3 questions, 1 (non) answer
Last month, Navendu Mishra MP (Labour & Co-operative, Stockport) submitted three important written Parliamentary Questions to HM Treasury about the future governance of Building Societies:
- Will AGM reforms prevent building societies moving to virtual-only AGMs?
- Will the Government consider requiring a minimum number of Member Nominated Directors on building society Boards?
- Will Members be given binding votes on executive remuneration policy?
Yesterday, all three received exactly the same response from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Blake MP.
The key passage was this:
“The Government has no current plans to introduce prescriptive requirements in these areas, but will continue to keep the framework under review as part of its broader work to support mutuals.”
In other words:
❌ No commitment on protecting physical or hybrid AGMs
❌ No commitment on Member Nominated Directors
❌ No commitment on binding member votes on executive pay
At the same time, the Government continues to state that it wants to “double the size of the mutual and co-operative sector.”
Growth matters. But governance matters too.
If mutuals are genuinely to remain Member-owned institutions, then Member democracy cannot simply be optional, symbolic, or left entirely to incumbent Boards to define for themselves.
Building societies exist because of their Members.
Their legitimacy depends on meaningful Member representation, accountability, and participation.
I will be writing to Rachel Blake MP to request a meeting to discuss these issues further. We are both due to attend Co-operatives UK Congress 2026 in Birmingham later this month, which seems an appropriate opportunity for a constructive discussion about the future of mutual governance in the UK.
Links to Parliamentary Questions:
🗳️ re binding votes on Executive Pay
🖥️ re Virtual Only AGMs
🙋♂️ re minimum requirement for Member Nominated Directors