Financial Services Bill — Clause 22 — Financial Conduct Authority — Power to Set Rules on Setting Remuneration — 22 May 2012 at 18:15
The majority of MPs voted against empowering the Financial Conduct Authority to set rules requiring, within certain bodies, an employee representative on the remuneration committee, and for remuneration consultants advising on remuneration policy to be appointed by the shareholders.
MPs were considering the Financial Services Bill. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 38, page 82, line 10, at end insert—
- ‘(c) provide for a requirement that an employee representative should be a member of the remuneration committee of a relevant body corporate, and
- (d) provide for a requirement that the remuneration consultants advising on remuneration policy shall be appointed by the shareholders of a relevant body corporate.’.
Had it not been rejected the above new subclause would have been added to Clause 22 of the Bill which provided for a new part to be added to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 replacing the chapter on Rule-making Powers with a new version. The chapter replaced sets out the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to make rules as part of their regulatory roles.
Specifically the amendment sought to add clauses to a section titled General rules about remuneration.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Financial Services Bill (now an Act)
-  Clause 22 of the Financial Services Bill as at the time of the vote
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||241 (+2 tell)||0||0||79.4%|
|Lab||0||207 (+2 tell)||0||81.3%|