Middle East: Economic Response

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Yesterday, we introduced the toughest set of sanctions on Russia that this country has ever had, but like the previous Government, we are phasing those in so that they do not have a disproportionate impact on industry here in the UK. That is what the previous Government did, and that is what we are doing as well.

The hon. Gentleman mentions support for people with the cost of heating oil. We were pleased to be able to introduce targeted support in areas that are particularly dependent on heating oil. We are doing a piece of work at the moment to see how much money has been used by local authorities—some have been more proactive than others in ensuring that local residents get support—and once we have completed that, we will look at whether and what further support is needed.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the action that those of us in ceramic communities have been calling for, and I thank the Chancellor for announcing it. This is a good day for all of us in north Staffordshire. As it happens, staff from a ceramics business based in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sitting in the Gallery watching this statement; I welcome them. Can the Chancellor assure us of two things: first, that the eligibility for the support in this scheme will be as wide as possible, and secondly, that it will be as easy as possible to apply for?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am pleased to know that staff from a business in the ceramics sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme are here today, and I say to them directly: this Government have got your back and want to work with you and the trade unions that represent people in the sector to ensure that the ceramics industry plays an important part in British life—particularly in the pottery communities —for many years to come. Of course, we will set out the details of the scheme, but like my hon. Friends who represent these communities in Stoke, Newcastle and Amber Valley, this Government are very keen to crack on with the scheme and make sure that businesses can get the support they deserve.

High Speed 2: Impact on Communities

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

That is an excellent example of an issue—in this case, the final payment and settlement for the relocation of the centre—that has been the subject of an ongoing dispute with HS2, and a different sort of leadership has taken control. There have been other instances in which it has been a problem to get the final payments over the line for community centres, roads and infrastructure, for individuals who still have not been paid compensation for what has happened to their homes.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

So far this has been a very southern-centric debate, so may I take the hon. Lady up to Staffordshire? In Newcastle-under-Lyme we continue to feel the very worst effects of the HS2 debacle. Does she share my outrage at the fact that my constituents Mr and Mrs Kettering, of Madeley, have been waiting years for the compensation due to them for the compulsory purchase of their land? They have been forced to declare bankruptcy because they have been waiting so long. The financial strain that they have been put under stinks, and the sooner HS2 is held to account, the better.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for advocating for his residents.

The failure to purchase land has forced residents into bankruptcy and caused relationship breakdowns. It has meant that they cannot move forward, for instance by selling or renting their properties, and that has caused a huge breakdown in community relations with HS2. When highways have been built, compensation has been offered and other gestures have been made that have allowed community relations to be restored. The problem with HS2 is the level of statutory ability it had, as an arm’s length body, to put these things into action, which meant that it did not have to follow through on the community relations side. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, agree that if this project moves forward, there could be real benefit in the restoration of relations between communities, MPs and councils.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, because if we can get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz, we will deal with a lot of these problems. I am working closely with both Lloyd’s of London—I met its representatives yesterday—and my G7 colleagues to ensure that those vessels can get moving again. At the same time, I think that everybody has heard the stories in this Chamber and from our constituents about the problems of price gouging. We have to address that, and I have asked the CMA to look at it. Members across the House will have a chance tomorrow to set out their case to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in more detail, so that we have all the information needed to make the case.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sick and tired of poor-quality, dangerous roads. The county council has resources from this Government, and must stop being missing in action. What message does the Minister have for Staffordshire county council?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right that we need councils across the country to use the extra funding that the Government have made available for local road maintenance to fill those potholes. Councils will have to publish their data online, so that local people can monitor, through a traffic light system available on gov.uk, how their council is performing.

Road Safety

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Backbench Business debate on road safety. I welcome the Labour Government’s new road safety strategy.

In my remarks, I will focus specifically on Sharlotte’s law—a campaign that began with a tragedy in my constituency. Sharlotte-Sky Naglis was only six years old when she was killed by a driver who was drunk and under the influence of drugs—someone who should never have been behind the wheel. Sharlotte, who lived in Norton Green, was a bright, happy child with her whole life ahead of her.

