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

To be fair to the Minister of State and the Minister, they have said they will move the issue forward following examination by the advisory group. I welcome the Minister of State’s comment that he expects the report by the middle of next year. The Minister has given an indication that if the capacity exists the Government will not stand in the way of such a change. That said, I genuinely believe provision should be made in the Bill at this point. Putting it in the Bill will not present a danger but it will set down a commitment that this is the way we would like credit unions to operate, but it will only happen if they can meet the mark and the criteria set down and it would leave the final say with the Central Bank.

The Minister of State asked about the appetite for this. It exists; the ILCU has been lobbying both the Government and the Opposition for member-level shared services. Beyond that, as any member of a credit union or anybody who knows about them will realise, it just makes sense that credit unions should share services in this day and age. They must not be left behind and I do not want to see them left behind. I agree with the Minister of State's comments in regard to banks and raising money on the international markets, which is great progress. However, I also want to see great progress for the credit union movement so that it can reach its full potential in years to come.

This Bill could have been a statement of intent by the Oireachtas that we want to see the movement develop and flourish, but its purpose is to provide tight regulation for a sector that needs to be regulated. Nobody is opposed to that, but we also want to see it grow. I am disappointed in that element and also that the Minister of State did not agree to the suggested change even though I have tweaked this amendment since Committee Stage. I am trying to inform the Minister's opinion and influence him when he brings amendments to the Bill during its passage through the Seanad. I will not press the amendment now because it may be considered again at Seanad level, but I ask the Minister of State - and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, if he reads this transcript or is briefed on it - to consider the amendment. There is no reason not to include this measure in the Bill. It would be a positive statement.

Rightly or wrongly, there is a fear among credit union members, both volunteers and management, about the Central Bank and about regulations that reveal a lack of understanding of the credit union movement. The move proposed would be a positive one. This Government has already redesigned banks in this State. Some have been merged with others; we have made some into pillar banks, have taken on ownership of others and have got rid of deposits in certain banks. We have done all of this in the past two years, and we did it because there is a direction in which we want to see retail banking going in this country. What is missing in this Bill is that type of direction for the credit union movement. It is very much about regulation, which is important, but this step would have given a positive signal. I will leave it at that. I welcome the positive steps taken but am disappointed this one did not go the other way. I hope there will be a change of mind in the Seanad.

See this speech in context