Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]: New Clause 3
88Ayes
212Noes
Defeated · majority 124 · Government won345 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 88 · No 212 · DNV 345 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
House of Commons, 24 April 2025 The House of Commons voted on whether to add New Clause 3 to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill, a piece of legislation originating in the House of Lords that sets out how the Bank of England can use funds from the banking industry to recapitalise (restore the financial footing of) a failing bank. The new clause, put forward by opposition MPs, would have imposed additional requirements or restrictions on that recapitalisation process. The motion was defeated by 212 votes to 88. The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill establishes a mechanism by which the costs of rescuing a failing bank can be met by levying the wider banking sector rather than drawing on public funds. New Clause 3 sought to strengthen the safeguards around this process, potentially adding oversight requirements or tighter conditions on how the power is used. Its defeat means the government's existing framework remains intact, without the additional layer of scrutiny or restriction the opposition proposed. The outcome affects how future bank failures are managed and who ultimately bears the costs, with implications for financial stability, the banking industry and taxpayer exposure. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 212 votes against the new clause came from Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs, while all 88 votes in favour came from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and smaller party MPs including Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and three independents. There were no notable rebels on either side. The result reflects the government's commanding majority in the Commons and its determination to pass the bill without amendment at this stage.
Voting Aye meant
Support restricting the bank resolution mechanism to smaller banks only, ensuring large banks with sufficient capital buffers cannot draw on FSCS funds intended for smaller institution failures
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, preferring to keep the Bill's scope flexible rather than imposing a hard statutory limit on which banks can use the mechanism
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
196
165
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
63
0
53
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
18
0
54
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
17
25
Independent
—
2
0
11
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
—
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
—
2
0
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Supports the Bill's overall aims but proposes amendments to limit the recapitalisation mechanism to small banks outside MREL, protect mutuals from demutualisation, and require a report on credit union resolution frameworks.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,226 words) →
Defends the Bill's flexibility and scope, arguing that statutory restrictions on the Bank of England's powers would hamper crisis response and that existing safeguards are sufficient; opposes all three main amendments.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,580 words) →
Emphasises the 2008 financial crisis lessons requiring speed and flexibility; strongly opposes amendments 1, 3, and 4 as impractical restrictions that would slow crisis resolution and increase costs.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,800 words) →
Supports amendments 3 and 4 to restrict the mechanism to small/medium banks and require consideration of competitiveness and growth impacts before using the levy.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (366 words) →
Chairs the debate and manages scope; reminds speakers to focus on amendments under discussion rather than broader related issues.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (647 words) →
Supports credit unions; raises concern that bank executives retain bonuses during crises while pensioners suffer, questioning whether legislation protects against executive compensation.Democratic Unionist Party · Voted aye · Read full speech (201 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0