Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I have to admit that I had a degree of cynicism about the establishment of the initiative and the foundation which still, to an extent, holds true. The initiative was set up on the removal of the bank levy which was introduced in 2002 and operated for several years. In the general election that year the Green Party was the only one to suggest a bank levy which operated for a short time. On its replacement the sop to the idea of social finance was the social finance initiative to which the banks gave the very large sum of €25 million, whereas the levy generated only a small sum. The major banks at the time were earning profits of between €4 million and €6 million a day. That was profit, not turnover. We now know that some of those profits were wrongly calculated because of the way they dealt with bad debt provision.

The scale on which the commercial institutions can help in the wider area of social finance has been subsequently addressed by the creation in some recent legislation of identifiable funds for green lending, small businesses and social protection measures. I welcome that development. It is disappointing that of that small sum the social lending organisations have drawn down only €9 million and comment has been made on the work of Clann Credo and First Step. The money available is a drop in the ocean, only €5 million is available for microfinance loans. I hope that tonight's debate opens the wider aspect of this subject. Its intention was to acknowledge how microfinance operates through the credit union sector, to promote the wider idea of microfinance as it exists in other European countries and to strengthen the social finance initiative of recent years. They are all vehicles that we can and should use to a greater extent. I hope tonight's debate brings about greater awareness.

While I share many of Senator O'Toole's views in moving the amendment, it is prescriptive in terms of a general motion——