Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute on this legislation. I welcome the debate and pay tribute to the excellent and valuable work carried out by credit unions. I was a founding member of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, INTO, credit union and many of my extended family have been involved in the credit union movement for more than 50 years. My experience has been positive, as I have seen at first hand the dedication, commitment and compassion shown by those actively involved towards weaker members of society. This is particularly relevant, given the fact that more than 400,000 people are unemployed and many are finding the current environment difficult. It is essential that we commend and pay tribute to the credit union movement's valuable work of many years.

This Bill provides for a strengthened regulatory framework for credit unions and deals with four broad areas, those being, prudential regulation, governance, restructuring and stabilisation. The Bill amends the principal legislation governing credit unions, namely, the Credit Union Act 1997. Some of the main features of the Bill include providing a statutory basis for the sector's voluntary restructuring; changes to governance; requirements on credit unions, such as clarifying various roles and responsibilities; and the provision of stabilisation support to viable but undercapitalised credit unions. These are the key elements of the Bill and represent the core issues that must be addressed, including the regulatory framework. I welcome their inclusion and the fact that the Bill has many positive aspects, as they are relevant to the broader economic debate.

We must also consider the causes of some of the shenanigans that occurred for ten years. Two opposites were evident. On one side were rampant greed and incompetence, and on the other were people in the credit union movement who did their best to help everyone, including society's weaker members. This is the type of debate that our country needs. It is relevant to the Bill. It is important.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how people who were involved in financial services and banking could get bonuses after and destroying the State's financial circumstances. I worked in a disadvantaged school in the inner city for many years. If I was £3 over in my statements to the Department of Education, an inspector would have been on my back checking out my figures. I was required to account for every single penny of a disadvantaged grant of £5,800. However, the people in the financial services and banking sectors who destroyed this country were not accountable, yet they were still given bonuses and pensions.

I do not like to be critical in this instance, as I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I watched Government Deputies jumping up and down last night regarding pensions and perks. They had an opportunity to vote for our motion, which would have put an end to many of the shenanigans in question. Why did they not vote with us on our Private Members' motion?

See this speech in context