Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill — New Clause 4 — Duty of Care for Ring-Fenced Retail Banking Divisions — 8 Jul 2013 at 21:30
Patrick McLoughlin MP, Derbyshire Dales did not vote.
The majority of MPs voted against giving ring-fenced retail banking elements of banking groups fiduciary duty towards its customers in the operation of core services and a duty of care towards it customers across the financial services sector.
MPs were considering the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. The proposed new clause which was rejected in this vote was titled Duty of Care and stated:
- ‘At all times when carrying out core activities a ring-fenced body shall—
- (a) be subject to a fiduciary duty towards its customers in the operation of core services; and
- (b) be subject to a duty of care towards it customers across the financial services sector.’.
This relates to the duties of retail banking elements of a banking group which have been "ring-fenced" in order to isolate banking activities where continuous provision of service is vital to the economy and to the customers of a bank.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
-  Explanatory notes to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||233 (+1 tell)||0||0||76.7%|
|Lab||0||204 (+2 tell)||0||79.8%|
|LDem||38 (+1 tell)||0||0||69.6%|