Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was a member of the ASTI credit union for many years and also come from a community, East Wall, where there has been a strong credit union since 1968. There was a great tradition of savings made by parents in the community. They saved and borrowed and passed that practice on to their children, who in turn kept the tradition going. In addition, there was a great voluntary effort in the community in regard to both the work of the credit union and the work of the board. There is merit in the proverb about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When it comes to reform and change, it is vital that we hold on to what is good and positive, that we maintain and strengthen those features and that we do not lose good practice.

One of those strengths, as borne out by my experience, is in the area of loans. Unlike the banks in the Celtic tiger years, credit unions did not give out 100% loans. According to credit union standards and regulations, loans were related to savings and there had to be a certain amount in a member's savings account before he or she was allowed to borrow money. There is an irony in the attempt to apply standards from the banks, which have been a dismal failure, to an institution which was working efficiently and which, had there not been recession and unemployment, would now be doing extremely well. Credit unions did not over-extend or get involved in banking excesses, greed or irresponsibility. They were there for their communities and have done far more than banks to create a positive awareness of saving money, even at times when people did not have much money or surplus cash. They were there to give loans that were commensurate with people's ability to repay them, a central tenet of the credit union movement. They looked after expenses such as Christmas, weddings, the house extension, the car and the holiday.

Most of the time since the founding of the movement, all of this has all gone on in an ethical and responsible way. People in communities did not go in fear and trepidation to their credit union as they did to their bank manager. Credit unions were helpful and sympathetic. A point made to me in my local credit union was that people came along in a neighbourly and sympathetic way. Today, banks are trying to do away with that personal service. Branches are closing and there is a changeover in personnel. When one goes into a bank one is directed to a machine rather than a person. Credit unions have a personal touch which must be maintained. They have definite characteristics which I hope will not be lost in the Bill.

I understand credit unions are 90% in favour of the Bill, but there are some questions. Why are we applying so much in terms of banking regulation to an institution that has been working for more than 70 years? Why are we applying secondary legislation to the credit union, which has a different ethos? I refer to the issue of shared services. Why is this limited to sharing at member level? In electronic payments, where is the risk in a prepaid debit card? Why can credit unions not use the significant amount of cash they have on deposit in the banks? They may be propping up the banks for social benefit.

Credit unions were founded on the principle of voluntarism. They placed an advertisement in newspapers today that asks "Why would you bin your most valuable asset?". Their most valuable asset is the volunteers. I am all for preventing conflicts of interest, but where is the conflict if a person who is a member of one credit union wishes to serve on the board of another? That person is not allowed to do so.

Inner-city Dublin is plagued by moneylenders who charge huge rates of interest and trap families. There are credit institutions now that offer the same rates. Credit unions are vital, and I hope their ethos and status can be maintained.

See this speech in context