Tag Archives: regulation

Growth vs Guardrails: Reeves and the FCA’s contrasting visions for consumer finance regulation

GK’s Joshua Owolabi assesses Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi’s differing perspectives on consumer finance regulation and the potential impact on the sector

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves insists that the government’s main objective is to facilitate economic growth and believes that the UK’s regulatory bodies should support this objective. In January 2025, the Chancellor wrote to several regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), directing them to ‘tear down regulatory barriers’ that hold back economic growth. This view is likely to have a significant impact on the regulation of consumer finance during the rest of this parliament (expected to end in 2029).

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the FCA and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority, have generally preferred to strengthen consumer finance rules to prevent the harm to consumers that occurred following the crisis (e.g. consumers being forced into high-interest loans without fully understanding the long-term impact on their finances). The pressure placed on the FCA could result in a reversal of long-term regulatory trends in the consumer finance sector, reducing compliance requirements on businesses across the sector.

Across several consumer finance sub-sectors, such as mortgages, motor finance, and personal loans, the FCA has spent the last decade implementing stricter measures to prevent the mis-selling of products and services, and to protect consumers from taking on excessive debt. These efforts culminated in the implementation of the Consumer Duty in July 2023. The Duty is a regulatory framework requiring firms to prioritise consumers’ needs. Firms must proactively identify the specific needs of each of their customers and prevent risks that could result in financial harm. This involves providing customers with clear financial advice on products like hire purchase agreements, which are common in the motor finance industry, so that they can make informed choices. It also involves making it as easy as possible for customers to switch or cancel products without incurring unnecessary debt.

Rachel Reeves’ belief that financial services regulation should encourage innovation, competitiveness, and increased risk taking in lending and investment is at odds with recent FCA consumer protection measures. This has resulted in contrasting messages from Reeves and FCA Chief Executive Nikhil Rathi. While Rathi has said the FCA will support innovation and economic growth, he has voiced concerns that the push to prioritise growth will result in an increase in financial scandals. He has warned the government and parliamentarians that there may need to be an ‘enduring acceptance’ of these failures as regulations are relaxed. Rathi’s concern is not a surprise. Since his appointment as Chief Executive in 2020, he has consistently emphasised the importance of consumer protections and market stability. Under his leadership, the FCA has prioritised improving affordability checks so that firms are not just doing basic credit checks and consumers understand the true cost of products.

An area where major change is likely to occur, despite Rathi’s reluctance, is in the balance between regulation and access to credit. Reeves has argued that excessive regulation can make it harder for consumers to borrow money, slowing economic growth. As a result, the government announced in May 2026 that it would reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), which established standard procedures for credit and hire agreements and sets out consumers’ rights when dealing with businesses in those sectors. The government says that its reform of the CCA is focused on modernising consumer credit rules so that they better reflect the realities of today’s digital financial market. It has stated that its main objective is to improve the quality and clarity of information provided to consumers. The government argues that current disclosure requirements are outdated, overly complex, and often overwhelm borrowers with lengthy legal documents that are difficult to understand. The government has said that the CCA reforms will help consumers make better-informed financial decisions and reduce the risk of individuals taking on unsuitable or unaffordable credit.

The government is likely to say that the primary reason for reforming the CCA is its desire to protect consumers. However. the push for economic growth and deregulation in financial services is what is truly driving these reforms. In reality, the core goal of the reforms is to reduce the number of detailed regulatory requirements that are entrenched in legislation and to give the FCA more power to amend regulations quickly without the passing of new legislation. By giving the FCA greater responsibility for setting consumer credit rules, the government hopes to create a more agile regulatory system that can respond more quickly to innovations in financial products, such as fintech and embedded finance. This is likely to lower compliance costs for businesses in the consumer finance market and reduce the likelihood that they fall foul of rules relating to the way in which credit agreements are written or structured.

Ironically, the changes to the CCA, including the increased role of the FCA in modernising credit rules, will place greater power in the hands of Rathi to regulate consumer finance, despite the difference in views with the Chancellor. Rathi will now need to oversee the implementation of changes to the CCA, while also overseeing other consumer finance reforms that have already been announced. For example, the FCA has said that it will complete a review of the Consumer Duty before the end of 2026 to understand firms’ approaches to monitoring consumer outcomes and how well consumers understand risk. The FCA believes that some firms are struggling to provide clear evidence that they are improving outcomes for consumers or that their advice is specific to each individual customer’s needs. This means that there is a scenario where firms will have requirements relating to affordability checks reduced by the CCA reforms, only to see new requirements placed on them to collect data on consumer outcomes following the review of the Duty. The implementation of both these reforms is an unenviable task for Rathi, as he seeks to balance pressure from the Treasury to support economic growth with his own regulatory agenda. The FCA will need to engage with firms to ensure that they are fully aware of the expected changes to the regulatory framework and that firms are not confused by the mixed messaging from the Treasury and the regulator itself.

GK & Anchor Policy Spotlight: Emerging Regulatory Markets

The next decade and beyond will be defined by global challenges ranging from climate change and food security to geopolitical instability and competition for resources. Governments around the world will be forced to address these at pace, but many of the solutions will depend on technological advances and scientific discoveries that are only just emerging.

Curiosity has always been in GK’s DNA and over the last year we have dedicated considerable time to understanding and engaging with the emerging industrial sectors of the future. Ranging from technological developments in already highly regulated sectors to the sectors that are just emerging as future economic powerhouses, GK has put them under the microscope to unpick the political, policy and regulatory opportunities and challenges on the horizon.

This report is an introduction of that thinking to you. We know our investment community is keen to understand the risks and opportunities in these spaces to stay ahead of competitors in origination strategies, and most importantly, to invest for the future. With the decades of combined experience that informs our counsel, we pride ourselves on seeing the things that others don’t. Our team of consultants in the UK, Europe and the US is uniquely positioned to give a truly global perspective on understanding and growing the future sectors of the global economy.

Risk-based or sector led? How we can expect the government to regulate AI

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, has received significant backlash in recent weeks after its ability to create sexualised images of women and children generated widespread media headlines. The scale of the public outcry has sharpened concerns about how quickly AI capabilities are outpacing existing safeguards. This has increased pressure on the government to more stringently regulate AI, which is reshaping industries at an unprecedented pace, bringing both opportunities and risks.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously suggested that the government would move away from the last Conservative administration’s ‘pro-innovation regulatory framework’ for AI, as set out in its white paper on AI published in 2023. Instead, Starmer has publicly emphasised the need for an overarching regulatory framework with additional protections in specific areas. He has also expressed concerns about the potential risks and impacts of AI, while acknowledging its transformative potential for society. In January 2025, the government published its AI Opportunities Action Plan, which set out its ambitions to use AI to ‘turbocharge’ economic growth and create AI growth zones to speed up planning processes for AI infrastructure.

The government’s approach to AI differs from the EU’s risk-based framework, which classifies AI systems into four categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Each category has a different set of regulations and requirements for organisations developing or using AI systems. UK-based organisations with operations in the EU or those deploying AI systems within the bloc are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the EU AI Act, requiring UK organisations to keep abreast of legislative changes and any potential future misalignments between the UK and EU in this area.

Although Starmer has pledged to turn the UK into an ‘AI superpower’, ministers have so far struggled to find the right balance between regulation and harnessing AI’s economic potential. At the end of 2024, the government proposed relaxing copyright laws to allow developers to train AI models on any material they can legally access. The plans received widespread criticism from creatives and high-profile musicians who would be required to opt-out of having their work used. Ministers have since acknowledged that the move was misguided and announced that the associated legislation would be delayed while they develop a more extensive policy framework.

It is likely that we will see new legislation announced in the form of an AI and Copyright Bill at the King’s speech, which is due to take place in May 2026. This presents an opportunity for businesses to engage with the government at a key stage of the policymaking process.

The legislation is likely to focus on safety, copyright protections, and transparency. The government has been clear that it does not want to introduce measures that could drive AI investment out of the UK. Appearing before the Digital and Communications Committee in January 2026, technology secretary Liz Kendall stated that many of the larger AI companies are opposed to ‘onerous burdens’, suggesting the government is likely to adopt a cautious approach in its efforts to more stringently regulate AI to avoid deterring potential investment in the UK.

