Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Brennan and his colleagues from the league. We can all agree the credit union Bill provides an opportunity to put the movement on a firm and sustainable footing for the long term. We know it is a challenging time for credit unions and their members. I welcome the fact the delegation's presentation is quite narrow in its focus. I take that to mean there is broad acceptance and agreement with the thrust of the general scheme of the Bill.

Is the delegation satisfied that the content of the Bill is a fair reflection of the Commission on Credit Union's recommendations? Much of the objections to specific issues centre on interference with the autonomy in the operation of credit unions. On the point of the term limit, which the Chairman teased out, was that examined by the commission? Did it make a particular recommendation in this regard? I understand the league's concerns about the loss of experience and the proposed term limits.

If people are performing their duties to the required standard, it seems unfair that one would statutorily require them to vacate their position. There is an issue in that regard that needs to be re-examined.

Mr. Brennan also went through the prohibitions in terms of board membership. Does he have any handle on how many existing board members of credit unions would potentially be affected by the exclusions set out in the draft scheme of the Bill? Does he have any sense of the percentage of existing board members who would be disqualified from serving, for example, if the Bill, as drafted, was enacted?

On the tiering of credit unions by asset size alone, Mr. Brennan makes a fair point about looking at alternative models and taking account of the complexity and diversity of credit unions. He referred to the model used in the United Kingdom. Is that a model that we can examine, replicate and amend to meet the circumstances in Ireland? Is he satisfied that it would constitute a better approach?

Some of the additional suggestions Mr. Brennan made towards the end of his presentation appear eminently sensible on the surface. For example, I wonder why items such as electronically-enabled payments and shared services are not taken into account. At this stage, we are looking at the broad thrust of the Bill. Obviously, on Second Stage, we will look at the principles and on Committee Stage, the detailed amendments. Any amendment Mr. Brennan wishes to have put into the mix at that stage can be considered if Members wish to bring them forward. Are there particular reasons some of the more obvious ones have not been included in the Bill which presents a one-off opportunity to place the movement on a proper footing for the future?