The perpetrator was taken to hospital and was in a coma. Under the current law, a blood sample can be taken from an unconscious person—and in this case a sample was taken—but it cannot be tested until the individual gives consent. The fact that the current system relies on consent being given by the suspect meant that the investigation was held up. For Sharlotte’s family, that delay made an awful and impossible situation even worse. It slowed the process down, delayed answers and put off accountability while they were trying to grieve for their daughter.

That case shows that justice delayed is justice denied. When such serious cases are held up, the families and victims suffer the most. Sharlotte’s law matters, as it aims to fix gaps in the road traffic law so that those who kill or seriously harm others while driving under the influence cannot gain from delay, and so that the justice system can work quickly and fairly.

Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, I have raised this case in Parliament and spoken about the matter regularly with the Minister, who I thank for her continued engagement. However, I must be clear that the real strength behind the campaign has been Sharlotte’s mum, Claire, whose work has been tireless. In the face of unimaginable loss, she has shown true strength and dignity, driven by the idea that no other family should have to go through what hers endured.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the danger to our county in not taking this issue seriously. I know that he shares my horror about the case of my constituent, who was knocked down as he took his daughter to school in December 2025. Luckily, he pushed his daughter away, and he was not killed, but it was very close indeed. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging Staffordshire county council finally to get a grip and ensure that roads in our constituencies are made safe?

[David Williams]

I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on this matter—we have discussed that case. I absolutely encourage Staffordshire county council to take action.

The Government’s consultation on road traffic offences really matters. It gives us a real way to learn from cases such as Sharlotte’s, so that victims and families are put first. I therefore encourage people across Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, and indeed the whole country, to take part in the consultation and support amendments to the law. I also urge colleagues from across the House to back the aims and principles behind Sharlotte’s law. If we get this right, Sharlotte-Sky Naglis will be remembered not just for the tragedy of her death, but for the change that her legacy brings, and justice will no longer be delayed for families who deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this debate.

Parish councils across my constituency have been raising the alarm on road safety for years. In Bradley, residents and councillors continue to push for a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph, and for action to stop inappropriate heavy goods vehicle traffic on the really narrow village roads. Despite clear signage, 44-tonne articulated vehicles still pass through regularly, causing severe damage to road surfaces, verges and drainage, worsening potholes and flooding, and creating a real danger to pedestrians, as Members have said throughout this debate.

In Eccleshall and surrounding villages, speeding hotspots are repeatedly raised on routes such as the A519 through Slindon, where multiple accidents occurred in a single summer, and on rural narrow lanes near schools and homes, where there are no pavements at all.

I also want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Diana Kynaston, who is a motorbike rider from Stafford. For motorcyclists, potholes and crumbling road edges create a serious threat to life and limb. She has highlighted the route between Doxey and Astonfields industrial estate, where uneven surfaces, deep potholes and damaged corners force sudden manoeuvres and increase the risk of losing control, particularly for learner riders. I have heard reports across the constituency—from Norbury to Cold Meece, and from Bishop’s Offley to Great Bridgeford—about potholes going long unrepaired, and this includes stretches of major roads.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my other constituency neighbour for giving way—there is a theme about the quality and condition of our roads in Staffordshire. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the situation in her constituency, and I just want to make it clear that the same situation is also happening in Newcastle- under-Lyme and other parts of north Staffordshire.

[Leigh Ingham]

Something that all Staffordshire MPs have in common is our absolute despair at the state of our roads. The Government have allocated additional funds, which is really important and will make a significant difference to what we can achieve. However, to put it in perspective, Staffordshire is the slowest authority at repairing potholes. If a snail started off in Stafford town centre when a pothole was reported, it will have moved 22 kilometres by the time the pothole is repaired, which is ridiculous.

I ask the Minister what mechanisms the Department has in place to ensure the additional road maintenance funding is being used effectively by councils and is translating into safer, better-maintained roads, and how it supports local authorities to take a joined-up approach to road safety that includes both speed and road maintenance. When funding rises—which I am very grateful for—but safety does not, how can the Minister tackle that in her role?

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I will have to buy him a pint for making him wait.

Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many rural communities where horse riding is a much-loved and much-enjoyed way to spend time. My constituent Carol Whitehouse took me out recently on her horse, and Sarah, who runs Horsleys in Audley, lent me her boots because I was wearing trainers. Both spoke of the fear and concern they feel as they ride their horses, particularly as a result of big lorries, so the points that the hon. Member has raised about Berkshire and other places across the country are felt strongly in Staffordshire, too.

[Mr Dillon]

rose—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

I confess to my hon. Friend that I will need to write to her on that specific issue, because I do not have notes in front of me to that end. We are on the same page in terms of the principles she raises and the values that she seeks to put forward, and I welcome her welcoming of this Bill.

Taken together, clauses 83 to 85 modernise the gambling duties regime. As I said, they raise more than £1 billion a year to support public services and lift children out of poverty. They also focus tax increases on higher-harm, fast-growing online products while protecting UK horseracing and land-based betting and supporting bingo halls.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For clarity, bet365 is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but—

[Gareth Snell]

He just read my notes!

[Adam Jogee]

It is one of the largest private sector employers in Newcastle-under-Lyme—that was not in my hon. Friend’s notes. [Laughter.] Can the Minister touch a little bit on the engagement with some of these companies to ensure that the workers, many of whom live in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, will not be adversely impacted?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important point around jobs in the industry. He will be aware that employment in the gambling industry as a whole declined by around 20% between 2015 and 2023, so it is in gradual decline, and the trend predates this Bill. The jobs in his constituency are incredibly important, which is why the measures in this Bill deliberately focus on online gambling, rather than betting shops and casinos, which support more jobs and face higher operating costs, as I am sure the institutions in his constituency do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

T5. My constituents are grateful for the Government’s work to get our national health service back on track. Our local Royal Stoke university hospital is doing better but there is still much more to do. Will the Chancellor assure me that our national health service will always remain free at the point of need under this Labour Government and confirm that the Government utterly reject an insurance-based system, as recommended by the Reform political party?

[Rachel Reeves]

The NHS will remain free at the point of use for as long as there is a Labour Government. That is not something that Reform is able to promise. As usual, Reform does one thing and says another. In Kent, the party said that it would find efficiencies to keep down council tax, but it has not found a single one and that is why the 2 million people who live in Reform council areas will get a council tax rise next year.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

I understand why Conservative Members keep asking us to look forward not backwards: their own Government’s experience with the Truss Budget is one that they do not want to remember and would like to forget, but unfortunately its effects were long, far-reaching and serious for all of our constituents.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I followed him when I gave my maiden speech and it is good to see him in his place. Does it not say everything that Conservative Members are now defending the Truss Budget and all the damage that it did to communities like mine and his?

[Gideon Amos]

Absolutely. They have no recollection of the past, they are blind to the experience of their own Government, and they are only asking, urging and pleading us to look forward, not back at their own record.

In Taunton and Wellington, there are countless examples of folk who are unable to afford a home of their own. Rosanna, a qualified solicitor, has been living with her parents for over six years because she is unable to afford a new home. What is needed is a far bigger focus on building the council and social rent homes that are needed by our country. The Liberal Democrats propose to raise the number from the Government’s target of 20,000 per year to 150,000 per year. There should be less reliance on a few big house builder developers, whose interest, perfectly reasonably, is in increasing profits and the value of their land, rather than in making their products cheaper—why would they?—or in necessarily increasing the amount of housing supply.

Less reliance on the big developers and more council and social rent homes delivered by public funding would mean that there would be no need for the Government to cut the affordable housing requirements in London, as they did last week. Our manifesto provided £6 billion a year over five years to begin to achieve not just the 90,000 social rent homes that Shelter and the National Housing Federation say that we need, but our manifesto target of 150,000 homes. A decent home should not be for just the most vulnerable and excluded; all working people should be able to have a home with a decent rent. Coupled with that, we need new routes to be available for people to get on to the home ownership ladder and a new generation of rent-to-own homes, where renters can gain ownership over 30 years.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on the cultural contribution of Staffordshire to our economy and country. I am probably the only hon. Member present who has a constituent sitting in the Public Gallery, so I shall be on my very best behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham)—the county town, where my mother was born—on her excellent speech. She set herself up nicely to be the first honorary patron of the Staffordshire tourist board—run a close second by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).