This means we can expect the government to attempt to tread a line between the EU’s risk-based framework and the deregulatory approach taken in the US in order to strike the right balance between innovation and oversight. Despite both the EU and UK focussing on principles such as accountability and transparency, the diverging approaches observed so far in practice mean a consistent approach to the regulation of AI is unlikely, at least in the near term.

If you would like to discuss AI regulation in more detail, please reach out to Annabelle Black at annabelle@gkstrategy.com.

Trump Administration deregulatory push yields industry wish list for rule rollbacks

By Erin Caddell, Anchor Advisors LLC – A GK Strategy partner firm

Amidst the mile-a-minute pace of activity in the Trump Administration’s first six months, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s April 11th posting of Federal Register document 2025-06316, “Request for Information: Deregulation” did not exactly make for scintillating tabloid reading. Yet the effort initiated by OMB’s memo is likely to spark substantial regulatory activity by a number of federal agencies starting this fall and into the remainder of Trump’s current term that will be highly impactful across a range of industries in the U.S.

OMB’s request for information (RFI) was prepared in response to an Executive Order signed by President Trump on April 9th to repeal “[u]nlawful, unnecessary and onerous regulations”. The order notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings in recent years limiting the power of federal agencies, and asks commenters to identify regulations now inconsistent with these decisions.

Companies and their trade associations were only too happy to respond to OMB’s request. The RFI received nearly 8,500 comments during the 30-day window (though some were from individuals calling for caution against moving too quickly to deregulate). OMB and federal agencies will likely begin the process of repealing or amending certain rules cited in the comments starting this fall. Importantly, the executive order notes that agencies may attempt to rescind the rules in question without the traditional notice-and-comment period required for formal rulemaking, which can add months if not years to the process. The order cites a provision in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) providing a “good cause” exemption to traditional rulemaking requirements if the original rule is “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” Any attempts to circumvent the rulemaking process would be met immediately by legal challenges (interestingly, the Mortgage Bankers Association, an influential trade association, argued that agencies should continue to utilize the notice-and-comment process, as abandoning this function could rob industry with a key means of providing input). But even if ultimately overturned, companies would have to make accommodations to assume a proposed repeal could become effective, particularly if intermediate courts support the Administration.

So what does Corporate America hope to deregulate? Anchor reviewed a representative sample of comment letters submitted by trade associations representing a range of industries. We summarize in the table below recommendations from six of these comments. Taken together, the missives describe their authors’ frustrations with the blizzard of rulemaking under the Biden Administration and cite hundreds of regulations they believe should be repealed or revised in the name of spurring economic growth and reducing the administrative burden.

Select Industry Association Responses to OMB Deregulation Request for Input (RFI)

Organization	Rule cited	Agency(s)	Year	Commenter’s rationale
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)	Adoption of energy efficiency standards for new construction of HUD- and USDA-financed housing	HUD, USDA	2024	Will drive up costs for new single-family and multi-family construction; 30 states still operating under prior standard enacted in 2009; shortage of inspectors trained on new standard.
National Multifamily Housing Council/National Apartment Association	Floodplain management and protection of wetlands	HUD	2024	Imposes substantial compliance costs on homeowners without robust data on actual risk reduction benefits nationwide.
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation	Rule requiring minimum of two crew members on most US freight and passenger train journeys.	Federal Railroad Administration	2024	Lacks foundation in safety data; is driven by labor-union pressures; automated braking systems and other technological advances intended to mitigate accidents caused by human error.
American Petroleum Institute (API)	National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter	EPA	2024	In 2024, EPA mandated a lowering of maximum air particulate matter – a measure of air quality – of no more than 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter vs. 12.0 previously. API argues no new scientific evidence had emerged to warrant such a reduction. API argues the new standard will limit economic growth. The group supports revising, not repealing the rule.
Small Business Low Risk Coalition (group of manufacturing/industrial trade associations)	Multi-sector general permit rules for stormwater discharge from industrial facilities	EPA	2021	Argues 2021 version of standard was issued in overly hasty fashion relative to the 2015 version, which received lengthy multiagency review. The group argues that the 2021 permit rules added costly, unnecessary analytical monitoring requirements for many industries.
American Hospital Association (AHA)	Remove telehealth originating and geographic site restrictions within the Medicare program.	CMS	Various	Currently, Medicare patients in urban or suburban areas do not have the same access to telehealth services covered by Medicare as those in rural areas; in other cases patients must be in a clinical setting to receive telehealth services, which defeats their purpose.

