Parliamentary debates must stop being dictated by MPs’ train times
When important parliamentary debates are being rushed on account of MPs’ home times, something needs to change, writes Omar Salem
“I’m afraid I’m being urged to wrap up”. Those were the words of City minister Emma Reynolds MP when leading a debate in Parliament at 2pm on Thursday last week. The minister’s words may seem innocuous but they are not.
This was the last debate of the day that MPs had to vote in and they were waiting to leave. The whips, who are responsible for making sure MPs turn up to vote, would have known this, and likely asked Reynolds to finish off. Moments earlier, some MPs cheered when the minister said she was coming to the end of her remarks. With a hint of frustration, she noted that there was “quite a lot of discussion around the edges” and that “if I could hear myself think, it would be nice”.
The debate, on a bill for recapitalisation of failing banks, had only taken 40 minutes when the MPs cheered. The effect of this pressure was that Emma Reynolds turned down an attempted intervention by fellow Labour MP Gareth Snell. Yet, parliament was debating a bill that could affect millions of people and the financial stability of the UK. There was another three hours allocated for discussion but the debate lasted less than an hour.
The taxpayer spent a net £23bn on bailing out the banks during the last financial crisis and the bill is aimed at trying to reduce the risk of this happening again. This includes requiring the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to provide funds to the Bank of England to cover certain resolutions and the FSCS recovering the funds through levies on the banking sector.
One amendment proposed by shadow City minister Mark Garnier MP aimed to restrict the new powers to smaller banks that do not have MREL, the capital that larger banks have to hold in case they get into financial difficulty. He is concerned about the bill capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing capacity.
Another amendment focused on better protecting building societies from demutualisation. The amendment would have put in guidance to the Bank of England to pay due consideration to the impact of demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector in such a scenario.
Garnier’s third amendment required the Chancellor to report on whether the bill could be extended so it could be used for credit unions. I do not know what Gareth Snell wanted to ask but he is a former director of a credit union that went into administration. He may have had something pertinent to say. Clive Jones, the Lib Dem spokesperson, also tabled an amendment for the Bank of England to consider competitiveness and growth before using its new powers.
There is a human side to this. Many MPs have long journeys back to their constituencies on Thursdays to do constituency work before returning to Parliament on Monday. In addition, many MPs’ families will live in their constituency. That does not however justify curtailing debate on important issues by the backdoor. If there are issues with the parliamentary timetable they should be addressed by reforming, not side-stepping, it.
It is easy to be earnest but it is worrying that debate on important legislation is being curtailed because MPs want to catch a train back to their constituency. What is more, what kind of message does this send to regulated firms about how seriously some MPs take these issues?
Omar Salem is a financial regulation partner at Fox Williams