Post-Brexit export drive hampered by UK trade finance regulations, ICC warns
In a letter to the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the
Bank of England's
Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the ICC said there was an 'urgent need' for reforms to regulations governing the raising of trade finance that is key to underwriting global transactions.
The letter warned that the 'antiquated' regulatory framework for trade finance offset the benefits of a new law introduced in 2023 to digitise the paperwork for exporting.
'These gains are negated by an antiquated regulatory framework that remains bureaucratic and inefficient, with laborious compliance checks and overburdensome capital requirements,' wrote ICC boss Chris Southworth to the FCA's chief executive Nikhil Rathi.
READ MORE
However, the FCA and PRA both pushed back against the criticism, saying they have already proposed an easing of compliance and capital rules in key areas of trade finance.
The ICC's intervention comes two weeks after the UK government published a trade strategy that promised to boost the country's flagging trade performance since
Brexit.
[
EU blocks Britain's attempts to join pan-European trading bloc
Opens in new window
]
The group has been lobbying in recent years for an overhaul of the Basle 3.1 bank capital rules and expressed frustration that regulators have not moved fast enough, despite pressure from chancellor Rachel Reeves this year for them to take a more pro-growth stance.
Mr Southworth said moves by regulators to rework Basle 3.1 regulations ahead of an implementation deadline at the start of 2027 were too slow and insufficiently far-reaching.
How the wealthy are buying up land to avoid inheritance tax
Listen |
22:03
'Reforms must be accelerated and deadlines brought forward to ensure the benefits are realised within this Parliament,' he wrote. 'It is time for greater ambition and a smarter, more agile regulatory framework.'
The ICC said the UK, despite being a hub for global trade finance, had fallen behind competitors including Hong Kong, India, UAE and the US, which all 'have more agile and responsive regulatory frameworks'.
It wants to see a lighter touch regulatory regime, with onerous 'know your customer' rules streamlined, and a lowering of the capital requirement threshold for trading SMEs. These would help reduce the £22 billion UK 'trade finance gap' between gap between the demand for trade finance and the amount of financing actually available, it said.
[
Brexit was 'single stupidest thing a country's ever done'
Opens in new window
]
The FCA said it was already considering easing its compliance rules on financial transactions. In response to prime minister Keir Starmer's request for ideas to support economic growth and competitiveness, the authority said in January it would discuss ways to relax 'anti-money laundering' checks on smaller transactions.
'Our letter to the prime minister set out one potential way of reducing anti-money laundering costs by relaxing know-your-customer checks on small transactions,' the FCA said. 'We are testing this idea with the government.'
The PRA also rebuffed the criticism, pointing out that it had proposed a reworking of bank capital requirements to loosen them on lending to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and on trade finance, partly based on information provided by the ICC.
'As announced earlier this year, we plan to implement Basle 3.1 rules, including those relevant to trade finance, on 1 January 2027,' the PRA said. 'This date was chosen to give firms sufficient time to implement the final rules themselves.'
'Our implementation of Basle 3.1 is designed to lessen burdens on trade finance by reducing capital requirements for some relevant exposures, and incorporates feedback provided by the ICC in the consultation period,' the authority added.
The Department for Business and Trade said its new trade strategy would help UK business succeed in the global market.