Source: Regulations.gov

What does this mean for investors and companies? The OMB request for information and its many industry responses are a sign that deregulation – obscured thus far by the trade war, the immigration crackdown and the many controversies that follow the current Administration – will nonetheless be a key theme for Trump’s second term. The fall Unified Regulatory Agenda, a document published by presidential Administrations twice a year that details each federal agency’s priorities for the coming 12 months, will provide clues as to how the Administration has translated OMB’s fact-finding mission into agency priorities.

Given the inclination of Trump, Vought and those around them in the Administration, OMB is likely to push ahead with many of the deregulatory recommendations put forth in the comment letters. Opponents will attempt to counter these efforts through the courts, with their allies in Congress, and by attempting to influence public opinion. But as with many other aspects of the Trump Administration, critics will face the challenge of fighting many battles at once.

History also shows that deregulation can be a double-edged sword for the private sector. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08, which followed a long period of loosened of the U.S. financial services industry, is the most striking recent example. But more recent cases like the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in spring 2023 demonstrate the dangers of lighter-touch regulation. In that case, rule changes reducing capital and liquidity requirements for banks of Silicon Valley’s size encouraged the firm to increase its risk profile, making the firm highly vulnerable to a rise in short-term interest rates. Companies must do more on their own to protect their businesses, customers and employees at times when the pendulum swings toward deregulation. Ethics committees, ombudsmen and similar compliance measures (Anchor and its partners can help with this!) can serve companies well at times like this when animal spirits are running high – on Wall Street as well as in Washington, D.C.

Housing Policy Under Labour: One Year On

Twelve months ago, the Labour government was elected on a manifesto with housing policy at its heart. It pledged to improve the lives of renters, as well as make housing more affordable by accelerating housebuilding and reforming planning policy, which in turn placed housing policy at the centre of the government’s ‘growth mission’.

One year on from this government taking office, what have been the major trends in housing policy under Labour, and how much progress is it making against the commitments it set out before the election? In this blog, our consultants Sam Tankard, Will Blackman and Joshua Owolabi look at the biggest housing policy initiatives from the government and what to expect next.

Planning and Housebuilding

The root of many troubles facing UK construction and housebuilding lies in the planning system which, in its promise of reform back in 2023, Labour committed to “back the builders not the blockers”. This move was seen as necessary if Labour had any hopes of meeting its manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament. This was always a tall order given the UK has averaged 150,000 new homes between 2013 – 2023, despite targets often still sitting at around 300,000 a year.

The government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill was introduced earlier this year as one of its flagship pieces of legislation, designed to speed up the delivery of new homes, increase capacity of local planning authorities with new planning officers, unlock land through compulsory purchase orders, and introduce a Nature Restoration Fund to offset environmental impacts.

This was welcomed by developers, investors and pro-housing campaigners as a sign that the government was finally putting in the policy requirements to unlock the level of growth needed to hit their targets, especially as housebuilding ‘starts’ since the beginning of this parliament are sitting at 186,000 – some way off the government’s target.

However, those same supportive voices now feel disappointed that the government has already started to water down the bill, even after removing the whip from an MP for leading a rebellion against it. In its original form, the bill was not considered hugely radical: criticised in part for only making tweaks rather than wholesale change. It does not, for example, even deal with the wider issues hindering development such as zoning and the value of available land, the labour skills shortages in construction, or the rising cost of materials that are pushing up the cost of housebuilding.

Now in the Lords, the government has introduced amendments that would make Environmental Delivery Plans harder and more complicated, as developers will now have to demonstrate how it will contribute positively to nature, and giving Natural England a potential veto on the delivery of new homes.

