Edinburgh Reforms likely marginal in impact, neither majorly boosting competitiveness or watering-down rules

Published

3 years ago

December 9, 2022

admin

Depending on your point of view, Jeremy Hunt’s proposed reform of financial regulations represents a potentially significant boost to the competitiveness of the UK’s financial services sector or a potentially dangerous watering-down of rules put in place to prevent a re-run of the financial crisis.

The truth, as ever, is that it is probably somewhere in between.

The first thing to say is that it is absolutely vital for the sector to remain competitive. Financial services is something the UK does well – it is one of the country’s great strengths.

As the Treasury pointed out this morning, it employs some 2.3 million people – the majority outside London – and the sector generates 13% of the UK’s overall tax revenues, enough to pay for the police service and all of the country’s state schools.

And there is little disputing that the UK’s competitive edge has been blunted during the last decade.

Part of that, though, is not due to post-crisis regulations but because of Brexit. Some activities that were once carried out in the Square Mile, Canary Wharf and elsewhere in the UK are now carried out in other parts of continental Europe instead.

That has hurt the City. Amsterdam, for example, has overtaken London as Europe’s biggest centre in terms of volumes of shares traded.

The move away from EU regulations

The government takes the view, though, that Brexit has provided an opportunity to make the UK’s financial services sector more competitive, in that the UK can now move away from some EU regulations.

A good example here is the EU-wide cap on banker bonuses – something that numerous City chieftains say has blunted the UK’s ability to attract international talent from competing locations such as New York, Singapore and Tokyo.

The big US investment banks that dominate the City, such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citi and Morgan Stanley, have on occasion struggled to relocate some of their better-paid people to London because of the cap. So, although it may look politically risky to do so during a cost of living crisis, it is a sensible move that is highly likely to generate more taxes for the Treasury.

Similarly uncontentious is a planned relaxation of the so-called ‘Solvency II’ rules, another EU-wide set of regulations, which determine how much capital insurance companies must keep on their balance sheets. The insurance industry has long argued that this forces companies to keep a lot of capital tied up unproductively.

Relaxing the rules will enable the industry to put billions of pounds worth of capital to more productive use, for example, in green infrastructure projects or social housing. Few people dispute this is anything other than a good idea.

Another reform likely to be universally welcomed by the industry is the sweeping away of the so-called PRIIPS (packaged retail and insurance-based investment products) rules. Investment companies have long argued that these inhibit the ability of fund managers and life companies to communicate effectively with their customers and even restrict customer choice.

Mixed responses

The fund management industry is also likely to welcome a divergence away from EU rules on how VAT is applied to the services it provides. This could see lighter taxation of asset management services in the UK than in the EU and would certainly make the sector more competitive.

There will also be widespread interest in a proposed consultation over whether the Financial Conduct Authority should be given regulatory oversight of bringing environmental, social and governance ratings providers. This is an area of investment of growing importance and yet the way ESG funds are rated is, at present, pretty incoherent.

Bringing the activity into the FCA’s purview could, potentially, give the UK leadership in a very important and increasingly lucrative activity.

So far, so good.

More contentious are plans to water down ‘ring fencing’ regulations put in place after the financial crisis.

These required banks with retail deposits of more than £25bn to ring fence them from their supposedly riskier investment banking operations – dubbed by the government of the day as so-called ‘casino banking’ operations.

The rules were seen at the time by many in the industry as being somewhat misguided on the basis that many of the UK lenders brought down by the financial crisis – HBOS, Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester – had barely any investment banking operations.

Implementing them has been hugely expensive and lenders have argued that the rules risked “ossifying” the sector.

There is no doubt that, at the margins, they have also blunted consumer choice. Goldman Sachs, for example, famously had to close its highly successful savings business, Marcus, to new customers after it attracted deposits close to £25bn. So lifting the level at which retail deposits must be ring-fenced to £35billion will be welcomed in that quarter.

Challenger banks such as Santander UK, Virgin Money and TSB, all of which have little investment banking activities, are among those lenders seen as benefiting.

