Chancellor's Leeds Reforms to put money in people's pockets
Changes include reforming the bank ring-fencing regime and reducing red tape in the City in order to reintroduce 'informed risk-taking' into the financial system, the Government said.
The Chancellor said the 'Leeds reforms', unveiled in the West Yorkshire city, 'represent the widest set of reforms to financial services for more than a decade'.
New measures are intended to help drive increased levels of investment among both financial firms and individuals.
The Treasury said the ring-fencing regime – which was brought in after the 2008 financial crisis to separate banks' retail and investment banking activities – will be reformed.
Economic Secretary Emma Reynolds will lead a review into how changes can strike the right balance between growth and stability, including protecting consumers' deposits, it said.
Britain is a global outlier in enforcing ring-fencing, and major banks have been divided over whether the system is necessary to protect savers or is overly burdensome.
The Treasury said it was backing regulatory reforms for mid-sized banks to free up money for lending and investment.
Furthermore, the plans include cutting layers of red tape for businesses in the City.
This will see the UK's Financial Ombudsman Service – which settles complaints between consumers and businesses – modernised and simplified to help create a more predictable system and prevent consumer compensation being delayed.
It will also speed up changes to the senior managers regime, which was also brought in after the 2008 crisis to vet individuals before they are appointed and hold them accountable for problems and risk-taking.
The Government said it will radically streamline the current regime and cut the burden on firms in half.
The Leeds Reforms - named after one of our financial services' hubs and a city I'm proud to represent - will deliver the biggest package of reforms to financial services regulation in a decade.
Kickstarting economic growth and putting more pounds in people's pockets. pic.twitter.com/efN8YEHLPZ
Cuts to City red tape sit alongside efforts to boost the level of investment among individuals.
This includes rolling out 'targeted support' from April next year, whereby banks can alert customers with cash sitting in low-return current accounts about investment opportunities.
Major banks and financial firms including Barclays, Lloyds, Vanguard and Hargreaves Lansdown are backing a new advertising campaign highlighting the benefits of investing.
Risk warnings on investment products could also potentially be watered down as part of a review into possible barriers to investing.
The Government also said it will continue to consider reforms to ISAs and savings to strike the right balance between cash savings and investment.
Ms Reeves was widely expected to leave cash ISAs untouched in the measures announced on Tuesday (July 15), following speculation that she was planning to cut the annual tax-free allowance in a bid to spark more investment instead.
'We are fundamentally reforming the regulatory system, freeing up firms to take risks and to drive growth,' Ms Reeves told finance chiefs when setting out the reforms in Leeds.
Recommended reading:
HMRC urging parents to claim £2,000 tax-free childcare
HMRC Child Benefit changes with opt-in campaign for parents
More than half a million more savers to benefit from HMRC cash - apply today
Adam French, consumer expert at Moneyfactscompare.co.uk, says: 'It is encouraging to see steps being taken to make retail investing a less daunting proposition by plugging the advice gap and empowering firms to give more targeted support while maintaining appropriate safeguards. But it is only part of the puzzle.
'It is also essential that we avoid a return to the low interest rates of the past decade which had a significant and often overlooked side effect: skewing investment priorities by driving capital into property instead of more productive areas of the economy. For the Leeds Reforms to work it must be the case that backing the next generation of British businesses looks safer and more rewarding than property speculation.'
Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Moneybox, adds: "It is encouraging to see steps being taken to support first-time buyers. Enabling people to borrow more is not a silver bullet. What first-time buyers truly need is not just the ability to take on more debt, but meaningful, long-term support to help them start saving and investing earlier in life so they can build up that all-important deposit."
Sarah Coles, head of personal finance for Hargreaves Lansdown, also comments: 'It's incredibly positive to see Rachel Reeves take some key steps towards closing the UK's yawning retail investment gap.
