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

We are all supportive of the credit unions and believe they will run their organisations as best they can. That is why we did not want to be overly-prescriptive by limiting proxy voting such that a proxy voter can only act on behalf of one person. I gave the example earlier of an elderly couple who want their son or daughter to represent them both at the AGM. The Deputy is suggesting that one half of the couple can be represented by the family member while the other half will have to call on a neighbour or someone else to act as a proxy. I see a practical benefit in allowing one family member to represent both parents. The Deputy's intention in limiting proxies is right and we are all agreed on that. The tenor of the debate suggests that we all believe the use of proxies should be limited to a very small number to facilitate issues like the one I just mentioned. We do not want to allow people to gather up proxy votes.

Families are part of the credit union movement. Generations of families have been members of the same credit union but to suggest that one member of a family cannot represent his or her parents who are members of the credit union is a bit too strict. I would be happy to give credit unions the flexibility to decide whether proxies can represent one, two, three or four members or whatever small number they think is appropriate, if they want to go there at all. Some credit unions may agree with the points made by Deputy Doherty. They might believe they would be opening the door too much, that if they allow one this year, it will increase to three and then to five, ten and so on. Some credit unions may decide not to allow proxy voting at all if they are concerned that there could be abuse. Again, we have provided that non-members can act as proxy voters because, as in the example I gave earlier, a son or daughter may not be a member of a credit union but should be able to represent his or her parents. That is just one practical example that springs to mind. There are other examples.

Perhaps I might refine my wording, although I am not sure exactly what wording I used an hour ago. We aim to improve participation at AGMs rather than attendance. I take Deputy Doherty's point; attendance will only be increased if extra people attend and these would be non-members. What we really want is extra participation at the AGMs. There is a real fear that the elderly couple might not go at all. At least if their son or daughter represents them through a proxy vote they can still participate even though not in physical attendance. Somewhere along the line, virtual attendance may be possible. That is what is really behind this Bill. I know a lot of elderly people might not be familiar with this technology but many are now using Skype to talk to their children and grandchildren. Many who we think are not able for things like this are well able and more will become able as time goes on, once they are shown how it works.

I understand the point about limiting proxy votes to one per person. If credit unions are concerned about this, they can limit people to one proxy vote, or even to two or three if they wish. If they are worried about the concept overall, they need not introduce it at all. I feel it is not unreasonable to allow a son or daughter to represent both parents. That is why I do not favour the limit of one proxy vote.

See this speech in context