It added: 'The UK plans to implement these reforms in January 2027, giving our firms certainty to plan for the future and allowing more time for greater clarity globally.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
40 minutes ago
- Irish Times
EU and US on brink of tariff deal to avoid trade war
The European Union and the United States are believed to be on the brink of a deal that would stop the transatlantic dispute over tariffs escalating into a full blown trade war. Negotiations between the two sides are near to concluding an 'agreement in principle', which sources say could be finalised imminently, if approved by US president Donald Trump . The 'agreement in principle', if signed off on by Mr Trump, would buy time for technical negotiations to continue, to iron out the more complex details of the future EU-US trading relationship, without the threat of steeper tariffs hanging over the discussions. The European Commission's trade negotiators, led by Maroš Šefčovič , are understood to be close to an agreement on the broad parameters of a deal on tariffs with US officials. Mr Šefčovič spoke to commerce secretary Howard Lutnick in the last 48 hours and had a further call scheduled with trade negotiator Jamieson Greer on Wednesday evening. READ MORE The high-level contact follows a telephone call on Sunday between Mr Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen , which she said helped 'move things forward'. The outline of a draft agreement negotiated between the EU and US would see the 10 per cent tariff Mr Trump put on nearly all EU imports remain. However, EU officials were hopeful of securing tariff exemptions for the aviation and spirits sectors in the deal, according to briefings given to diplomats in Brussels in recent days. The exact details of the agreement could be subject to change before it is finally signed off. US tariffs charged on imports coming from the EU were due to increase to at least 20 per cent on July 9th, but the deadline was extended to August 1st by Mr Trump earlier this week. Negotiations between US and EU officials had intensified in recent weeks, as the initial deadline loomed. [ EU working 'day and night' for tariff deal, Ursula von der Leyen says Opens in new window ] EU negotiators have been pushing back on a last-minute proposal tabled by the Trump administration, that would have seen tariffs on EU agricultural products set at a higher 17 per cent rate. The text of any deal will likely only run to several pages. It is unclear whether it will include a reference to pharmaceuticals, a sector Mr Trump has promised to hit with huge import duties at a later date. The negotiating teams have been exploring a quota scheme that would allow European car manufacturers to offset some portion of the tariffs they would be charged, based on the size of their manufacturing footprint in the US. The commission had threatened to put counter-tariffs on imports of a range of US products, such as aircraft, medical devices, automobiles, bourbon and agricultural produce, in the event talks collapsed without agreement. Government sources in Dublin said they were on standby for developments, but cautioned it was hard to be sure a deal would be concluded in the coming days, given the unpredictability of the Trump administration. [ China warns countries on agreeing US tariff deal that would come at Beijing's expense Opens in new window ] While much of the substance of the agreement was believed to be very close to being settled, diplomatic sources in Brussels also warned that Mr Trump could decide to reopen large aspects of the negotiations unexpectedly. An agreement that averts the prospect of cripplingly high US tariffs on European trade from the start of next month would be hugely welcomed in Government Buildings. However, there is concern about the possibility Mr Trump could introduce separate tariffs on pharmaceutical products at a later date. Pharmaceuticals make up the bulk of the Republic's exports across the Atlantic, given the large concentration of US pharma firms with manufacturing sites in Ireland.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Super-juniors treated ‘identically' to senior Ministers, ex-cabinet member Shane Ross tells High Court
Super-junior Ministers are treated 'identically' to senior Ministers at Government meetings and can influence decision-making, former cabinet member Shane Ross has told the High Court. Mr Ross, who served as minister for transport, tourism and sport from 2016 to 2020, on Wednesday gave evidence at the hearing of People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy 's High Court action challenging the attendance of super-junior Ministers at Cabinet meetings. Cross-examinating Mr Ross, Attorney General Rossa Fanning suggested Mr Ross breached a constitutional obligation to respect cabinet confidentiality by publishing a book with accounts of discussions at cabinet meetings. Mr Ross denied any illegality, and said the book pertained to political matters of public interest. 'I thought it was justifiable, there was plenty of precedent for it,' he said. READ MORE Mr Murphy's case alleges super-junior Ministers' presence at Cabinet breaches this Cabinet confidentiality provision and several other sections of the Constitution. [ Government accepts 'super junior' Ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet with no constitutional basis, court hears Opens in new window ] Mr Murphy wants an injunction restraining super-juniors from going to Government meetings. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super-junior Ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote. Senior government ministers are appointed by the president of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann . Mr Fanning is leading the State's defence. The hearing of Mr Murphy's case immediately followed the conclusion of submissions in a similar case brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly . Mr Ross told the court super-junior ministers were treated 'identically' to senior ministers in the context of cabinet meetings during his tenure in government. Giving evidence, he agreed they were never 'curtailed' from participating by virtue of their 'nominally lower status'. On one occasion, Finian McGrath, a super-junior minister between 2016 and 2020, 'changed the government's mind' on a specific cabinet decision after threatening to resign, Mr Ross said. Put to him by Mr Fanning that there is a difference between having political influence and being a member of government, and that many people can exercise political influence, Mr Ross said being present at cabinet is 'not just a matter of political influence'. Super-juniors' presence at meetings gives them a 'special influence' over legislation, Mr Ross said. 'I saw it; they have a much greater influence than other ministers of state.' Taking to the witness box, Mr Murphy said super-junior Ministers are acting as de facto members of Government but are not accountable to or approved by the Dáil. Similar to Mr Daly's case, Mr Murphy's case points to article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of Government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Mr Murphy's senior counsel, John Rogers, said there is 'no law whatsoever to say that a minister of state is permitted to be in the government'. He said the Taoiseach and the Government have 'usurped a power they don't have' to bring strangers – in a constitutional sense – into the Government room. Mr Rogers submitted that a 'democratic principle' underpins the process by which deputies are nominated to Government by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dáil. Counsel submitted that super-juniors attend participate in Government deliberations and decisions without any process of approval in the Dáil – unlike the 15 members of Government. The case, sitting before three High Court judges, continues.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Q&A: Will survivors of historical abuse in schools be compensated? And who will be liable?
