Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to speak on this issue, even if it is only for five minutes. I was a founding member of Manorhamilton and District Credit Union many years ago. I believe it is one of the biggest contributions I have made, along with other people, to the development of the community of north Leitrim. As Deputies can imagine, many people have been telling me their concerns about what is happening to an institution that we love so much. When I looked at the counter-motion proposed by the Government - I would not call it an amendment - I could not avoid the feeling that there is a measure of protecting the big commercial banks here. The Government might say that it likes the credit unions and the Minister might use nice words when he speaks about them, but their aim is to protect the big commercial banks.

I agree completely with various speakers on all sides of the House who have said they do not want the credit unions to look like banks or to operate as banks. It seems to me from the way we are shaping the regulations in this area that the next thing we will see is regional managers for credit unions. After that, we will be looking at a requirement to have the same sets of accounts as the commercial banks. At that stage, they will become mini commercial banks without the credit limits and many of the other services that the commercial banks have. It was not the credit unions that crashed and burned, almost destroying the State in the process, and left householders - fathers, mothers and families - wondering what happened their assets. It was the big banks that were responsible. They were being regulated by the same people who now say they know best about how the credit unions should operate. They do not know best. Those who know best about how the credit unions should operate are the communities that place their trust and their money with people they know.

I will set out the key difference between the credit unions and the commercial banks. The members of the credit union movement meet and talk to people they know. Those working in the credit unions know the people they are dealing with. Many families that would have been regarded as risks by the commercial banks and sent away on that basis have been supported by the credit unions over the years. Those families made good on that trust and repaid their loans. They have prospered as a result of being listened to by the credit unions. That is the difference between the credit unions and the commercial banks. We do not have shareholders who are getting a slice of the action. We do not have bank officials who are keen to oversell products because they are getting a slice of the action. We do not have officials encouraging people to take out loans for higher amounts than they actually need, or can afford to repay, so that they will get bonuses. Although we have none of those ills, the Government is insisting on pursuing a policy of putting tighter controls on credit unions and shaping them more and more like commercial banks.

I fear that everybody in this House will vote against the good motion that has been put before the House tonight. It is not perfect and some improvements could be made to it, but it is a good motion. It should get the Minister to pause and think of how to build on the strengths of the credit union movement, rather than looking at the similarities with the banks. He should imagine the strong role that the credit unions could play as this society develops over the years and decades ahead. The process of thinking and imagining should take precedence over looking at the model offered by the regulation of the commercial banks. If the Minister talks to the customers of the credit unions and those who run the credit unions, that discussion will result in a sound and secure continuing solution that is suitable for the Irish people. Such a solution has operated for decades and will continue to operate if it is not nobbled.

See this speech in context