Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is nothing to be perceived about the implications for the credit union movement. What is factual is that if this goes is ahead in the form in which it has been presented, the future viability of credit unions is at risk. It goes without saying we all acknowledge, compliment, thank and congratulate the credit union movement throughout the country for the work, help and assistance it gives to communities, to such an extent that up to 70% of the population are members of credit unions. In my county, there are 35,000 members in Tullamore, 9,000 in Clara and up to 50,000 or 60,000 throughout the county. Credit unions are integral and vital parts of communities.

We know banks are withdrawing services throughout the country. We heard Deputy Mulherin speak about the difference between the atmosphere in a credit union office and that in a bank office. We see interaction, vitality and engagement in a credit union office, while we see staff in banks introducing customers to machines. Earlier this year, Ferbane in my county lost Ulster Bank, which was the last bank in town. I heard Deputy Heydon from Kildare speak about the vacuum being created by the loss of the credit union in Newbridge over the past two years. He should inform his colleagues because they will face the same vacuum in their communities in the coming years if what is proposed in CP88 is signed by the Minister.

Over the past four years, we have seen the Government stand idly by as post offices went to the wall. We have seen Garda stations closed and social welfare offices withdrawn from communities. All of this is in addition to the threat that exists that the loss of credit unions will take away whatever bit of vitality could be perceived and held in communities. We have seen no effort to address the deficit that exists in many towns and villages and no overhaul of commercial rates or dedicated plans for towns and villages.

Like many of his colleagues in Fine Gael and the Labour Party, the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, recognises the value of credit unions. He spoke of the Government's amendment to the motion, which would have us believe it addresses the concerns and fears being reiterated by members throughout the country. He accepts, of course, the commission's findings in their entirety and the independence of the registrar, but does he, and it appears that he does, accept the selective implementation of the registrar's various recommendations on this document as it is at present? He forgets, and does not acknowledge, the omission of other recommendations which might assist credit unions in helping and assisting small and medium-sized enterprises, and which may help with mortgage lending and go beyond the restrictive 10% cap being put on mortgages for more than 25 years.

The Minister of State, Deputy Harris, also stated there is provision in the amendment, and I also heard this in the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, for the Government to explore the possibility of an input from the credit union movement with regard to the social housing dilemma we have. What exploration is required, when a credit union has the capacity to make available through a central fund, similar to the Canadian model, funding to local communities and local authorities to build houses in their area? Yesterday, I was at a meeting at which the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government spoke about the Estimates and looking back at the spend this year. This time last year, it made a commitment with regard to a €4 billion investment over five years, whereby there would be 7,500 new homes throughout the country this year, 4,000 of which would be new builds. The number that was built was 200, which is five per local authority. My county must have been the exception because it got eight, although this was over the past four years. The credit union movement has at its disposal investment capacity in this sector for local authorities and even a return of 2% would be far in excess of what is being received in the banks at present.

Members of the Government parties should not give us the platitudes we have heard. I will be honest, and I do not like saying this, but I am a bit worried about some of the condescending tones I heard from some of the speakers on the other side of the House. The credit union movement is professional and forward thinking, which is well capable - and more than capable as has been said by some speakers - of meeting the demands of the economy as we know them. It is much more capable when it is compared to the way in which the banks conducted their business. I heard Deputy Nolan of the Labour Party state yesterday that the debate will have very little effect. Regardless of the vote, he called from more engagement. This sentiment personifies in my mind and for my party the lack of appreciation of the ramifications of this administration's governance.

There must be political consequences. I have met representatives of credit unions over the past number of months, including a senior delegation from the Irish League of Credit Unions, ILCU, last week, and I spoke to people in the Credit Union Development Association, CUDA, as well. It became quite apparent to me that this had to get political, as members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, as the Government, need to accept and face the consequences of their actions. For example, when our party put in place a four-year programme to close the gap between income and expenditure, it suffered the political consequences, despite the fact that the current Government continued along that path and closed the gap by the final third necessary. That was to the Government parties' benefit but, more importantly, it was to the country's benefit. We suffered the political consequences of putting that in place, rightly or wrongly. We accepted the decision of the Irish people of putting those opposite into government and taking it from there.

The last Government capitalised Irish banks; the Irish people capitalised them. This Government told us after the June 2012 summit that there would be retrospective bank recapitalisation, as there should have been, but we doubted it was the game changer that the Government argued it was. It was a footnote at the bottom of the agreement. Instead, we have seen higher mortgage interest rates, 2% above the European average, with a bank veto on solutions proposed by customers, mass evictions, no social dividend from NAMA and €8 billion of credit union soft deposits sitting in banks ever since. Is it not gas to think that, having been saved by the Irish people, banks are now propped up by the credit unions with €8 billion of investment? The same credit unions are barred from competing in the way they can and should in the market. It is time for the members of Fine Gael to face up to the political consequences of their actions. It is time for those party members to realise the power in the hands of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, with respect to the ramifications of what they sign and when they sign it.

Many have spoken of how, earlier today, representatives of the ILCU, CUDA and the Credit Union Managers' Association came before the finance committee. There was all-party agreement, on the suggestion of Deputy Michael McGrath, that the committee should meet the registrar, and a date has been fixed for 16 December. The committee has written to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, asking him to withdraw or withhold his intention to sign CP88 at least until that meeting takes place. He claims he has passed on the concerns about the perceived implications of what is contained within it to the registrar in recent weeks, following his meeting with representatives of those bodies on 12 November. Yet, all of a sudden, he has agreed to meet representatives of the credit unions again tomorrow. That comes after hearing what we have said and what members have said throughout the country, and with Members from his party and the Labour Party reminding him of the issue.

In the likes of Offaly there are 50,000 or 60,000 credit union members and - make no mistake about it - my colleagues and I will remind each and every one about the ramifications and political consequences arising from the Government's actions if it goes ahead with this. As I said earlier, it is hiding behind necessary rectifications and controls in the way financial institutions have to be monitored. I accept that. There was scaremongering from the Minister for Finance with regard to credit unions; it was not from a consultant, as Deputy Rabbitte argued. The Minister for Finance for this State said it would take up to €1 billion to rectify the harm that might exist in credit unions, but it took only €40 million.

The Government thinks it can hide behind regulators and registrars while saying it accepts all that is contained in the commission's recommendations. It will stand idly by when the registrar selectively chooses from those recommendations and puts that under the nose of the Minister for Finance. At this eleventh hour, he still thinks there are "perceived" ramifications, but there is nothing perceived about our putting a second motion before this House. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. It is time for the Government and its party members to realise that if they vote for this, they should not expect members of credit unions to vote for them.

See this speech in context