John Healey faces questions over budget leak that moved bank share prices

The leaked measure concerned the bank corporation tax surcharge, an extra tax applied to banks. Bloomberg reported that the surcharge would not reach the 8% increase lenders had feared. It also said the change would be temporary rather than permanent. Those details mattered because they could change expectations about banks’ future profits and share prices.

The official Budget 2026 announcement confirmed a temporary increase from 3% to 6%. It would last for 15 months, starting on 1 January 2027. Healey said the extra 3% would help fund breathing-space measures for households, including immediate support on energy bills.

The difference between the rumoured and confirmed policy was therefore significant. Banks faced a smaller increase than feared, and for a limited period. Hillier said the report appeared to be more than speculation because it closely matched the later announcement and had implications for relevant securities. The FCA and Treasury are being urged to examine how the information reached Bloomberg.

Inside information generally means specific, non-public information that could significantly affect the price of securities if released. It matters because financial markets are meant to let investors trade on publicly available information, not privileged government or company decisions. The article says Hillier asked whether the Bloomberg report involved an “improper release of inside information”.

Here, the reported details matched the later Budget announcement: the surcharge would not reach 8% and would be temporary. Those details could influence bank share prices before Healey spoke. Someone who knew the decision early might buy or sell shares before other investors could react, potentially profiting from the information.

The FCA is responsible for market cleanliness and implementing the UK’s market abuse regulation. It has been asked to assess whether the information was improperly released and what effect it had on relevant securities. The Treasury is separately being asked how many people had access and whether banks or their representatives were told beforehand.

The article gives no numerical measure for the movement in bank share prices. It says that prices moved shortly before Healey left Downing Street to deliver his statement, after Bloomberg published its report. That means the direction and size of the market reaction cannot be quantified from the supplied facts.

The timing is clear. Bloomberg published the story at 10.45am. Healey was due to reveal the Budget in the Commons at 12.30pm. The gap between those times was one hour and 45 minutes. The report therefore appeared well before the official announcement, rather than immediately after it.

That timing is central to the investigation. The story said the surcharge would be lower than the 8% feared by lenders and temporary, details later confirmed by the Budget. Hillier said the information had implications for relevant securities and asked the FCA to assess its market impact. The article does not say how much anyone gained or identify specific trades.

A bank surcharge reduces the money banks retain after tax. If the rate is lower than expected, the reduction in future profits is smaller. If the increase is temporary, the cost lasts for a defined period rather than continuing indefinitely. Both features can improve expectations about banks’ earnings compared with a larger or permanent tax rise.

The feared outcome was an 8% surcharge increase. Bloomberg reported that the rise would be lower and temporary. The Budget later confirmed a move from 3% to 6% for 15 months. Investors receiving that news could revise their estimates of how much profit banks would keep over the period and afterward.

Share prices reflect investors’ expectations about companies’ future value, although the article does not quantify the actual movement. A smaller tax burden can make banks appear more valuable because more earnings may remain available. That is why Hillier described the leaked information as having implications for relevant securities and wants the FCA to assess its market impact.

In a case like this, the FCA’s central task is to assess whether information about the surcharge was improperly disclosed before the Budget. The information could matter because it concerned a tax decision likely to affect banks and their securities. The FCA also considers whether markets remained clean and fair when some people may have received information early.

Hillier asked the FCA to examine the Bloomberg story’s impact on relevant securities. The report appeared at 10.45am, while Healey’s statement was scheduled for 12.30pm. Bank share prices moved after the story appeared. The report also matched important parts of the later announcement, including a lower-than-feared and temporary surcharge.

The article does not say that the FCA has reached a finding. It says Hillier requested the regulator’s view on whether the event might constitute an improper release of inside information and its assessment of the market impact. The FCA’s work would sit alongside the Treasury’s inquiry into who had access to the decision and whether banks were briefed.

The article does not provide a complete list of people who knew the surcharge decision in advance. Hillier specifically asked the Treasury to confirm whether banks, their representatives, or their trade bodies were told about the changes before the Budget. She also asked how many people had access to information about the surcharge.

The issue matters because Bloomberg’s report appeared before Healey announced the policy. It said the surcharge would not reach 8% and would be temporary, while the Budget later confirmed a rise from 3% to 6% for 15 months. Bank share prices moved after the story. Early knowledge could therefore have affected decisions involving bank securities.

No finding of wrongdoing is stated. The Treasury and FCA were urged to investigate urgently. Hillier wants confirmation that banks were not told the changes, either in outline or in detail, before publication. She also warned that making money from information intended for the chancellor’s announcement would be extremely serious. The chancellor is due to face the Treasury select committee next month.

A bank corporation tax surcharge is an extra charge on banks alongside their ordinary corporation tax. In this case, the existing surcharge rate was 3%, and the Budget increased it by another 3 percentage points to 6%. That means banks would contribute more tax during the stated period, reducing the profits they retain compared with the old rate.

The measure was designed to fund breathing-space measures for households. Healey said banks would pay the extra 3% to help provide immediate support on energy bills. The increase would begin on 1 January 2027 and end after 15 months. Its temporary design links the additional revenue to a defined period of household assistance.

The article presents this as the government’s stated purpose, not as an estimate of how much money it would raise. It also records that banks had feared an 8% increase, making the confirmed 6% rate lower than expected. The policy’s final cost to banks, and its total revenue, are not given in the article.