job and they are there to certify that the PMS was running correctly so when a professional says something is running correctly then I have to take them at their word", Arlene Foster told UTV.

DUP leader Peter Robinson also hit out at the report, branding it "a shoddy buck-passing exercise."

The First Minister criticised the committee chair, Labour's John McFall.

"The chairman seemed to downplay that it is his party's government that is chiefly responsible."

He added: "It was full of criticism and vacant of any solutions."

The First Minister said he would be meeting the Prime Minister again with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness to continue to press for a rescue plan for PMS savers.

He revealed that the work to identify a solution to the problem included three options.

Efforts are under way, firstly, to see if a bank will take on the PMS assets as a means of securing a future for its savers. Secondly, Northern Ireland ministers are researching their own 'plan B', which would require Treasury support, while the final option is a possible hardship fund.

"Let me say very clearly that would be a second best option as far as I am concerned and as far as the First Minister is concerned as well", Mrs Foster said about the hardship fund.

The Presbyterian Moderator Dr Stafford Carson has given the proposal a cautious welcome.

"I think the latest suggestion has real merit and we want to look at that very, very closely especially as this situation goes on and on and people are in increasing situation of distress. We want to do absolutely everything we can to try to help them", Dr Carson said.

Mr McGuinness underlined his own commitment to securing a resolution to the issue.

"Peter and I are as one on this," he said. "Our aim is to save their savings."

Pressed on the likely success of the three options, he added: "People are not interested in options, they are interested in a solution."

Mr McGuinness said the Commons committee's conclusions on the PMS were "less than helpful".

With the PMS currently under administration, the Belfast High Court last week ruled that shareholder members of the society (those with less than £20,000) are not creditors and are not entitled to income from the assets identified by administrators.

Comments

7 Comments

Newcastle resident in Newcastle wrote (825 days ago):

"We want to do absolutely everything we can to try to help them", Dr Carson said. The Presbyterian Church should show some moral responsibility and reimburse PMS savers. If the church does not have the cash reserves to do so, they should sell off some of their land and properties. In Newcastle, Co.Down, a 1 million pounds church extension is currently being built. The congregation were recently asked to add an extra £10 to their individual weekly donations to help pay for it. Typical of the Presbyterian Church's attitude.

Dave in N''ards wrote (825 days ago):

Fed UP . The PMS was not a savings scheme it was an Investment scheme which invested in property. The people in the PMS who lost money when propery prices dropped probably got a very good return for the last 10 years when property prices were rising (a much larger return than a savings scheme) now that propery prices have fallen the scheme is loosing money. Greed comes to mind and also putting all your eggs in the one basket. So why should I as a tax payer bail these people out, and dont just say because the banks were bail out they are a totally different case eg they were regulated

Fed Up in Belfast wrote (825 days ago):

People here seem to missing the point. The Government has already spent billions bailing out the Banks that caused the recent Global Financial Crisis. The PMS was a saving scheme that collapsed. Why should the 10000+ people affected not be shown the same curtesy? If the Banks can be bailed out and then spend said money on bonuses then surely you wouldn't begrudge decent people getting back what they are owed. As a Presbyterian I find it extremely offensive when comments like Deaglan wrote - being part of a presbyterian group will not assert them special priveledges, those days are long since passed, and rightly so! - What priviledges are you referring to. I have never considered myself priviledged as a Presbyterian! No more so than anyone else Roman Catholic, Baptist or otherwise!

Tommy in Limavady wrote (826 days ago):

I lost money in an investment I had running last year, who do I see about claiming my money back or is this only exclusive to the PMS. Come on get real, I enjoyed the benefits when things were going well, rough and smooth comes to mind. Its gone, get over it, you took a gamble and guess what -- you lost.

Deaglan Bhreathnach in An Dun wrote (826 days ago):

The fact of the matter remains, PMS account holders were not 'savers' their money were in investments, they like everyone else either with the PMS or other have lost investments as a result of the economic crisis, that is what happens to shares and investments in such times. I am sick and tired of hearing about the PMS and the obvious idiot account holders, who either knew well the risks of their monies or were oblivious to it, either way, they are few of many hundreds of thousands of people who lost money and know they will never recoup it, yes it is sad, but being part of a presbyterian group will not assert them special priveledges, those days are long since passed, and rightly so!

More Comments

^ Top of Comments