Protecting citizens from “banking Armageddon”

Yet the move will attract criticism from those who argue the rules were put in place for a reason and that watering them down will risk another crisis.

They include Sir Paul Tucker, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, who told the Financial Times earlier this year: “Ringfencing helps protect citizens from banking Armageddon.”

It is also worth noting that watering down the ring fencing rules does not appear something that the banks themselves has been calling for particularly strongly. It is not, after all, as if they will be able to recoup the considerable sums they have already spent putting ringfences in place.

Click to subscribe to The Ian King Business Podcast wherever you get your podcasts

Equally contentious are proposals to give regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) a secondary objective of ensuring the UK’s financial services sector remains competitive alongside their primary objective of maintaining financial stability.

Sir John Vickers, who chaired the independent commission on banking that was set up after the financial crisis, wrote in the FT this week that the objective was either “pointless or dangerous”.

Senior industry figures have also raised an eyebrow over the move. Sir Howard Davies, chairman of NatWest, said earlier this year that he was “not keen” on the idea.

Pushback

More broadly, there may also be some scepticism over anything that sees the UK’s financial regulation move away from that of the EU.

The City was largely opposed to Brexit and, after it happened, the one thing it wanted more than anything else was a retention of the so-called ‘passport’ – enabling firms based in the UK to do business in the rest of the EU without having to go to financial regulators in each individual member state.

That was not delivered and has created in a great deal more bureaucracy for City firms as well as causing the relocation of some jobs from the UK to continental Europe.

The next best thing for the City would be so-called ‘equivalence’ – which would mean the EU and the UK’s financial regulations being broadly equivalent to the other side’s. The EU already has an existing arrangement with many other countries, such as the United States and Canada, and such a set-up with the UK would make it much easier for firms based here to do business in the bloc.

But critics of Mr Hunt‘s reforms argue that further movement away from the EU’s rules, as the chancellor envisages, would make it harder to secure the prize of an equivalence agreement.

Mr Hunt is almost certainly over-egging things when he likens these reforms to the ‘Big Bang’ changes made by Margaret Thatcher‘s government in 1986.

Big Bang was a genuine revolution in financial services that exposed the City to a blast of competition that, in short order, made the UK a global powerhouse in finance and which generated billions of pounds worth of wealth for the country.

The Edinburgh Reforms are likely to be far more marginal in their impact.

However, for those working in or running the financial services sector, the sentiment behind them will be welcomed.

Despite its importance in supporting millions of well-paid jobs, the sector has been more or less ignored by Conservative and Labour governments ever since the financial crisis.

Business

Bank shares take fright as budget tax hike is floated

Published

11 hours ago

August 29, 2025

admin

Bank shares take fright as budget tax hike is floated

Shares in UK banks have fallen sharply on the back of a report which urges the chancellor to place their profits in her sights at the coming budget.

As Rachel Reeves stares down a growing deficit – estimated at between £20bn-£40bn heading into the autumn – the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there was an opportunity for a windfall by closing a loophole.

It recommended a new levy on the interest UK lenders receive from the Bank of England, amounting to £22bn a year, on reserves held as a result of the Bank’s historic quantitative easing, or bond-buying, programme.

Money latest: Ryanair changes cabin bag sizing

It was first introduced at the height of the financial crisis, in 2009.

The left-leaning think-tank said the money received by banks amounted to a subsidy and suggested £8bn could be taken from them annually to pay for public services.

It argued that the loss-making scheme – a consequence of rising interest rates since 2021 – had left taxpayers footing the bill unfairly as the Treasury has to cover any loss.

The Bank recently estimated the total hit would amount to £115bn over the course of its lifetime.

The publication of the report coincided with a story in the Financial Times which spoke of growing fears within the banking sector that it was firmly in the chancellor’s sights.

Her first budget, in late October last year, put businesses on the hook for the bulk of its tax-raising measures.

Ms Reeves is under pressure to find more money from somewhere as she has ruled out breaking her own fiscal rules to help secure the cash she needs through heightened borrowing.

Other measures understood to be under consideration include a wealth tax, new property tax and a shake-up that could lead to a replacement for council tax.

