Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for providing highly educational perspectives on the credit union movement. As the meeting proceeds, I am learning a great deal about issues affecting the movement. I have great sympathy for the views being expressed by Mr. Owens. If I understand his argument correctly, the one-size-fits-all approach to credit unions, which essentially amounts to over-regulation, could undermine the fundamentally democratic ethos of the movement. That is a compelling argument.

On the question as to whom we trust to regulate the credit unions, I am happy to have the State step in and regulate the banks much more thoroughly than was previously the case. It appears, however, that the credit unions are about to suffer a backlash arising from what the banks did when they were not subject to regulation. Despite not being guilty of the types of reckless behaviour in which the banks engaged, the credit unions are being placed under serious threat. While it is preferable that the State regulates the banks rather than having the banks regulating or failing to regulate themselves, as was previously the case, I would prefer the credit union members rather than the State to regulate credit unions because I trust the former more than the latter to perform this function. I need to be convinced of the need to regulate credit unions or permit the State to interfere in them in such a way that may undermine the democratic control of the membership. I am very sympathetic to that point of view. The arguments made by Mr. Owens are extremely compelling.

The other issue that appears to arise is size. This is partly an issue of defending the principle of members exerting democratic control over their credit unions. However, it also appears to be the case that a different perspective is taken depending on the size of the credit union in question. I have sympathy on the need to address the issue of conflicts of interest because it is one which arises. Again, however, are credit union members not the best people to decide on this matter? If there is a potential conflict of interest, I presume the issue can be raised by members at the annual general meeting. Are members not the most appropriate people to make a decision on such matters? If one chooses not to allow members to make such decisions, it may not be a major problem for larger credit unions which have larger pools of people but in smaller credit unions it could have the inadvertent effect of hampering their ability to function because they cannot draw on a sufficiently large pool of individuals to allow them to engage in rotation. The point about maintaining experienced people in the credit union is a valid argument because one must build up skills and knowledge. I am also sympathetic to the idea that ordinary people can decide to elect people who they believe to be competent and those who they elect can then educate and train themselves in the relevant area and build up a skills base.

Does Mr. Owens agree that the credit unions are suffering a backlash arising from the actions of the banks? The irony is that the credit unions could become more like banks as a result, which is the last thing we need. We need the credit union model to continue because credit unions provide the type of financial services we need as opposed to the chaos we had in the for-profit banking sector.