John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to take up a point made by Deputy McGrath. Something is clearly not right here and it must be said. I am sure that all of what Ms McKiernan has just said would be accepted by the credit union movement as being what they want to hear. Deputy McGrath went back to the €1 billion figure. That was around October 2011. It was disgraceful and damaging to the credit union movement that this was stated as baldly as it was when in fact the hearings today and on Tuesday have established that €25 million was paid from that fund. Some €25 million was also paid from the credit unions' own funds from within the credit union movement. Then there was the €4.3 million mentioned by Ms McKiernan this morning. That brings it to a total of €54 million. By any measurement, the difference between €1 billion and €54 million is substantial. I believe that whoever got this wrong needs to explain it.

We also have Ms McKiernan's speech from early March. I believe the same point applies. General statements like that are being made about credit unions and not enough information, context or explanation around the comments are being given. I believe, quite frankly, that some of the comments were unwarranted.

At today's hearing, in comparison to what happened on Tuesday, Ms McKiernan said there is a proportionate or tiered approach to the credit unions, yet the Credit Union Managers' Association has said that tiered regulation, proportionate to the scale and risk in each credit union, has not been delivered. That is a pretty bald statement being made by those who are at the coalface. It does not add up with regard to what is happening within the credit union movement that it would say one thing and the Department of Finance tells the committee that this area of decision-making belongs to the Central Bank. According to the Department officials this morning, the Central Bank can introduce a three-tiered system if it wants. Ms McKiernan referred to consultation and engagement and, again, the Credit Union Managers' Association told this committee that consultation and engagement has been less consistent and transparent than was originally envisaged. Ms McKiernan has painted a different picture this morning. If we look at the regulatory directives, the Credit Union Managers' Association told the committee that a one size fits all approach to regulatory directives can have very significant adverse impacts on the credit union sector, both in the short and long term.

On the housing issue, the credit union representatives met with the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coveney, and they had conversations with the Minister for Finance. The credit unions cannot get out of that merry-go-round to reach a point where they can deal directly with the registrar in the Central Bank or to the point where someone could introduce legislation on the common bond issue. If the credit union representatives are telling us this, they either do not understand the matter and are being misled somewhere or their conversations are being parked and not acted upon.

They have asked that the development proposals of credit unions would be dealt with in a more structured, timely and appropriate manner. They say that SI 1 of 2016, which the Minister has the capacity to develop, puts them at a significant disadvantage in relation to banks. The credit union representatives are telling a completely different story from the story presented to this committee this morning by the Department of Finance, or indeed by the Central Bank as the regulator. There is a breakdown somewhere and the people who are suffering from these negative and general comments are credit union members because they are wondering what is going on here. There are others who suffer. Let me return to the housing issue. Some Members in the House feel that €11.5 billion was put into the banks by credit unions, and credit unions have shown a willingness to participate in some saving mechanism for those looking for housing, but all of this is being frustrated by regulation, bureaucracy and a lack of legislation.

I am trying to sum up what has happened here. I will leave here today confused about who is doing what to assist or not to assist the credit unions. Ms McKiernan gives an account and sticks to that account - I am not saying she is wrong and the credit unions are right - but the accounts vary so considerably that it is difficult to understand what is needed to get out of what appears to be the mess we are in at present. Simple measures were pointed out to us regarding regulation and the sanction for annual general meetings, for example. There are significant delays and backlogs preventing AGMs from taking place. This is what the credit union movement has told us under the headings of investment rules, changed rules around lending, regulatory reserve ratios and the attitude of the Central Bank in the context of the speech. The credit union representatives told the committee that many of the issues arise from a lack of Oireachtas oversight.

The proposal today was that we would have regular oversight of whatever happened in the previous quarter and that we would try to bring focus to this. That should not need to be the case. Does Ms McKiernan want to comment on what I have said? I know there is a lot in it. I have to say I am deeply unhappy about the exchanges we have had.