Speech to the APPG IF&FFS
I gave the following speech to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud & Fairer Financial Services at the Palace of Westminster on Monday 15th June 2026.
A sample of the slides used in a presentation to the Transparency Task Force on Tuesday 9th June 2026 also accompanied my speech – see TTF event video, slides and summary.
Good afternoon.
My name is James Sherwin-Smith.
I’d like to thank the APPG for this opportunity to speak today.
I am a former payments executive, a former financial technology CEO, and a Member of Nationwide Building Society.
I am currently standing as a Member Nominated Candidate for Election to the Board of Directors of Nationwide Building Society. As of last Monday last week, 9.3 million Nationwide Members began casting their votes. The election concludes at the Society’s AGM in 30 days time, on the 15th July.
I believe this is the largest demonstration of democracy in Britain, measured by the size of the electorate voting, since the Brexit referendum some 10 years ago.
I am the first Member Nominated Candidate to appear on the Nationwide ballot since 2005.
But I am here today not to ask for support in my Election efforts.
I am here because I believe that the attitude and behaviour of …
- the UK’s largest mutual,
- the UK’s 2nd biggest lender, and
- the largest building society in the world with more than 19 million Members
… raises important questions about the future of Member democracy in Britain, as well as the state of regulatory oversight.
Mutuals are one of this country’s great success stories.
They are owned by their Members rather than external shareholders.
But ownership only has meaning if Members can genuinely hold leadership to account.
My campaign asks three simple questions.
First:
Are Members being given a fair opportunity to hear different viewpoints and put forward their own candidates in mutual society Board Elections?
Second:
Do digital voting mechanisms such as the infamous Quick Vote encourage informed choice, or do they unintentionally reinforce incumbent advantage?
And third:
Should Members of large mutuals have stronger governance rights, or better protected rights, such as:
- a Binding vote on Executive Pay,
- the Right to attend an AGM in Person rather than on screen, and
- a Minimum number of Member Nominated and Elected representatives on Boards
These questions are no longer mine alone.
Nav Mishra, the Member for Stockport, recently wrote to the Chancellor expressing concern about — I quote — “a number of emerging governance issues within the building society sector”, including the Quick Vote mechanism, Virtual Only AGMs, the lack of binding votes on Executive Pay, as well as the paucity of Member Nominated Directors – drawing comparisons with other sectors to highlight that the Building Societies are perhaps the anomaly, and have been left behind.
Nav Mishra MP subsequently tabled three written Parliamentary Questions asking whether the Treasury would strengthen protections in these areas.
The response from Rachel Blake MP, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (EST), was almost identical to all three, that the Government – and again, I quote –
Rachel Blake MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in a response to written Parliamentary questions
May I suggest to those present that plans to review the current framework for mutual governance and regulation should begin immediately.
Because mutuals are growing. The Government has renewed its manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. Indeed, at Co-operatives Congress which I attended in Birmingham last Friday, the Treasury announced that:
We want to see the co-operative and mutual sector grow and thrive.
We are committed to unlocking the full potential of the sector to support inclusive growth across the UK economy. This has been a priority from the beginning.
We are making real progress.
Rachel Blake MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, address Co-operatives Congress 2026, Friday 12th June 2026
If institutions with tens of millions of Members are to remain genuinely Member owned, and Member governed, then questions of accountability, representation and democratic participation become increasingly important.
I have also raised concerns directly with the Financial Conduct Authority.
The FCA is not only the UK’s conduct regulator for financial services.
It is also the Mutual Societies Regulator.
So the questions also become:
What standards of Member democracy should we expect from the UK’s largest mutual institutions?
Is the FCA protecting and upholding Members’ statutory rights?
Should we simply ask whether the rules – some of which date back over 40 years – are being followed appropriately ?
Or should we ask whether the spirit of that legislation is being honoured, whether it has kept pace with mutual developments, and the public expectations on how mutuals should act and behave?
I believe Mutual ownership is worth defending.
But Mutual ownership derives its legitimacy from Member democracy.
And if Parliament wants to see the Mutual sector to continue to grow and thrive, I would suggest that ensuring robust Member rights and governance should grow alongside it.
Thank you.