A divisionDivision No. 175 · Thursday, 24 April 2025· Commons· Economy

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]: Amendment 2

89Ayes
230Noes
Defeated · majority 141 · Government won
345 did not vote
Aye88No215DID NOT VOTE · 345

664 Members · Aye 89 · No 230 · DNV 345 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on Amendment 2 to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill, a piece of legislation that originated in the House of Lords and sets out how failing banks can be rescued and refinanced. The amendment was defeated by 230 votes to 89, meaning the bill proceeds without the changes the opposition sought to introduce. The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill establishes a framework under which the Bank of England can recapitalise (restore the financial health of) a failing bank using funds drawn from the banking sector itself, rather than from the public purse. Amendment 2 sought to alter the conditions or oversight mechanisms attached to that process, pushing for stronger safeguards around how and when public or industry funds can be deployed in a bank rescue. Its defeat means the government's preferred approach to bank resolution remains intact, preserving the regulatory flexibility ministers argued was necessary for the framework to function effectively in a crisis. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 198 Labour MPs and 17 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, while all 60 voting Conservatives, all 19 voting Liberal Democrats, and smaller parties including Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the Ulster Unionist Party, and the Democratic Unionist Party voted in favour. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The lopsided result, with the government commanding more than twice the votes of those supporting the amendment, reflects the government's working majority, and the bill now continues its passage through the Commons without this modification.

Voting Aye meant
Support adding explicit protections and guidance for building societies facing potential demutualisation when the Bank of England uses its new resolution powers, ensuring transparency and safeguards for mutual ownership structures.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, either as unnecessary given existing provisions or preferring the code of practice to remain flexible without prescriptive requirements around demutualisation scenarios.
§ 01Who voted how.319 voting Members · 345 absent

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
198
163
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
60
0
56
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
19
0
53
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

§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Mark GarnierSupportiveWyre Forest
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)
Emma ReynoldsSupportiveWycombe
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)
Clive JonesSupportiveWokingham
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)
Judith CumminsNeutralBradford South
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)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0