Mr. Kevin Johnson:

It is less than 5% of the total. We need to be careful. If we link the two questions, the earlier one was about regulation, one point on which we should be very clear is that all three bodies have been very consistent in stating that they want robust, appropriate and proportionate regulation. That is not in question here. I think what the Deputy is saying is that the fear was that in seeking to involve the credit unions, we would be looking for lighter touch regulation. That is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that what was agreed by the commission should be proportionate and that it would reflect the nature, scale and complexity of each credit union. The problem we have had is that we are presented with a one-size-fits-all solution and this is the second time around with CP88. It is important to remember we also had CP76, which was the first attempt to present a tiered regulatory structure. What that did was put all the credit unions on the left hand side of the diagram that I showed the committee and then there was an unknown process to get out of it but it was never explained how anybody could ever get out of it. The concern that we had then, and we still have now, is that there is insufficient consideration for future advancement of the changes to the credit union business model. The registrar and the Central Bank have stated on occasion that there would be engagement with stakeholders on development, which is very welcome, but that should happen before the rules are put in place not after.

To tie in what I have said with the savings limit, first, one must remember that savings are the only source of funds a credit union has, as we do not take capital from external sources. The second thing is that it is a member’s choice. Even with all the new deposit guarantee scheme requirements coming in, no matter what institution a consumer saves with, they must be informed about exactly what is covered and what is not. It is no different with us. Ironically, there are even opportunities within the new deposit guarantee scheme, DGS, requirements where amounts of more than €100,000 would be covered and yet a person could be penalised if he or she were with a credit union, as he or she would not get the advantage of that. The point I am trying to get at is that nobody is suggesting that there needs to be lighter regulation-----