Which? has urged Chancellor George Osborne to stand firm in the face of “intense lobbying” from banks.
This follows the much publicised u-turns over pasty, caravan and charities taxes.
The consumer group says the government must avoid watering down proposals on banking reform.
“We have seen intense lobbying from the banks since the Independent Commission on Banking report, including a crescendo of scare-mongering over recent weeks on the risk of the end of ‘free banking’ and of big financial institutions leaving the country,” said Richard Lloyd, executive director of Which?.
“The Chancellor must resist buckling under this pressure. Plans to ring-fence risky investment banking from essential consumer retail banking must not be derailed by vested interest and must stick to the proposed timetable so that consumers never again have to foot the bill for a banking bailout that even the banks admit will not be repaid in our lifetime.
“71% of people told us they are not confident the Government will act in the consumer’s best interest when implementing banking reform. Without strong action that shakes up the culture of British banking consumers will continue to pay the price. The Government must also make sure that the competition recommendations of the Vickers Report are fully enacted to increase competition and choice on the high street.”
Congratulations on this brilliant new delivery of your articles. Your absence over the weekend was well worth the sacrifice!
I am really concerned at the lack of reporting to the general public of the effect of regulation both on the subject of RDR, which will affect most private citizens and on the still 'lacking' regulation of banks which has already cost us dearly by squeezing our incomes, reducing jobs and continues to keep us in financial jepordy. The press should be banging on about bank regulation and how the govt. is soft peddling on this and show how the revolving door culture works with regards to regulation, govt, bank jobs etc. The scandle of MPs expenses is just chicken feed in comparison.