The Government has establishment a commission of investigation into historical sexual abuse in all day and boarding schools. What scale of abuse is thought to have occurred? An initial scoping inquiry was told of some 2,395 allegations of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools run by religious orders. It was told it involved 884 alleged abusers in 308 schools countrywide between 1927 to 2013. Most of these allegations were reported from the records of some 42 religious orders that run, or previously ran, schools in the State. When did this abuse occur? The abuse was mostly described as having occurred from the early 1960s to the early 1990s, with the highest number of reported incidents occurring in the early to mid-1970s. READ MORE What prompted the inquiry in the first place? In a RTÉ Radio 1 documentary Blackrock Boys , broadcast in November 2022, brothers Mark and David Ryan outlined how they had both been sexually abused at the Spiritan-run Blackrock College in the 1970s, discovering each other's abuse there only in 2002. The broadcast prompted a public outcry and a surge in allegations of abuse, mostly in religious-run day and boarding schools. Are just religious schools the subject of a scoping inquiry? No – it is all schools. The commission will have a remit to examine the handling of sexual abuse in all types of schools, primary and second level. This reflects the views of survivors. A scoping inquiry recommended that the commission's terms of reference include the handling of allegations, suspicions and concerns of historical sexual abuse across all primary and post-primary schools. Will the voices of survivors be included? A 'survivor engagement process' forms part of the commission. This provides a confidential space where they can share the impact of their experiences. It is not a legal process, however. Will survivors be compensated? That is the intention. Minister for Education Helen McEntee says further work is being done to examine the matter of financial redress and how any future scheme could be funded. This is viewed by many survivors as a measure of accountability for those responsible for sexual abuse in schools. Can religious orders be forced to contribute? Given the difficulties in extracting funds from religious orders in the past for abuse-related issues, many will be sceptical about whether this is possible. The Government says a further phase of detailed investigation and data analysis on this issue is essential. Ms McEntee has said 'all potential levers that can be brought to bear to secure funding from those responsible for sexual abuse in schools' will be considered. This is likely to include looking at changes to the statute of limitations on civil claims and changes to the status of unincorporated associations, as well as looking at the assets that religious orders have. The reality, however, is that survivors do not know what they will get, or when, or if they will get redress at all – and there is no clear pathway towards ensuring religious orders pay into a scheme. Will the State be liable? It could be. Some campaigners, such as Louise O'Keeffe, who won a landmark case following abuse in primary school, argue that her case established the principle that the State had an obligation to protect pupils from past ill-treatment at school and should have put safeguarding measures in place to help minimise the risk of sexual abuse. Worries over the extent of the potential redress bill and its impact on the exchequer run deep. In 2023, for example, officials in the Department of Education outlined that a broad scheme would expose the exchequer to 'unquantifiable and potentially enormous costs'. Earlier this year, officials in the Department of Public Expenditure warned that the recommendations from the scoping inquiry have the potential to 'very significantly impact on public finances'. As of now, however, the State cannot confidently measure its liability, nor ignore the risk of footing the bill. How will the commission work? Mr Justice Michael MacGrath – appointed to the High Court in January 2018 and a judge on the Court of Appeal since June 2024 – will chair the commission. It is due to undertake preliminary work over the coming months and will seek initial expressions of interest from people who may wish to provide information to it. As with many other statutory inquiries, what are the chances of this dragging on for years? The commission has been given a time frame to report within five years. Ms McEntee said the terms of reference are set out 'very clearly' to ensure it does not go over time. 'There is a very clear pause within the first two years to make sure that the commission can highlight any problems that arise,' she said. 'But also it works both ways, that the minister can then identify if issues are emerging, how the work is being done, and whether or not that will result in an outcome that is appropriate.' Are there implications for schools today? The report of the initial scoping inquiry found that current child protection systems in schools are 'robust and effective', but there are recommendations for further safeguarding steps. The department said it has already begun to implement these recommendations.