On Thursday 1 May, people across Staffordshire will be marking Staffordshire Day, and I look forward to being back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to mark this important day in our collective calendar with a nice cold drink at one of our wonderful local public houses—there are plenty to choose from—as well as getting out the vote with our excellent Labour candidates. In my maiden speech last July, I said:

“While some might look north of the Watford Gap and see a cultural desert, I see vibrancy.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1120.]

I went on to champion the wonderful New Vic Theatre, which attracts locals from far and wide, including hon. Members who have been seen walking through its doors. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about how wonderful the New Vic is. We have the wonderful Apedale museum and the light railway, which is an excellent day out. We have the fantastic Brampton museum, which tells the story of our ancient and royal borough. We have the award-winning Newcastle College, which has many brilliant young people engaging with arts and culture, as my hon. Friend said—we do share it, but I have the headquarters in my constituency.

Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Philip Astley Centre, which is in our town centre—a great community asset, dedicated to the memory of the creator of the modern circus, Phillip Astley, who was born and raised in God’s own community of Newcastle-under-Lyme. From eating to horse riding, and from walking to a brilliant higher education institution in Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme packs a punch.

This is an important year for the 1st Newcastle Brownies and Guides. The 1st Newcastle Guides is one of the oldest surviving units in the country, and the oldest in the midlands. The Brownie unit turns 105 years old this year and the Guide unit turns 110. As part of the celebrations, they are fundraising so that both units can open the eyes and ears of their young women.

Our faith groups do much for the arts. Just on Saturday, St Mark’s Basford, which is not far from my house, had a fundraising barn dance—I did not dance. Father Tommy, the vicar, is moving on to pastures new; we wish him well and thank him for his service to our community.

As we address the cultural contribution of Staffordshire, however, we must rededicate ourselves to the fight for our fair share of investment in housing, transport and, yes, the arts and culture. There is so much good happening in all parts of Staffordshire, as we have heard already, and today is an opportunity to touch briefly on that in the House.

I could speak about Newcastle-under-Lyme all day, and at times since my election I have tried to do just that, but I will not test hon. Members’ patience this afternoon, and will simply say this: Staffordshire is at the heart of our country, and Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our county. Long may that continue, and a happy Staffordshire Day to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

When the Minister comes to Staffordshire, she will meet some very wise people, not least the folk who elected nine Labour MPs out of 12 at the general election. Many hon. Members had to scribble away half their speeches, so when the Minister goes back to her colleagues, will she encourage them to find Government time for a debate on these issues?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I will make sure I raise that point, and good on hon. and right hon. Members for pressing me to get the Minister to commit to many things.

I will then join the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for a history lesson in architecture. She also mentioned Alton Towers, where I have very fond memories of going as a child. And who does not love a castle? I will also join my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) in visiting Tamworth castle. By that stage, I will probably be ready for another beer, so I had better pay a visit to the brewing capital of the world—Burton and Uttoxeter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) convinced me that we need to secure funding for our theatres. I feel very strongly and passionately about theatres, and I know the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism does too. I am certain there is nowhere else we need to be on 1 May, but if there were, it would be Staffordshire. I wish everyone a happy Staffordshire Day.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Adam Jogee Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime by giving the Bank of England a more flexible toolkit to respond to bank failures. The Bill creates a recapitalisation mechanism that ensures that certain costs of managing the failure of banking institutions do not fall to the taxpayer. It strengthens protections for public funds and financial stability, while supporting the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector by avoiding placing new up-front costs on the banking sector. It is therefore an important Bill that underpins this Government’s vision to promote growth and economic stability.

The policy in the Bill builds on the proposals set out in consultation by the previous Government. I thank the previous Government—I do not always do that, by the way—for the work they did with the Bank of England on the consultation and on the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK, back in March 2023. The Bill provides the Bank of England with greater flexibility to manage the failure of small banks, and thereby embeds lessons learned from the volatility in the UK banking sector in 2023, notably that arising from the failure of SVB UK. I hope, given their origins, that these proposals will be welcomed by hon. Members from across the House.