This significant concession signals the bill could be weakened further still, making it neither effective in delivering the housing at scale, nor enshrining the environmental protections that campaigners want to see. Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner, will need to use her political heft in the Cabinet to demonstrate the government remains on track and isn’t just compromising on a damp squib. After all, as a former prime minister once said, “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, you get knocked by the traffic from both sides”.

Rental Reform

One of the most significant areas of housing policy reform over the last 12-months was in fact originated under the last Conservative government. The Renters’ Rights Bill, which is currently coming towards the end of its passage through Parliament, has been a long time in the making.

It was the Theresa May government in 2019 that first consulted on reforms to rebalance the rights and responsibilities of landlord and tenants, which included ending the ability of landlords to issue Section 21 notices, or ‘no-fault’ evictions. This change continues to be the centrepiece of the bill and is intended to give greater stability and security of tenure to tenants. The bill also provides landlords with reformed and expanded grounds for seeking possession of their properties under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This includes cases where the landlord wishes to sell or to move into the property themselves. Other measures include stricter requirements around rent increases, the creation of a new ombudsman, new requirements on landlords to remedy mould and damp problems, and a new right for tenants to request a pet.

The Conservative government’s version of this legislation – then called the Renters’ Reform Bill – fell away following the dissolution of the last parliament. Labour’s version of the legislation includes some significant differences to its predecessor, including increased notice and grace periods, and a three-month requirement of rent arrears before a landlord can seek possession, up from the two months proposed by the Conservatives. Almost all of the changes put forward by Labour are to the benefit of tenants rather than landlords.

Taken together, these reforms are the most significant changes to the regulation of the private rented sector for over 35 years. The residential landlord sector has been careful not to be seen to oppose the legislation outright given the unhelpful optics around this. However, many individual landlords are concerned that the balance has tipped too far away from them, potentially leaving many unable to take back possession of their properties in reasonable circumstances. Court backlogs have provided an additional layer of concern, with delays in processing evictions claims already persisting in many parts of England, and many landlords calling for significant improvements in order to allay their concerns.

Some industry leaders such as Propertymark and the National Residential Landlords Association have warned that the proposed provisions could lead to landlords withdrawing from the sector, in turn limiting supply and driving up rents. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s own impact assessment does not predict an exodus of landlords from the sector. Indeed, landlords have been subject to a raft of regulatory and tax changes since 2015, but these have not resulted in significant divestment from the private rental market, which many had predicted at the time. There is no question that these reforms are significant, but the longer-term impact of them may not be seen for many years to come.

Leasehold Reform

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA 2024) was passed by the previous Conservative government to strengthen leaseholders’ rights. However, its implementation has become the responsibility of the Starmer government as many of the reforms within the act require secondary legislation before they come into effect. This is a significant task given the high number and complexity of the provisions within the act.

In March 2025, the government implemented measures set out in LAFRA 2024 strengthening Right to Manage (RTM) provisions. Prior to March, landlords had been able to recover the costs of dealing with the RTM claim from the RTM company at the end of the process. Now, in a non-contentious claim, the landlord cannot recover any of its costs from the RTM company or the participating leaseholders.

The government is also consulting on the charges leaseholders – and homeowners on freehold estates – pay and the services they receive. One of the most significant challenges for leaseholders under the previous system was the inconsistent format of service charge demands. Once implemented, the new format will require landlords and managing agents to ensure that all demands on leaseholders are consistent, clear, and easy to understand. Any deviation from this prescribed format will render non-payment or late payment provisions in the lease unenforceable, providing a powerful incentive for landlords to comply.

While measures in the LAFRA 2024 will reduce excessive fees for leaseholders, many leaseholders may not fully understand their new rights under the reforms given the complexity of the act. Property agents will need to stay up-to-date with the regulations to guide tenants effectively, especially when it comes to disputes or questions about lease terms. Agents who manage leasehold properties will also need to maintain clear communication with freeholders, ensuring that lease terms comply with the new rules.

Despite the work already undertaken, the government intends to introduce further reforms. The Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, has long favoured moving away from the leasehold system. As a result, the government has proposed a Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill, which will be introduced to parliament before the end of 2025. The bill would aim to make commonhold the default tenure for new flats and allow individual properties within a building or larger development to be owned on a freehold basis.

