Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

My remarks will be in a similar vein to Deputy Doherty's. I acknowledge that we had a constructive engagement on Committee Stage with regard to the amendments that we tabled largely on behalf of the Irish League of Credit Unions. Generally speaking, the Minister indicated a willingness to deal with the concerns raised by the credit union movement and to bring forward his own amendments in the Seanad which would address those concerns. To a certain extent we are in a difficult position because we have a responsibility to do the best we can on behalf of the credit unions and their members. Report Stage is the last opportunity we will get to make any intervention on the Bill. We must take the Minister at his word but I believe he responded fairly honestly on Committee Stage and showed genuine concern and acknowledgement for the issues raised by the credit union movement. I was not entirely satisfied with some of the Minister's responses and I will refer to these during the course of the various amendments, but the Minister was honest enough. I am keen to hear from the Minister about what has happened since Committee Stage when it comes to dealing with these issues. Can the Minister tell us any more about how he intends to dealt with these concerns, starting with these amendments?

Like Deputy Doherty, the submission of my amendments for this stage was rather rushed and they were provided at the last minute because we had little time between Committee Stage and the deadline for Report Stage. Anyway, the amendments are an attempt to raise the issues again and to get a response on how we are progressing to ensure that the credit unions are not caught up in the backlash against the banks, a backlash that resulted from the activities of the banks. As Deputy Broughan and all of us stated on Committee Stage - the Minister would probably agree - while the credit unions are not perfect and naturally require regulation, they are not the culprits of the dire situation we are now in; the culprits are the banks.

It would be a deep irony if the credit union movement suffered as a result of the backlash against banks. It would be a supreme irony if this were the case when the banks are still being protected. I realise they are being regulated and we will see how effective the new regulation is, but from most people's point of view the banks are being cosseted and protected and it is all about ensuring the welfare of the banks. It would be most ironic and unjust if the credit unions, which are not perfect but do they bear responsibility for the deep mess we were in, were to suffer as a result of the need for greater regulation in the banking sector. This is the assurance which we and the credit unions seek. We have no wish for an onerous regulatory regime to be imposed on the credit unions such that their ability to function is effectively undermined or damaged in any way as a result of the implementation of regulation. I realise my amendments are imperfect in this regard. They are not as specific as those of Deputy Doherty. They simply suggest that only the regulation appropriate to credit unions in the legislation since 1942 should be applied to the credit unions. I understand that the amendments need to be more refined but we are keen to hear and, more important, the millions of credit union members are keen to hear that the amendments the Minister will bring forward with deal with this concern. We would all appreciate if the Minister could provide a progress report with regard to what these amendments will look like and an assurance that the credit unions will not be caught up in the backwash of the necessary regulation that must be imposed on the banking sector.

See this speech in context