The resolution regime was created by the Banking Act 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. It provides the Bank of England with a set of tools to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that limits risks to financial stability, public funds and the UK economy. The regime was introduced in recognition of the global consensus that reforms were needed to end “too big to fail” and to ensure that, where necessary, financial institutions can be supported to fail in an orderly fashion. This regime has been developed and steadily added to by a series of successive governments over the past decade. That work has given the UK a robust regime that reflects relevant international standards and supports the UK’s role and reputation as a leader in financial regulation, enhancing confidence in our financial system and making the UK a more secure and attractive place in which to invest.

The resolution regime was last used to resolve Silicon Valley Bank UK, the UK subsidiary of the US firm that collapsed in March 2023. The Bank of England used its transfer powers under the Banking Act 2009 to effect the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC. That delivered good outcomes for financial stability, customers and taxpayers. All the bank’s customers were able to continue accessing their bank accounts and other facilities, and all deposits remained safe, secure and accessible. The Bank of England achieved the continuity of banking services, and maintained public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.

The case of Silicon Valley Bank UK demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of the resolution regime. However, as would be appropriate following any bank failure, the Treasury, the Bank of England and their international counterparts reflected carefully following this period of banking sector volatility, and following that reflection, the Government concluded that there was a case for a targeted enhancement to give the Bank of England greater flexibility to manage the failure of smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank UK.

At this point, I should explain that the Bank of England generally expects to place failing small banks into insolvency under the bank insolvency procedure, because their failures are not generally expected to meet the conditions that must be satisfied for the Bank of England to exercise its resolution powers. One of those conditions is that winding up the bank would not achieve the resolution objectives to the same extent as they would be achieved through the use of the resolution powers. Those objectives include protecting UK financial stability, covered depositors and public funds. When a failing firm enters insolvency, its eligible depositors are paid out up to £85,000 each within seven days by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, with higher limits for temporary high balances. This compensation is funded initially through a levy on the banking sector, and then, to the extent possible, recovered from the estate of the failed firm.

As was seen in the case of the Silicon Valley Bank, it is the Government’s view that in some cases of small bank failure, the public interest and resolution objectives are better served by the use of the resolution powers than by placing the firm into insolvency. Smaller banks are not required to hold additional funds and liabilities that could be bailed in during a resolution, so in a case in which a small bank does need to be resolved, additional capital may be required to support a successful resolution. For example, funds may be required for the bank in resolution to meet the minimum capital requirements for authorisation, or to sustain market confidence. At present, these recapitalisation costs have to be borne by public funds. The Government believe that that situation should be avoided to protect taxpayers from bearing those costs, and I hope that the Opposition agree; we shall see very shortly. To that end, the Bill aims to strengthen the protections for public funds when a small bank is placed into resolution.

Overall, this is a prudent set of reforms to ensure that the resolution regime continues to effectively limit risks to financial stability and, indeed, to taxpayers. The Bill does not make widespread changes to a regime that is working well, and it is important to emphasise that the bank insolvency procedure will continue to play an important role in managing the failure of small banks. That said, the Bill reflects the Government’s belief that a targeted set of changes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, existing resolution powers can be applied to small banks to achieve good outcomes for financial stability, while also protecting taxpayers. It achieves that by introducing a new recapitalisation mechanism, which allows the Bank of England to use funds provided by the banking sector to cover certain costs associated with resolving a failing banking institution.

The Bill does four main things. First, it expands the statutory functions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, giving the Bank of England the power to require the FSCS to provide it with funds to be used to support the resolution of a failing bank. Secondly, it allows the FSCS to recover the funds provided to the Bank by charging levies on the banking sector. This mirrors the arrangements for funding payouts to covered depositors in insolvency, with the exception of the treatment of credit unions, to which I will return. Thirdly, the Bill gives the Bank of England an express ability to require a bank in resolution to issue new shares, facilitating the use of industry funds to meet a failing bank’s recapitalisation costs. Finally, following constructive debate in the other place, the Bill sets out a number of accountability measures that apply when the Bank of England uses the recapitalisation mechanism.

