Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions to the Second Stage debate. I acknowledge the work of the credit union movement, which is a volunteer movement. I also thank the directors, the boards of directors and the staff who work in all our credit unions. The point has been well made that they are community-based. Depending on the amount of time I have, I wish to address some of the issues raised. If we have only a few minutes left, I can address them at the beginning of Committee Stage, which will follow on directly.

I assure Deputies that the issues they raised about proxy votes are not a problem in this legislation. We are proposing to allow credit unions, if they wish to change their rules in due course, to introduce proxy votes if they decide to do so. There is no request that they should do so. At the moment, that is specifically prohibited. If a credit unions wants to change its rules down the road, it is free to do so. The main issue - and I myself shared the concern when I first looked at the legislation - of people gathering up hundreds of proxy votes will be a matter for each credit union to decide as to how many proxy votes an individual can have. In one house there might be a son or a daughter who has the two votes on behalf of his or her parents. One might be a valid limit. Some might say that three or four should be the limit to cover a family unit in order that one person does the voting on behalf of the family. We are just allowing the credit unions to introduce the rules as they see fit. As for the other issue of a non-member having a vote, I understand the point made but, in practice, if a credit union wants to do that, it is free to facilitate the case I have just mentioned in which a son or a daughter might vote on behalf of his or her parents who are credit union members but that son or daughter might not be a credit union member.

That will all be decided by each individual credit union. I expect that some credit unions will go down this road in the coming years. Some may restrict it to one, two or three proxy votes, while others may allow four or five. Each credit union makes its own rules. All we are doing is introducing a provision to allow credit unions to allow proxy votes if they wish to do so. There is no obligation for them to do so. Some of them will never do it.

The issue of voting in advance was mentioned. I will reply briefly and get into it in a little more detail on Committee Stage. That provision is actually to facilitate a postal vote, for example. The Bill allows a credit union to make temporary arrangements for the interim period, that is, the first three months of the new year because of the pandemic. Thereafter, voting arrangements will have to be decided by the members at a meeting. Credit unions may go back to having in-person meetings or they can have virtual meetings or a combination of both. Virtual meetings would involve people using iPhones or laptops to log on securely and that being approved by the secretary or officials of the credit union. There will also be facilities for people to phone into the meeting so that they can contribute and hear what is being said. There is tremendous flexibility. Some meetings will involve a combination of those who are physically present at the AGM, those attending by phone and those using technology to attend the AGM virtually.

Some credit unions may choose to allow postal voting. By definition, this means that members votes have to be posted in before the meeting. If a credit union does not wish to go down that road, it does not have to do so. We are removing the legislative obstacles that prevent credit unions that wish to go that route from so doing. It will increase participation at AGMs if people can attend virtually or by phone. People may not be able to attend the meeting in person.

I genuinely believe that most of the concerns raised will not be an issue. I am absolutely sure that directors cannot introduce rules on proxy votes in this interim period unless the credit union has already gone that route. We are not aware of any credit union having such a provision already. The directors cannot introduce a provision bringing in a proxy vote system when they call a virtual AGM in the interim period up until the end of April. If the members wish to bring in such a system to be used in the future, they are free to do so. They are not legally prevented from doing so in the future. I understand why the issue of proxy votes was raised, but it is up to each credit union to make their rules to suit themselves.

I will return to the issue of the IFAC and other matters on Committee Stage and provide further information at that point.

See this speech in context