Just how many banks do we need?

Creating more banks is not necessarily the answer.

According to Greg Clark, financial secretary to the Treasury, the current number of banks in the UK is unacceptable. Says Clark: “we need more banks.” The co-founder of Metro Bank, Anthony Thomson, is singing from the same song sheet. Speaking at a conference last week, Thomson forecast that we will see between five and 15 new banks over the next three to five years. Let’s get real. There are immense barriers to setting up a new bank – as indeed there should be. If we witness two or three new banks over the next three years up and running, that would be a result.

Love them or loathe them, Tesco is one of the world’s most successful retailers, if you forgive it their disastrous foray into the US and the millions lost on its Fresh & Easy project. Even Tesco has found the launch of a current account product in the UK a major challenge. For the past year or more, Tesco has been working on rolling out a current account. We are still waiting to see what the Tesco Bank current account will look like. And this from a banking unit with deep pockets and led by Benny Higgins, arguably one of the leading retail bankers of his generation.

There are currently 17 separate providers of current accounts in the UK. The Tesco Bank launch, slated for the third quarter, will take us to 18. Additional competition is also coming from Bank of Ireland; it is to run three current accounts on behalf of The Post Office. The Post Office is currently trialing its new current account products across 29 branches across Essex and East Anglia ahead of a nationwide launch.

Within government, there seems to be a belief that making it easier for new banks to launch will somehow improve standards as a result of an increase in competition. What the country certainly could with is more responsible banks….an increase in innovation, perhaps. More transparent pricing would help for a start.

If the banks are really to serve the economy, the government has no option but to ensure that they are well -capitalised banks: by its nature, the need to be well capitalised will make it more difficult for new entrants to launch. The argument that we simply need more banks seems to this writer to be not proven.

 

Douglas Blakey is the editor of Retail Banker International

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.