The Bill consists of eight clauses to deliver those key components. Clause 1 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which introduces the new mechanism. It allows the Bank of England to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to provide the Bank with funds when using its resolution powers to transfer a failing firm to a private sector purchaser or bridge bank. It sets out what these funds can be used for, namely to cover the costs of recapitalising the firm and the expenses of the Bank of England or “relevant persons” in taking the resolution action. “Relevant persons”, for this purpose, means the Treasury, or a bridge bank or asset management vehicle operated by the Bank of England. The clause also allows the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover the funds provided through levies.

Clause 2 sets out the reporting requirements for the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place. The Bank must report to the Chancellor on the use of the recapitalisation mechanism and the stabilisation option that it was used in connection with. The Treasury can specify the content and timing of these reports, although if a final report is not produced within three months, the Bank of England must produce an interim report within that three-month period. The Chancellor must lay all reports before Parliament, although the clause allows discretion to omit any information that it would not be in the public interest to publish.

Clause 3, added by the Government in the other place, requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees in this House and the other place—the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and the Financial Services Regulations Committee in the House of Lords—as soon as reasonably practicable after using the mechanism. Clause 4 requires the Bank of England to reimburse the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for any funds it provides that were not needed. Clause 5, also added by the Government in the other place, states that the Treasury must include guidance on the contents of reports on use of the mechanism in the code of practice, a statutory document that the Treasury must publish and to which the Bank of England must have regard, which explains how the resolution regime is intended to work in practice.

Clauses 6 and 7 make several consequential amendments to reflect the introduction of the new mechanism. Clause 6 primarily ensures that existing provisions relating to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme apply to the new mechanism in the same way. The most substantive provision specifies that the FSCS cannot levy credit unions to recoup funds provided under this mechanism, and was added to the Bill before its introduction to Parliament in response to valid concerns raised by industry. In clause 7, which contains mostly technical consequential amendments, the most substantive change gives the Bank of England the power to require a failing firm to issue new shares. That will make it easier for the Bank of England to use the funds provided by the FSCS to recapitalise the firm, by using the funds to buy the new shares. Clause 8 deals with procedural matters, including the provision that the Treasury may make regulations to commence the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for shepherding the Bill through its successful passage in the other place. As I have mentioned, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill in the other place following constructive debate, feedback and engagement. They include the insertion of the requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury and notify parliamentary committees. The Government also amended the Bill to ensure that there was clarity over whose expenses could be covered by funds provided through the mechanism. In addition, the Government published a number of important documents during the early stages of the Bill’s passage, including a draft update to their code of practice setting out how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.

There remains one area of the Bill that will require the attention of this House, namely the question of the scope of the mechanism—that is, which firms the Bank of England can use the mechanism on to support their failure. This was heavily debated in the other place, and reflects concerns about the risk of the mechanism being used on a wide range of firms, with the potential for large levies as a consequence. Those concerns led to an amendment to the Bill, intended to exclude from the scope of the mechanism those banks that already hold the full set of equity and debt resources—the so-called MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—necessary to manage their own failure. The intent was to limit the scope to banks that are not required to hold additional capital resources, or banks that have not yet raised the full amount of additional resources to fully support their own failure. As I have alluded to, the Government note and appreciate the concerns being raised on this point, but as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place, the Government are clear that this Bill is primarily intended for smaller banks. My predecessor made a written statement to the House on 15 October to reiterate this policy position.

However, after careful reflection, the Government continue to believe that some flexibility should remain in the legislation on this point, in order to avoid constraining the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in a highly uncertain crisis scenario. Narrowing the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the bail-in of a firm’s own resources with additional capital resources. I note that this is considered an unlikely outcome, rather than a central case. Nevertheless, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality, given that the alternative may be to use public funds. Ultimately, we want to protect the taxpayer. The Government will therefore table an amendment in Committee to remove the constraint on the scope of the application of the new mechanism.