Analysts at Exane told clients in a note: “In the last couple of years, the chancellor has been protective of the banks and has avoided raising taxes.

“However, public finances may require additional cash and pressures for a bank tax from within the Labour party seem to be rising,” it concluded.

The investor flight saw shares in Lloyds and NatWest plunge by more than 5%. Those for Barclays were more than 4% lower at one stage.

A spokesperson for the Treasury said the best way to strengthen public finances was to speed up economic growth.

“Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms,” they added.

Business

Controversial P&O Ferries boss Hebblethwaite to quit

Published

13 hours ago

August 29, 2025

admin

Controversial P&O Ferries boss Hebblethwaite to quit

The man dubbed “Britain’s most hated boss” for his controversial policy of sacking hundreds of seafarers and replacing them with cheaper agency staff is to quit.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, is leaving the company.

Sources said he had decided to resign for personal reasons.

Money latest: The exact time to book train ticket at bargain price

Mr Hebblethwaite joined the ranks of Britain’s most notorious corporate figures in 2022 when P&O Ferries – a subsidiary of the giant Dubai-based ports operator DP World – said it was sacking 800 staff with immediate effect – some of whom learned their fate via a video message.

The policy, which Mr Hebblethwaite defended to MPs during subsequent select committee hearings, erupted into a national scandal, prompting changes in the law to give workers greater protection.

Under the new legislation, the government plans to tighten collective redundancy requirements for operators of foreign vessels.

In a statement issued in response to a request from Sky News, a P&O Ferries spokesperson said: “Peter Hebblethwaite has communicated his intention to resign from his position as chief executive officer to dedicate more time to family matters.

“P&O Ferries extends its gratitude to Peter Hebblethwaite for his contributions as CEO over the past four years.

“During his tenure the company navigated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, initiated a path towards financial stability, and introduced the world’s first large double-ended hybrid ferries on the Dover-Calais route, thereby enhancing sustainability.

“We extend our best wishes to him for his future endeavours.”

A source close to the company said it anticipated making an announcement on Mr Hebblethwaite’s successor in the near term.

A former executive at J Sainsbury, Greene King and Alliance Unichem, Mr Hebblethwaite joined P&O Ferries in 2019, before taking over as chief executive in November 2021.

Insiders claimed on Friday that he had “transformed” the business following the bitter blows dealt to its finances by the COVID-19 pandemic and – to some degree – by the impact of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

P&O Ferries carries 4.5 million passengers annually on routes between the UK and continental European ports including Calais and Rotterdam.

It also operates a route between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is a major freight carrier.

The company’s losses soared during the pandemic, with DP World – its sole shareholder – supporting it through hundreds of millions of pounds in loans.

Its most recent accounts, which were significantly delayed, showed a significant reduction in losses in 2023 to just over £90m.

The reduction from the previous year’s figure of almost £250m was partly attributed to cost reduction exercises.

The accounts also showed that Mr Hebblethwaite received a pay package of £683,000, including a bonus of £183,000.

“I reflected on accepting that payment, but ultimately I did decide to accept it,” he told MPs.

“I do recognise it is not a decision that everybody would have made.”

The row over his pay was especially acute because of his admission that P&O Ferries’ lowest-paid seafarers received hourly pay of just £4.87.

Mr Hebblethwaite had argued since the mass sackings of 2022 that the company would have gone bust without the drastic cost-cutting that it entailed.

The company insisted at the time that those affected by the redundancies had been offered “enhanced” packages to leave.

Last October, the then transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said: “The mass sacking by P&O Ferries was a national scandal which can never be allowed to happen again,” adding that measures to protect seafarers from “rogue employers” would prevent a repetition.

“This issue has been ignored for over 2 years, but this new government is moving fast and bringing forward measures within 100 days,” Ms Haigh added.

“We are closing the legal loophole that P&O Ferries exploited when they sacked almost 800 dedicated seafarers and replaced them with low-paid agency workers and we are requiring operators to pay the equivalent of National Minimum Wage in UK waters.

“Make no mistake – this is good for workers and good for business.”

