Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am a member of a credit union and a family that has always supported everything that is good about the movement. At seven years of age after one's Holy Communion, one is sent off to open a credit union account. That is how society should be. In terms of social values, what the movement does financially is unique. Deputy Heydon was right in that the movement fills a gap between banks and the extortionate moneylenders who can damage people, especially when they are vulnerable at times like Christmas.

I am a member of the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. In the past four and a half years, we have received several presentations from the credit union movement as well as from organisations involved or interest therein. The news that credit unions were hoping to get involved in social housing to the tune of more than €1 billion was a joy to behold. It is also a joy to know that most of the movement's institutions did not cause a collapse, get into trouble or do anything wrong by society. In fact, they did the opposite. They helped ordinary citizens throughout the country. Due to one or two rogue outliers, the rest may be punished a little.

I will cite a presentation given at today's meeting of the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. It is available on the Internet to anyone who wants to read it. Mr. Ed Farrell, CEO of the Irish League of Credit Unions, ILCU, stated that it was not against regulation, only seeking better regulation. The middle ground must be worked. All Members will offer anecdotal evidence of why the movement is as prolific and fantastic as it is. It is unique and beneficial.

In terms of tiered capital and smaller deposit levels, the movement's loan-to-deposit ratio and all the other complicated factors that can be found behind the scenes in the treasury section of a bank are fantastic, but that is not what people are concerned about. Rather, they are concerned about whether they can make deposits or take out loans. Not only should credit unions expand their offering and get into electronic forms of payment and communication, but also they should move to the next level and become mortgage funders. Banks are moving away from day-to-day activity and have less so-called key man knowledge of their borrowers. In a credit union, lending is done by local people who know what is happening. They do not lend recklessly but in the best interests of their communities.

CP88 has been a problem for a long time. The Central Bank and the Department of Finance do not have the same level of tacit knowledge that we have built up as parliamentarians immersed in society and as members of credit unions.

I am of the opinion that there needs to be a focus on the grassroots. Regulators want to be able to hit a moving target in the event that there is something wrong with it. That is acceptable but it is not acceptable if it is to have a negative effect on the credit union movement. The overall rationale is to try to get credit unions to develop in a way that is best for society. That is what we are trying to nail tonight.

See this speech in context