High quality property managing agents are likely to benefit from the proposed measures. Pennycook has made it clear that agents already play a key role in managing multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase with the proposed commonhold reforms.

Under the proposed model, agents would be employed by commonhold associations to assist in the day-to-day management of a building, and it is anticipated that almost all new commonhold developments, especially larger or more complex buildings, will be established with a managing agent to help run the site on their behalf. This could drive demand for agents with a strong track record of block management. The government is also considering whether it should be mandatory for a managing agent with appropriate expertise to look after high-risk buildings. Furthermore, the government is consulting on proposals for mandatory qualifications for agents and is highly likely to include measures regulating training and standards for agents in the proposed commonhold bill.

So far, the government made significant progress in enacting its leasehold reform agenda. Despite legal challenges to LAFRA 2024 and opposition from landlords to reforms, Matthew Pennycook and Angela Rayner seem determined to press ahead. Therefore, we can expect major changes to leasehold, commonhold and freehold regulation over the course of this parliament that will present new obstacles and opportunities for the housing sector.

Lighting a path to a smoke-free future: the government’s plans to end smoking in the UK

Smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in the UK, with over 200,000 smoking-related deaths each year. With the Tobacco and Vapes Bill currently undergoing its legislative stages in Parliament, carving a clear direction of travel for the future of smoking in the UK, businesses have a unique opportunity to align with the government’s public health ambitions and unlock a wealth of new opportunities as part of the national push to reduce smoking rates.

The landmark bill aims introduce a smoke-free generation by banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009, meaning affected individuals will never be legally able to purchase a cigarette. While some argue that this is a ‘nanny state’ intrusion into personal freedoms, the main provisions of the bill have long been discussed and were first trailed by the previous Conservative government. There is therefore a consensus across parliament that this is a necessary measure which will deliver long-term benefits to the general public and a struggling public health system.

The rise in demand for healthier lifestyles and the growing number of people looking to quit smoking present significant opportunities for businesses in the health and wellness sector. Companies offering smoking cessation products like nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), or even digital health apps designed to support quitting, stand to benefit from growing demand for their services. Moreover, businesses that create products that promote overall wellbeing, such as fitness equipment, health supplements or stress-management tools can provide an alternative for individuals who are trying to improve their health after quitting smoking.

Furthermore, with employee wellbeing being a key focus for this government across a number of fronts, including the Employment Rights Bill, incorporating smoking cessation support into corporate health programmes is essential. Offering incentives for employees to quit smoking or providing access to cessation resources can help improve workplace health, increase productivity and reduce absenteeism due to smoking-related illness. Companies that invest in these types of employee-focused health programmes also benefit from a healthier, more engaged workforce.

It was confirmed in December 2024 that the government is investing an additional £70 million in 2025-26 to support local authority-led smoking cessation services. Given this investment, there is an increasing demand for qualified professionals and organisations that can offer expert advice, counselling and support for individuals attempting to quit smoking. Healthcare providers, private clinics or digital health platforms focused on smoking cessation are well placed to position themselves as a partner to government and highlight how initiatives can be rolled out and improved as ministers progress with their smoke-free ambitions.

To support the public understanding of new legislation, those who can offer both creative campaigns and innovative products aimed at raising awareness about the dangers of smoking, or promoting the benefits of quitting should focus on engaging with integrated care boards (ICBs) as they look to manage local service and improve outcomes. A 2023 report from Action on Smoking and Health found that tobacco control was perceived to be an above average or high priority in 14 of the 29 surveyed ICBs, underlining the necessity of appropriately resourcing ‘stop smoking’ services.

The passage of this legislation is not just a step toward improving public health – it is also a catalyst for innovation and business growth. Companies that can align with these objectives, whether by providing smoking cessation products, supporting corporate health programmes or developing creative campaigns have an opportunity to thrive in an increasingly health-conscious market. Given the government’s overall focus on prevention in its healthcare agenda, it is vital that businesses engage with the Department of Health and Social Care, ICBs, NHS trusts and other stakeholders to provide expertise on the rollout and efficacy of anti-smoking campaigns that will form a crucial part of this government’s potentially transformative approach to public health.