'There will be a new era of investment with the advent of new rules allowing companies to offer targeted support to their clients, alongside changes to risk warnings so they actively help retail investors understand their options rather than standing in their way of harnessing the incredible power of investment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
What car finance ruling means for YOU - and why you could still get compensation
The Supreme Court has largely sided with banks in a ruling involving a car finance scandal - but the issue is far from over, with huge implications for more than 20 million drivers The Supreme Court has partially overturned a landmark ruling on car finance commissions. The move will have huge implications for banks that may have faced tens of billions of pounds in compensation payouts. However, experts are poring over the ruling to assess what it means for the up to 23 million drivers who were expecting a payout. The Treasury said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Like all these things, the ruling was far from straightforward and is still being pored over in detail. But essentially the judges largely sided with the finance firms in the case, with all other banks breathing a sigh of relief because of what it could have meant for them too. It centred on commissions that were paid by finance firms to dealers when selling, in these cases, second hand cars. As the ruling said, there was 'either no disclosure to the customer of the existence of the commission or partial disclosure to the effect that a commission (of unspecified amount) might be paid'. The three customers involved claimed that the commissions amounted to 'bribes', or to 'secret profits' received by the dealers. Essentially, the Supreme Court was looking at whether hidden commission payments to dealers - even when the interest rate on the finance deal was set in advance - were unlawful. It could have seen compensation paid to almost all people who had bought a car on finance. Some estimates had put the potential bill at up to £45billion. However, in one of the cases the court did decide the level of commission was unfair, with all the interest to be paid back. So is that the end of it? Yes, and no. It reduces the number of people who could have potentially received compensation, and lowers the possible bill to banks and finance houses. But there is a separate - though linked - issue around how some dealers were paid bigger rewards if buyers were charged higher interest rates. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021. Around 40% of all car finance deals arranged between 2007 and 2021 had this discretionary - rather than fixed - element to them. It is these cases that first led to concerns by regulators and which will now be of focus. What happens next? The Financial Conduct Authority launched an investigation into discretionary commission arrangements early last year. It had put the matter on ice until the outcome of the Supreme Court cases. It has acted swiftly by announcing it will confirm over the weekend if it will launch a scheme for victims of car finance mis-selling to get compensation. Whether there will be such a redress scheme and how it will work will be part of any consultation that takes place. How might it work, and what might I get back? These are key questions for any consultation, if such a scheme is announced. One option is for banks to go back through their records to assess which customers were affected, although this industry-led approach may well be seen as flawed. Another is almost like the PPI scandal, where firms would be forced to pay out to anyone where the discretionary commission applied. There is a good chance it will be automatic - and free - which is why people are being warned about using claims management firms that may end up taking a big chunk of any payout. Then there is the question of how much the compensation would be. It could that customers receive back the same amount as the dealer got in commission. Alternatively, it could be that the interest rate charged is compared with what it would have been had the commission not applied. The customer could then receive the over-payment, in other words the additional interest that was charged. Or it could be all the interest is paid back. Consumer champion Martin Lewis, founder of estimated the level of refunds could now be anything from £5billion to £15billion, but 'rather than the up to £45billion if the Supreme Court had upheld all of it.' He added: "My biggest message is while we wait is, don't do anything. Don't sign up to a claims form. You don't need to do anything right now. Take you hands, sit on them."
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Today's Supreme Court ruling was a narrow miss for the economy
Britain is still, just about, a country in which it is possible to do business. The Supreme Court's decision today saw a drastic reduction in the scope of potential compensation claims against car finance lenders. To the extent that a 'scandal' existed in this field, it is the degree to which the British legal system had appeared prepared to rewrite the terms of loans made close to two decades ago in line with a vague sense that customers deserved a better deal. The direct losses to the financial sector (tens of billions of pounds in compensation claims) would have been significant on their own terms. The economic damage, however, could have been far more widespread. The effect of such a broad-ranging retrospective verdict would have had a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to take risks in the British market. Who would want to lend money in a country where a court could decide years afterwards that compensation should be awarded to people who signed up to a loan knowing what they would pay and what they would get simply based on the salesman's commission? It is a testament to the sheer terror with which the Treasury would have viewed this prospect and the associated losses of growth and tax revenues that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was reportedly looking into legislative means to overturn a decision that went against the banks; it is hard to think of a stance less natural for this Labour Government to adopt. As things stand, there are still potential claims against those whose loans came with 'excessive' commissions. These should suffice as a warning shot against predatory practices, should any be needed. But it is worth saying that this may not be wholly desirable either. The principle of 'caveat emptor' may have fallen out of fashion, but it is far from clear that the compensation culture we have erected in its place is superior. Investing time and effort into understanding the terms and conditions of a purchase seems increasingly irrational: simply lay out your cash and should you subsequently have regrets, rest safe in the knowledge that the legal system will find a way to attempt to claw it back. This compensation does not materialise from the ether. When it is paid out, the cost is frequently borne by other consumers, who face higher prices or fewer options. This time around, we have at least arrived at a sensible conclusion. The Treasury and Ms Reeves can breathe a sigh of relief. Parliament, however, may wish to give serious thought as to the desirability of a legal structure that permits this sort of uncertainty to arise, and the incentives which it offers the public.
