Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge what I feel was a very constructive engagement on Committee Stage last week. As was clear from that, the Minister understands the concerns of the credit union movement and Members. I look forward to seeing the progress reports the Minister will give us on his own amendments on foot of the issues we raised last week. I also look forward to seeing these amendments taken in the Seanad. It is disappointing but the Minister has explained why they could not be put forward on Report Stage here.

The Minister will be glad to hear I am not going to repeat all the issues I raised on Committee Stage as I feel they were given a good hearing and he took them on board. Instead, I have tabled additional amendments on matters on which the Minister has not given any leeway. I have done that to assist him in drafting his amendments for the Seanad hearing of the Bill.

Amendment No. 2 relates to financial services. The Minister agreed last week that he would look at a formula of words for dealing with the issue of applying banking regulation to credit unions.

Deputy Broughan noted earlier and I have said numerous times - not only in the House - that the credit union movement is altogether different from a bank. They are voluntary, not-for-profit organisations. The interpretation of the section relating to financial services could allow for someone to apply existing banking regulations to credit unions, although I understand from the Minister's comment that this is not the intention. Instead of deleting the definition of financial services, which was the drift of my original amendment on Committee Stage and which I subsequently withdrew, I have left the definition of financial services in place but I have tried to be more explicit in order that the fear within the credit union movement would be removed and that banking regulation legislation would not apply to the credit union movement. Under the amendment, only the legislation applicable to the credit union movement would continue to apply. It is important to have strong regulation but at the same time we should recognise the unique ethos of the credit union movement.

The amendment deletes part of section 6 and substitutes it with references to the following: Part VIIA of the Central Bank Act 1942; Part VIIB of the Central Bank Act 1942; Part IIC of the Central Bank Act 1942; Part 3 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010; and the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011. These are the existing blocks of Central Bank legislation that apply to the credit union movement. We are not looking for any regulations to be removed. The argument is to ensure that banking regulations, of which there are a great deal including the Central Bank Acts and statutory instruments, should not be allowed to be imposed on credit unions further down the road since that was never the intention. The list may not be complete but it is a genuine effort to try to shape the type of amendment that the Minister will bring forward. I believe it will meet the needs of the credit union movement, not only the leaders of the credit union movement but the people who use the credit union. I presume the majority of people here are members of the credit union. We all have a stake in ensuring that there is a vibrant movement in the years ahead. If the Minister could indicate that this is the type of amendment he is planning to bring forward in the Seanad then I have no problem withdrawing the amendment. However, it is important that this catch-all section 6, which deals with all of the existing banking legislation, is refined or removed. There should be an explicit statement of the legislation in place and the Bill should allow the Minister to add to that when new legislation is brought forward applicable to the credit union movement.

See this speech in context