Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I have tabled amendments Nos. 130 and 131. They seek to have written into the sections identified that the complainant must have exhausted all dispute resolution options available under a credit union's rules save the referral of the matter to arbitration or to the District Court for resolution. These amendments, with the earlier ones already mentioned, are a further safeguard and recognition of the special position of the credit unions within the overall configuration of financial services delivery in this jurisdiction. They recognise that credit unions are voluntary bodies with their own rules and established dispute mechanisms that are deserving of full respect. The basic thrust of the argument presented by earlier speakers and by me is that this is about ensuring that we reflect the position of the credit unions in line with the recognition they already have in the Act of 2003. We wish to see this restated, renewed, reaffirmed, and the concerns of the broad credit union sector addressed substantively. These amendments will do that. They are realistic in so far as they recognise, as did the earlier set of amendments which we have discussed, that referral to the court would not be a suitable action in advance of referral to the office of the financial services ombudsman, nor equally would arbitration, but that under all the other rules governing credit unions, normal procedures should be adhered to before the financial services ombudsman would take on any case referred. That is a very reasonable proposition. I commend amendments No. 130 and 131 where they specifically impinge on the text of the Bill as presented. I support the amendments already tabled by my colleagues, Deputies Bruton and Burton.

See this speech in context