Edinburgh Reforms likely marginal in impact, neither majorly boosting competitiveness or watering-down rules
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.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
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.
How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?
These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.
First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.
War latest: Ukraine agrees minerals deal with US – source
If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).
But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).
Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.
That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.
Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.
Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.
Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.
Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.
That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.
Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.
President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.
This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.
The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.
More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.
And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.
Read more:
What minerals does Ukraine have?
Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.
There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.
Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.
Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.
Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.
The number of convictions linked to a second Post Office IT scandal being investigated for miscarriages of justice – has more than doubled, Sky News has learned.
Twenty-one Capture cases have now been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) for review.
Before Christmas, it was around eight.
They relate to the Capture computing software, which was used in Post Office branches in the 1990s before the infamous faulty Horizon system was introduced.
Hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly accused of stealing after Horizon software caused false shortfalls in branch accounts between 1999 and 2015.
A report last year found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the Capture accounting system, used from the early 1990s until 1999, was also responsible for shortfalls.
If the CCRC finds significant new evidence or legal arguments not previously heard before, cases can be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
Lawyer for victims, Neil Hudgell from Hudgell Solicitors, says the next steps for the Capture cases and the CCRC are still “some months away”.
He said he is also hopeful that the first cases could be referred to the Court of Appeal before the end of this year.
Lawyer Neil Hudgell described victims of the Capture IT system as ‘hideously damaged people’
“Certainly we will certainly be lobbying,” he said. “The CCRC will be lobbying, the advisory board will be lobbying any interested parties, that these are hideously damaged people of advancing years who need some peace of mind and the quicker that can happen the better.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
In December the government said it would offer ‘redress’ to Post Office Capture software victims
‘We didn’t talk about it’
Among those submitted to the CCRC – Pat Owen’s Capture case was the first.
Her family have kept her 1998 conviction for stealing from her post office branch a secret for 26 years.
Juliet Shardlow shows Sky News paperwork which could explain discrepancies logged by Capture
Speaking to Sky News they have opened up for the first time about what happened to her.
Pat was a former sub-postmistress, who was found guilty and given a two-year suspended sentence.
She died in 2003 from heart failure.
David Owen and his wife Pat in happier times
Her daughters describe her as coming home from court after her conviction “a different woman”.
“We didn’t talk about it,” said Juliet Shardlow. “We didn’t talk about it amongst ourselves as a family, we didn’t talk about it with the extended family.
“Our extended family don’t know.”
Juliet Shardlow said her mum Pat was a different person after her conviction
David Owen, Pat’s husband, said she lost a lot of weight after her conviction and at 62 years old “looked like an old gal of 90”.
Capture evidence never heard in court
Pat’s family kept all the documents from her case safe for over two decades and now a key piece of evidence may turn the tide on her conviction, and potentially help others.
A document summarising the findings of an IT expert described the computer Pat used as having “a faulty motherboard”.
It also stated that this “would have produced calculation errors and may have been responsible for the discrepancies subsequently identified by Post Office Counters’ Security and Investigation team.”
Read more from Sky News:
Sub-postmasters: ‘Still going through hell’
Compensation for victims of Capture
Calls on Fujitsu for compensation
The computer expert was due to give evidence in Pat Owen’s defence at court as part of her trial – but failed to turn up on the day.
The family say they never found out exactly why he didn’t show up at court.
David said there was a computer all set up in the courtroom for the expert to use to show malfunctions.
David Owen said his wife Pat never expected to lose her court case
“I heard, now I can’t remember who from, that he’d done work for the Post Office,” he said.
“If he turned up to be a witness in court for us to he wouldn’t get any more work from the Post Office.”
Despite best efforts the expert has never been tracked down. The Post Office has declined to comment.
David also described how his wife never expected to lose her case.
“She was so confident. She knew she didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.
“But when the guilty verdict came out she actually fell to her knees in the dock crying her eyes out shaking.”
He said the judge then asked if he wanted to say anything, and David said he got up in court and spoke at length about his wife’s innocence.
The government announced in December that they will be setting up a redress scheme for Capture victims, similar to Horizon.
So far around 100 people who suffered after being accused of stealing from their branch, while using Capture, could be eligible for redress.
Business
MP Paul Waugh accuses Meta of turning Facebook Messenger into ‘Epstein’s paedophile island’
An MP has accused Meta of turning Facebook Messenger into “Jeffrey Epstein’s private island” by enabling end-to-end encryption.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee grilled tech giants X, TikTok, Google and Meta today as part of an inquiry into online misinformation and harmful algorithms.
“Twenty years ago, someone like Gary Glitter had to go to the other side of the world to prey on children,” said Labour MP Paul Waugh to Chris Yiu, one of Meta’s directors of public policy.
“Someone like Jeffrey Epstein had to create his own private paedophile island.
“Now, these monsters, all they have to do is go on to set up a group on Facebook Messenger.”
Mr Waugh was referring to Facebook Messenger’s recent implementation of end-to-end encryption, meaning that no one, not even Facebook, can see the contents of encrypted messages.
Law enforcement agencies also cannot see the messages, which is a constant source of tension between tech companies and governments.
Just last week, Apple removed one of its highest-security tools for users over an alleged request by the Home Office to be able to see its encrypted user data.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What the Apple security announcement means for your data
“Isn’t it true that you’ve turned Facebook Messenger into Epstein’s own paedophile island and a place where you can do what you want without getting caught?” asked Mr Waugh.
Mr Yiu denied this was the case and said the issue of online child sexual abuse material needed a “whole of society response” where tech companies and law enforcement agencies worked cooperatively.
He also argued end-to-end encryption is a “fundamental technology designed to keep people safe and protect their privacy”.
The select committee’s inquiry is investigating the spread of harmful content online, sparked by last August’s riots.
The widespread unrest took hold across the country after three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Online network behind far right riots
In the days that followed, illegal content and disinformation spread “widely and quickly” online, according to the communications regulator Ofcom.
Read more from Sky News:
Apple removes end-to-end security encryption tool for UK
Illness kills more than 50 people in Democratic Republic of Congo
Kate Bush, Sam Fender and Damon Albarn release silent protest album
The committee chair Chi Onwurah said Elon Musk, owner of X, was invited to the evidence session but the billionaire did not reply formally.
MP Emily Darlington also quizzed the Meta representative about the company’s recent changes to its content guidelines.
She read out numerous examples of Meta users posting racist, antisemitic and transphobic comments online and asked Mr Yiu how Meta justified allowing those posts to stay online.
“We have received feedback that […] some areas of debates were being suppressed too much on our platform and that some conversations, whilst challenging, should have a space to be discussed,” he said.
X’s representative also faced questions from the MPs, with Ms Darlington asking why verified X users were able to post comments calling politicians rapists and threatening to “rise up and shoot” public figures.
Wifredo Fernandez, X’s senior director for Government Affairs, said he would ask the X team to review the posts.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway