Ms Anne Marie McKiernan:

If I can, I will give information on where we publish data that helps to highlight where there has been progress by a large number of credit unions and where there are actions outstanding by others, which is in the area of lending restrictions. Lending restrictions were initially imposed at the height of the crisis to stop excess dangerous lending and the potential for larger losses. They largely achieved that aim. They were calibrated as such that they did not impede the normal business and personal lending of credit unions. In general, they were not biting, but they prevented excess. They then stayed in place for quite a period of time and credit unions did not seek to have them removed. However, we felt that it was important to better understand whether all credit unions should remain under a lending restriction or could meet the appropriate and proportionate requirements regarding their credit management.

In 2015, we started a significant review. At the start, there were 197 lending restrictions in place. There are now 62. That is less that one third of what it was. It demonstrates two things. First, the credit unions that can meet the requirements, which are not onerous, can have a lending restriction review. The Central Bank is proportionate and open to change with regard to any of its rules if credit unions can meet the required standards. Second, the restrictions that remain in place do so because those credit unions have decided that either they would rather live under a restriction imposed externally than come up with their own rules and risk appetite and lending, or they have not been able to demonstrate that they can meet the basic requirements to show that they best safeguard members funds in the way they lend those funds. Lending restrictions now carry an information content of where the credit union sits with regard to it.