Subscribe to the News Feed Newsback to News

Firstly, the PMS was for Presbyterian's, but was not directly part of the church in that PCI is first and foremost a ' community of believers and their families' who meet together to worship. Yes the PMS was set up by PCI Church members but it is inaccurate to place blame on PCI. Perhaps the blame lies with those in the influential end of the PMS who have taken unqualified risks with savers money... ...something that almost all financial institutes have done during our collective financial crisis. With regards to the renovations to Church House Belfast, perhaps the timing has provided journalists with cannon founder, but in truth the monies raised for this have been raised throughout the province from collections specifically named for such and so it would be unethical, no, wrong to then use these monies for PMS savers. I myself have lost 'ALL' my savings in the PMS and now that I am currently unemployed, i could really be doing with my money. However, there is nothing to be gained from panicking or slandering anyone or any organisation for this crippling crisis. We believe God is sovereign. Jesus himself said, look at the birds of the air, they want for nothing, yet how much more valuable are we! Listen i' m in dire need of financial stability so this is not said lightly. It is at times like this when your faith is tested and strengthened, and if you don't have a faith, you very quickly realise in a very real way that to place your sense of security / value in money, is a fundamentally flawed philosophy.

It is appropriate for all PMS savers to think very carefully before expressing negative words about any politician, political party, government, government officials or the PCI. Negativity all too easily undoes so much of the goodwill and understanding which has been built up across a wide swathe of political opinion both in Northern Ireland, at Westminster, in Brussels and, as there are some savers there too, in the Republic. There is strong support amongst most political parties for the justice of the savers plight but matters will not be resolved by rudeness or invective which will deliver not one penny piece. That support has been won step by step by your lobby groups, politicians in Stormont, Westminster and the House of Lords; please do not undo their hard and excellent work. That work continues at pace and with much voluntary commitment. We will be best served by working together with a united voice seeking justice which, put simply, is recompense for all savers whether above or below the £20,000 threshold erroneously termed shareholding. This does not stop us individually, or in groups, expressing in reasonable, measured and open terms, the lessons learned from the collapse of the PMS where these are based on evidence based research and professional opinion. By all means we can point out the failures over the years of the NIO, NI Assembly and DETI to provide an appropriate registration and regulation regime for mutual societies which were in the business of taking deposits. Witness Judge Deeny's reluctant recent judgement to restrict interim distribution, his reluctance was due to the absence of law for mutual societies in NI from which to draw. It is also fair to question the blindness of the FSA and Bank of England in managing their responsibilities. We can also point out the failures of the previous government to properly grasp the initiative as it did so speedily in other cases, witness Icesave etc. And, the refusal of the previous government to apply to the PMS the EU allowed measures for relief to strained financial institutions. This matter has yet to be ruled on by the EU. We might also wish to ask questions about the effectiveness and diligence of the PMS auditors and lawyers who surely failed the savers (including so many of our churches). What are the results of the investigations carried out by their respective professional bodies?

I was astonished too, to learn that the Presbyterian Church was contemplating ‘cosmetic’ renovations to Church House, and although I have the greatest admiration for Stafford and his valiant work for PMS savers I do not understand his reasoning that funds cannot be diverted into helping PMS. I believe that it is a terrible injustice that those charged to ensure that peoples’ savings were protected, fell short, causing financial difficulty and hardship to those who deposited their savings in the honest belief that their monies were safe; and that belief was often based on assurances from the Presbyterian Church itself. Although I understand the circumstances which brought about the demise of PMS were created by the previous Government offering savings guarantees to banks which were not afforded to mutual societies, and therefore resulting in a run on the PMS, I feel it is manifestly unfair to penalise innocent savers for circumstances outside their control. I am of the opinion that the Presbyterian Church and Government must do everything it can to redress this situation. This incidentally would not mean the creation of a hardship fund which would cause humiliation and indignity to PMS savers however great their need. I believe PMS savers should be treated as fairly as any other saver in the UK as the Prime Minister himself has indicated.

As "small savers" with the PMS it is galling to see institutions brought almost to ruin by excessive greed and risk-taking being fully and promptly supported by the government, while we are left (so far) high and dry. We just hope that the present government will be honourable and deliver on clear pre-election promises. We very much appreciate the efforts of past and present Moderators as well as local politicians to bring an end to this very distressing situation.

We are grateful for those working to help those of us who were savers with PMS. All other savers have been protected UK wide. The totality of political Parties in NI - SF SDLP UUP DUP ALLIANCE - support the integrity of our request. We trust Mr Cameron will keep his word.

To everyone who does not agree that PMS savers should get their money back please understand that PMS members like a lot of other people lost money in investments in other institutions. However money in PMS was savings similar to a Building Society. To look at it any other way is missing the point completely. When we put money into PMS we were told it was 100% safe since the money was savings and therefore all we would get back was what we had deposited in our account. This is the same as any Bank or Building Society, which of course the previous government guaranteed up to £50,000. If anyone does not know the difference between savings and investments please look up the meaning of both in any dictionary.

It's interesting when I look at the number of PResbyterian Churches that are currently vacant - i.e. without a minister. Intersting solution here in the hands of PCI - close a few churches, pay off the debts to the savers/investors, move on. Simples.