Mr. Brian McCrory:

Part of what needs to be changed does not require legislative change but a change in mindset. They very same people advising the Minister in 2011 are the same advising him now and those attitudes still prevail. There is still an undercurrent of suspicion that there is something radically wrong with credit unions. I am not saying there are no flaws or issues which need to be addressed or that there have not been problems. In every instance, despite a suggestion by the regulatory authority at one time, credit unions which found themselves temporarily in difficulty have traded their way out of it. At one point the advice to the Minister was that they should be shut. The consequences for society of such an action would have been dire. There must be a change, whether it be legislative or regulatory, that will allow credit unions to invest their collective moneys in the citizens of this State, whether it be for social housing, SMEs or other purposes. There needs to be liberation from the “computer says no” mindset at every turn. There needs to be a relaxation of the lending limits and a reconsideration of the directives issued to credit unions that precludes them from lending to many of their members.

The decline in lending can be precisely traced to a communication from the Central Bank to credit unions which grossly impacted on their ability to lend to a significant number of people. Over time, one can track the pronouncements from the Central Bank and the regulatory authorities and the reduction in lending. A couple of years later, credit unions are heading for difficult times. It is a virtuous circle. What is it that the credit unions are supposed to do to break that virtuous circle because those gifts are not within our control? There needs to be a review of the rules taken from legislation and put into regulation. The rules need to be legislated for, specifically defined and not to be arbitrary. There needs to be a willingness to allow what was at one point a democratically controlled movement to be in control of its own destiny. Whenever people make the statement that we are here to protect members’ savings, the direct inference is that we are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. I find that irksome when it is repeated ad infinitum. It is as if there is one particular party to this with the fitness and probity who can protect members’ money. That requires a mindset change, not a legislative change.