Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to direct my questions towards a particular area. Based on the comments and submissions made yesterday and today, particularly by the two larger credit unions, there is broad support for the Bill and its motivation. The focus of discussion is on a small number of sections. It will be interesting to see if our guests argue or make incendiary comments such as that the Bill is a "backlash against what has happened" or "endangering the credit union movement." The motivation of the Bill is to protect the credit union movement; it is certainly not a backlash as suggested yesterday when it was said that at the end of this process, the 3 million credit union members would be out on the streets with placards. That will not happen.

One of the issues raised yesterday by the Irish League of Credit Unions which we have not yet discussed was the issue of social finance. While there are disputes between the ILCU, managers and the other association about tiers and regulations and for how long people can serve on boards, it appears there is no real argument against allowing credit unions lend money for social benefit projects guaranteed by the State. This proposal from the ILCU has huge merit. Is there a reason clubs seeking sports capital are precluded from applying for credit union loans? Many clubs applying for sports capital are getting some money from the State, using some of their own money and borrowing the rest. However, they are precluded from applying to credit unions. Why is that? Should the Credit Union Bill be amended to allow Government-backed schemes to become customers of credit unions?