The minister’s description of P&O Ferries as “rogue”, and suggestion that consumers should boycott the company, sparked a row which threatened to overshadow the government’s International Investment Summit last October.

Sky News’s business and economics correspondent, Paul Kelso, revealed that DP World had withdrawn from participating in the event, and paused a £1bn investment announcement.

The company relented after Sir Keir Starmer publicly distanced the government from Ms Haigh’s characterisation of DP World.

Business

How the US trade war is now targeting you from today

Published

19 hours ago

August 29, 2025

admin

How the US trade war is now targeting you from today

Donald Trump has cancelled a loophole from today that had allowed consumers and businesses to be spared duties for sending low-value goods to the United States.

The so-called de minimis exemption had applied across the world before Trump 2.0 but the president has taken action – and the UK may soon follow suit – as part of his trade war.

The relief had allowed goods worth less than $800 (£595) to enter the US duty-free since 2016.

But now, low-cost packages face the same tariff rate as other, more expensive, goods.

The reasons for the latest bout of protectionism are numerous and the ramifications are country and purpose specific.

What is changing?

It was no accident that China was the first destination to be slapped with this rule change.

The duty exemption on low-value Chinese goods was ended in May as US retailers, in fact those across the Western world, complained bitterly that they were being undercut by cheap clothing, accessories and household goods shipped by the likes of Shein and Temu.

From today, Mr Trump is expanding the end of the de minimis rule to the rest of the world.

Why is Trump doing this?

The president is not acting purely to protect US businesses.

More duties mean more money for his tariff treasure chest, bolstering the goodies already pouring in from his base and reciprocal tariffs imposed on trading partners globally this year.

The Trump administration has also called out “deceptive shipping practices, illegal material and duty circumvention”.

It also believes many parcels claiming to contain low-value goods have been used to fuel the country’s supplies of fentanyl, with the importation of the illegal drug being used by the president as a reason for his wider trade war against allies including Canada.

How will it apply?

Under the new rules, only letters and personal gifts worth less than $100 (£74) will still be free of import duties.

Charges will depend on the tariff regime facing the country from where the goods are sent.

Fox example, a parcel containing products worth $600 would raise $180 in extra duties when sent from a country facing a 30% tariff rate.

It has sparked chaos in many countries, with postal services in places including Japan, Germany and Australia refusing to accept many items for delivery to the US until the practicalities of the new regime become clearer.

What about the UK?

All goods not meeting the £74 exemption criteria now face a 10% charge because that is the baseline tariff the US has slapped on imports from the UK.

We were spared, if you remember, higher reciprocal tariffs under the so-called “trade deal”.

How will the process work?

All shipping and delivery companies will be wading through the changes, with the big international operators such as DHL, FedEx and the like all promising to navigate the challenge.

Royal Mail said on Thursday that it would be the first international postal service to have a dedicated operation.

It said consumers could use its new postal delivery duties paid (PDDP) services both online and at Post Offices.

But it explained that business customers faced different restrictions to individuals.

Businesses would be charged a handling fee per parcel to cover additional costs and duties would be calculated based on where items were originally manufactured.

While business account customers could be handed an invoice for the duties, it explained that consumers would have to pay at the point of buying postage.

No customs declaration would be required, it concluded, for personal correspondence.

Is the US alone in doing this?

The answer is no, but it remains a fairly widespread relief globally.

The European Union, for example, removed de minimis breaks back in 2021, making all e-commerce imports to the bloc subject to VAT.

It is also now planning to introduce a fee of €2 on goods worth €150 or less to cover the costs of customs processing.

Should the UK do the same?

The UK has been under pressure for many years to follow suit and drop its own £135 duty-free threshold as retailers battle the cheap e-commerce competition from China we mentioned earlier.

A review was announced by the chancellor in April.

Sky News revealed in July how the total declared trade value of de minimis imports into the UK in the 2024-25 financial year was £5.9bn – a 53% increase on the previous 12-month period.

Any rise in revenue would be welcomed, not only by UK retailers, but by Rachel Reeves too as she looks to fill a renewed black hole in the public finances.