As the Banks Report, the Government Is Taking the Ring-Fence Apart
In the same week that the country’s biggest lenders close out their half-year books, the machinery that has kept their retail arms walled off from their trading desks since 2019 is being quietly dismantled. On 14 July, the Treasury and the Prudential Regulation Authority published paired consultations to put the government’s ring-fencing review into practice. It is the largest structural change to the shape of British banking since the fence was first drawn up in the wake of the last crisis.
The ring-fence was the signature answer to 2008. Following Sir John Vickers’s Independent Commission on Banking, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 forced the largest banks to separate the deposits and payments that households and small firms rely on from riskier wholesale and investment activity. The rules took full effect on 1 January 2019, obliging groups with more than £25bn of core deposits to hold their retail operations inside a legally distinct, separately capitalised entity. For seven years the fence has been a fixed feature of the landscape, expensive to maintain and, in the government’s telling, a drag on lending it now wants to unwind.
What is actually changing
The direction was set in May, when the Treasury published the conclusions of its review under the banner “Safeguarding Stability, Enabling Growth”. The 14 July consultations are the implementation step: the detail of how the promises become rules and, eventually, law.
The headline number is the threshold. The level at which a bank is caught by the regime rises from £25bn to £35bn of core deposits, and the Treasury says it will revisit that figure every three years, beginning in the second quarter of 2028, with a view to uprating it as the sector grows. Lifting the bar takes several mid-sized lenders out of the regime’s reach altogether and gives the survivors more room before the costliest obligations bite.
Alongside the primary threshold sits a secondary one designed to keep retail-focused groups out of the fence even as they expand, provided their trading activity stays modest, below a tenth of Tier 1 capital. The Treasury is also consulting on a “growth allowance” worth up to 10 per cent of a ring-fenced bank’s Pillar 1 risk-weighted assets for credit risk. On the government’s arithmetic, that headroom could free up as much as £80bn of financing for British business and infrastructure, the political prize the whole exercise is built around.
The PRA’s half of the package is more technical but no less consequential. The regulator is proposing to delete its rules on shared services, having concluded they are no longer required, and to loosen the continuity-of-provision requirements that dictate how a ring-fenced bank must be able to keep operating if the rest of its group fails. Together with expanded lists of permitted products and permitted exposures, the effect is to let capital, services and customers move more freely across the boundary the 2013 Act was written to police.
The clock and the calendar
The two consultations run on different timetables. The Treasury’s closes on 8 September; the PRA wants responses to its paper, CP10/26, by 14 October. A draft statutory instrument is expected to follow, with the final legislation laid in 2027 alongside the Financial Services and Markets Bill for the 2026-27 session. None of this changes a bank’s obligations overnight. What it does is set a firm trajectory, and the market is already pricing the destination rather than the current rules.
That the consultations are live during results week sharpens the read. NatWest reports its first-half figures on the morning of 31 July, the first set delivered as a fully private company after the Treasury sold down the last of its stake. Lloyds and the other high-street names follow close behind. Investors listening to those calls will be weighing capital returns and net-interest margins against a regulatory backdrop that is, for the first time in years, moving in the banks’ favour.
Who gains, and the argument against
The immediate beneficiaries are the ring-fenced high-street banks. A higher threshold, a growth allowance and lighter shared-services rules all reduce the cost of running the retail machine and hand management more freedom to deploy deposits. For a sector that has spent the better part of a decade complaining that the fence traps liquidity on the wrong side of the wall, this is close to the settlement it asked for.
The counter-argument is the one that built the fence in the first place. The regime exists so that when a trading book blows up, the cash machines keep working and the taxpayer is not forced to choose between a bailout and a bank run. Critics of the review, including some who sat on the original commission, warn that loosening the rules in benign conditions is exactly how the memory of a crisis fades. The Treasury’s answer is that the fence was built for a different era, that supervision and resolution tools have moved on since 2013, and that the price of keeping the wall at its current height is lending the economy can ill afford to forgo.
That tension, between the stability the fence was meant to guarantee and the growth the government now wants it to enable, runs through every line of the 14 July documents. The consultations will not settle it. But by the time they close in the autumn, the shape of a materially lighter regime will be on the table, and the banks reporting this week already know which way the fence is leaning.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.