More broadly, I want to express my gratitude to the banking sector, with which the Government have engaged proactively and constructively both before and since the Bill was introduced. The Government appreciate the feedback from industry, and we have reflected on it carefully to ensure that the Bill delivers a proportionate reform. As alluded to earlier, in response to feedback from industry, the Government carved out credit unions from levy contributions to recoup funds provided by the financial services compensation scheme under the recapitalisation mechanism. That was deemed appropriate because credit unions are out of scope of the resolution powers. It would therefore be disproportionate to require them to contribute towards costs under the mechanism.

The Government have also sought to provide reassurances to industry on the impact of this Bill. For example, by modelling the mechanism on the existing funding framework for depositor payouts, industry will be liable to pay levies only after the point of failure, avoiding new up-front costs to firms. Alongside the Bill, the Government also published a cost-benefit analysis that sets out our general expectation that lifetime costs for levy payers will generally be lower under the mechanism outlined in the Bill, compared with insolvency. I note again the draft updates to the code of practice, which the Government have published to provide additional transparency to industry and Parliament on how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the Minister’s speech, and I am learning quite a lot. Will she do me and the House a favour by sharing her thoughts on how I can best describe the benefits of this Bill to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when I go home tonight? I am sure she knows far better than me.

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend flatters me. It is not that easy to explain in simple terms, but I will do my best. Essentially, if a small bank is in trouble, it is better for it not to go into insolvency but instead to go through resolution to protect its depositors. In the case of SVB, only 14% of deposits were covered by the financial services compensation scheme, because the scheme only covers deposits up to the £85,000 threshold. Had public funds been required to facilitate the sale of SVB to another purchaser—in this case it was HSBC, but it could have been another institution—it would have had recourse to public funds. We are seeking to avoid a situation in which taxpayers in all our constituencies are on the hook for the failures of small banks. Where a bank has high-quality assets, which was the case for SVB, we can avoid the insolvency situation and pay out to depositors who have deposits above the £85,000 threshold. That resolution would be funded by the financial services compensation scheme and ultimately the banks, which contribute to the scheme through a levy. I hope that answer helps my hon. Friend—I am sorry that it was a bit long.

Stability is at the heart of the Government’s agenda for economic growth, because when we do not have economic and financial stability, it is working people who pay the price. We have to bear in mind what we are seeking to do, which is ultimately to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that we do not have to have recourse to public funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I would like to start by welcoming both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to their new positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West and I go way back, and I am enjoying now being able to address him as a Minister in His Majesty’s Government. I congratulate both of them. I did not quite agree with the shadow Minister’s description of the previous Government as “strong and stable”, but it was certainly worth a try—I mean that in all good spirit, honestly!

I thank the Minister for her speech and for her thorough but accessible explanation of the reach of the Bill. I shall look forward to talking about it with the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow on the doorsteps of Town ward, where there is a by-election, which I look forward to the Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, winning. I will make sure that I share the benefits of this Bill with the voters in my constituency when I knock on their doors tomorrow. This Bill has the good fortune of being supported by both sides of the House. We have heard that from the shadow Minister, so I want to reassure all colleagues that I shall speak very briefly indeed.

I have never received an invitation for a prawn cocktail in the City—although all good things come to those who wait—but the Bill and the issues contained in it are important and I am pleased to be here to speak in favour of them today. I have just a couple of points that I would like the Minister to touch on in his winding-up speech. Could he set out in greater detail how the payslips of workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be protected by the contents of the Bill? My constituents’ finances and livelihoods are obviously my focus, so I welcome anything and everything this Government do to protect and enhance their lives, or to promote growth across the economy. I would welcome anything the Minister can do to provide reassurance both on the growth agenda generally and on the specific benefits of the Bill.

Ahead of this debate, like all keen newbies, I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place, and I hope Ministers have ensured that the legitimate points raised by the noble Lords were taken on board. I agree with the noble Lord who noted that small banks play a big role in our economy, and I thank the Economic Secretary and the shadow Minister for acknowledging that.

I echo the shadow Minister’s point about the importance of the City, which is an engine of growth that reflects the success of our country and the strength of our economy. However, my focus as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is on ensuring that the growth, benefit and skill of that powerful engine reach up the M6 to junction 15, so that my constituents in God’s own county of Staffordshire can benefit from all that the City does.

This is a technical but important Bill, and I am pleased to be here today to give it my support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.