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Fact check: Recognising a Palestinian state, misleading tsunami video and deportations vs returns
Is the Government on track with its pledge to recognise a Palestinian state? On July 29, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would recognise Palestine as a state in September, ahead of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, unless Israel meets certain conditions. Labour's manifesto committed to formally recognising a Palestinian state 'as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution'. A 'two-state solution' refers to a proposed framework to resolve the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which a sovereign Palestinian state is established alongside Israel. Previous efforts at a peace process did not result in a sovereign Palestinian state. UK governments have long been in favour of a two-state solution, as well as recognising a Palestinian state as part of a process towards that goal. All members of the G7 group of countries have pledged support for a two-state solution, as has the EU and China. Palestine is currently designated by the UN as a 'permanent observer state', a form of non-member state, meaning it cannot vote on decisions made by the UN's main organs and bodies, such as the General Assembly. However, the majority of UN member states have formally recognised Palestine. According to media reports, as of July 2025, some 147 UN member states formally recognised Palestinian statehood, not including France, which in the same month committed to recognising Palestine at the General Assembly in September. The UK is not included in this figure, although it does have a Consulate General in Jerusalem to assist British nationals in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It has been reported that a number of UK peers have questioned the legal basis for any recognition of a Palestinian state. Full Fact has contacted the Government for comment on this. How fact checkers helped set the record straight on PM's viral video When 31-year-old Abby Raworth first realised her photo and name were being shared online – falsely linked to a viral video involving the Prime Minister – she assumed it was a mix-up. Posts on social media claimed that the woman in the video was not mum-of-three Nicola but was really a 'paid actress' or 'actress and agent' named Abby Raworth. Full Fact's investigation brought to light how much was being written about her online 'without any regard for if it was correct or not.' Abby has spoken to Full Fact about her experience, telling us: 'What shocks me is how little people bothered to do regarding checks before they used someone's name and accused them of something. There is a lack of accountability for what comes out of peoples' mouths and if it had happened to any of those people they would have a different opinion on it.' We're grateful to Abby for sharing her story to help show exactly why Full Fact exists to counter the harm caused by misinformation. Old tsunami video circulates amid Pacific evacuations A video circulating online amid major evacuations across the Pacific is claimed to show a tsunami which has taken 'thousands of lives'. But this is misleading. The footage shows three people, including the person filming, narrowly escape huge waves that crash into some small boats on a shore. It was shared online following news of an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Russia, which triggered the evacuation of almost two million people across Japan. Warnings were also put in place in other locations including Hawaii, Ecuador, Indonesia, Peru and China. A caption shared with the video said: 'Massive Earthquake triggers Tsunami taking thousands of lives in seconds with little to no warning.' But this footage is not current, or related to the earthquake in Russia or the subsequent tsunami warnings. It actually showed a tsunami which occurred on the west coast of Greenland in 2017, triggered by a landslide. That tsunami did not kill 'thousands', as stated in the social media posts. Four people were killed, and nine others were injured. The same footage has been wrongly shared in the wake of other earthquakes before. Has Labour carried out 'record deportations'? Labour MP Mike Tapp recently claimed that the Government has carried out 'record deportations'. We've frequently seen MPs and ministers using the word 'deportations' when referring to all immigration returns. Not all immigration returns are 'deportations'. We don't actually know how many meet the official definition of a deportation, which the Home Office defines as 'a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person's removal from the UK is conducive to the public good'. We do know, however, that enforced returns – the category of returns which includes deportations – account for a minority (26%) of all returns carried out under Labour during its first year in office. According to ad-hoc figures published by the Home Office, during Labour's first year in office a total of 35,052 returns were recorded. We don't have the data to compare this exact period to the same period in previous years, but official immigration statistics show that this figure is not a record for the number of immigration returns over a 12-month period, going back to 2004 when this data series began. These figures show that immigration returns over a 12-month period were consistently above 40,000 between 2010 and 2016, for example. It does appear, however, that the 35,052 returns in the first year of this Labour government represents the highest 12-month figure since 2017. While we don't know how many of these returns were official 'deportations', the figures show that the 9,115 enforced returns carried out between 5 July 2024 and 4 July 2025 also do not represent a record. While this figure is the highest number of enforced returns carried out over a 12-month period since 2018, prior to 2018 enforced returns were consistently above 10,000 over a 12-month period. MPs should use statistics transparently and with all relevant context and caveats, and quickly rectify oversights when they occur.
