Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate. There are few movements in this country that can boast 3 million members, 400 offices, 4,000 employees and up to 10,000 volunteers. It is high time that we had a comprehensive debate on the current state and future of the credit union movement.

The problem is that, when people consider the movement and its national network, they are minded of the fact that there has been a withdrawal by the Government of services across the country. The Minister of State knows the list: Garda stations; libraries; public health centres; post offices, which face their own challenges; and small schools. These are being unravelled out of communities and warehoused in large towns and cities. The credit union movement sees this happening and is worried. What it is looking for, and what we are articulating on its behalf, is a coherent policy. It is only right that we ask the Minister of State, who is representing the senior Minister, to publish a White Paper on the future of the credit union movement. We will contribute to that process. In the absence of a White Paper, we will need a roadmap for the movement, which comprises many people.

Regarding section 35, like every Deputy, my clinics are attended week in, week out by people who are trying to access finance. They could get it from their local credit unions. It would be used for building small extensions to their homes, buying their council houses or other small and modest purposes. I am not referring to the high end of the mortgage sector. The restriction on this must be examined.

The credit union movement has been stung by the spin against it to the effect that it had to be bailed out. We know about Newbridge, Howth and Sutton and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, told the House that it would cost between €500 million and €1 billion to bail out the credit union movement, but we now know that the true net cost was only €6.4 million. The movement is working against this perception and there is an onus on the Government to address it.

The limitation placed on new products is not sustainable. Young people want to be able to access their credit unions in a dynamic fashion, be it through debit cards, online products or the modern conveniences that a proper financial services provider should be able to make available. That no new products have been permitted is unacceptable.

Like others, I wish to have the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 addressed. The elephant in the room was the bank veto, which the House has debated a number of times. That the law is weighted in favour of bank loans that transfer those losses onto the credit union movement is a matter that we must analyse so as to determine how it is affecting the movement.

Before entering the Chamber, I was listening to this debate. Much has been said about the movement's ethos and core values, and rightly so. However, we must have a frank discussion about the mindset of the Government. When preparing for this debate, I could not get my head around something that was troubling me, namely, the Government's real or perceived attitude towards the movement. It struck me that the only possible explanation was down to the people driving the agenda, be it the Minister of State, the Minister or the civil servants. Do they understand what the credit union movement is all about?

See this speech in context