The final approval of the rescue package means the country now has enough money to pay its debts – at least in the short term – and is no longer at risk of defaulting when the next big installment falls due next month.

The package includes a further injection of £110 billion to the cash-strapped nation, which will help to prop up the economy and prevent the country from total collapse.

However, the solution was far from easy to reach as leaders were poles apart on key topics such as control over the budget, austerity measures and targets. And there still remains a significant disparity amongst ministers, with some sceptical of the longevity of the package.

Greece has already been handed £91 billion in a previous rescue package but that hasn’t been enough to steer the nation out of financial trouble. Some experts have warned that the latest bailout deal is simply a way of throwing more money away and that the fundamental underlying issues have not been solved.

Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor, is one of those critics and he explained to BBC Radio 4 why he doubts the debt problem will go away for good. Mr Darling said that Greece is currently running at a debt level which is equivalent to 160% of their GDP. They have agreed to reduce this to 121% over the next 8 years, a target which Mr Darling says is unattainable, especially given their track record. He also said that he remained unconvinced that they had any policies which would stimulate growth whilst sticking to the spending cuts and without any significant expansion in the economy, Mr Darling said there would be insufficient income generated to reduce both the borrowing and debt.

The ex-Chancellor described the deal as a ‘ridiculous treaty’ and said that the situation was ‘highly unsatisfactory.’ He also predicted that ‘Greece will be back at the table’ with a strong chance that other countries may also be forced to ask for help because of the knock-on effects. Nevertheless, despite his scathing comments, Mr Darling also admitted that there was no other option and the deal ‘had to be done.’

The Netherlands had previously been wary about plunging back in to provide aid for Greece and had reportedly been keen to consider allowing them to simply leave the eurozone. The finance minister for the country, Jan Kees de Jager, led calls for a permanent monitor to be based in Greece, to ensure compliance with the plan and to allow the eurozone to keep a tighter rein on the debt-addled nation’s finances. However, this proved to be one of the more contentious issues, with Greece unwilling to hand over that much control to external parties.

In return for receiving the latest handout of £110 billion, plus a further £80 billion in written off debts from the private sector, Greece must stick to a number of pledges which will shave £270 million from their 2012 budget. The country has elections coming up shortly and all sides have promised that if they are voted into parliament, they will not seek to reverse the austerity package which has been put in place.

The current Chancellor, George Osborne, said that the deal would give Greece ‘a sustainable debt position.’ He acknowledged that the targets would be challenging for the country to meet but said there was no other option which would allow all sides to move forward.

A survey by parenting group, Netmums, has shown that as many as seven out of ten families are on the brink of debt with some mothers opting not to eat to be able to put food on their children’s plates.

Netmums polled more than 2,000 mums about the state of their finances and questioned them about the effects of the financial freeze. The results painted a picture of many households struggling to survive and increasingly turning to credit to pay for everyday essentials.

With the rising cost of living, many families are unable to manage on the income that is available and have had to resort to doorstep lenders and even loan sharks in some cases. One in twenty households regularly takes out payday loans and one in 100 uses the services of loan sharks. Around one in four uses credit cards to pay their bills.

Nearly two out of three mothers interviewed said there was less money coming into the household compared to the same time last year and a similar number said they did not have enough money every week. Two in five households need a further £20 to survive the week whereas one in three need £50. One in ten mums said they would need an additional £100 to make it through without falling short.

Around one in three said they regularly borrowed from family and friends, whilst 5% said they had taken out a loan with the bank just to be able to pay for everyday expenses. One in two families had managed to scrape together extra money to live by either selling or pawning personal possessions. Fifteen per cent said they had been able to find a new job to earn extra cash.

More than three quarters of mums said they were having to compromise by buying cheaper food for their children. Even more worryingly, one in five admitted they were regularly going without their own meals to be able to afford to put food on the table for their children.

However, the financial strain has taken its toll, with nearly one in six suffering from stress-related illness due to money problems. Of those asked, 8% were taking anti-depressants and 1% had been referred for counselling. More than one in three also confessed that their relationship was suffering because of the financial strain.

Around one in six said they were becoming ‘desperate’ as their debts spiralled out of their control whilst one in three said they felt ‘suicidal’ and could not cope.

Opinion was split about whether enough was being done to help those suffering from debt problems, with 53% agreeing that the ‘government is doing its best in a tough climate.’ However, marginally less – 47% – said they felt ‘abandoned’ by those in power when they needed help the most.

The founder of Netmums, Sally Russell, described the results as ‘shocking’ and said that no mother should have to stop eating in order to feed her child. She warned that there was a risk of the problem turning into a ‘catastrophe for the nation’ if urgent help wasn’t provided.

A spokesperson for the Department of Work and Pensions promised that the planned reforms would have a ‘dynamic effect’ and would help to ‘lift over one million people out of poverty.’ They added that they were working with credit unions to expand the services to try and prevent the need for desperate individuals to turn to the services of illegal loan sharks.

However, in more affluent areas where unemployment is lower and recruitment is more common, there are as few as one candidate for each role.

The figures were produced by online job search site Adzuna, which commissioned a study into unemployment around the country.

The results showed that Aberdeen was the place in the UK where it is easiest to get employment with just one candidate per advertised position. At the pole opposite lies Hull, where there are 80 people competing for each vacant job. Of the employment which becomes available in Hull, a third lies within the healthcare sector, according to analysts.

Stoke-on-Trent was not much better off than Hull with 73 candidates for each position, whilst Sunderland, Southend and the Wirral had 53, 44 and 40 respectively. Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Reading and London all had less than two candidates for every role.

The study also looked at the demand and competition within different sectors and found that computing, engineering and sales and marketing came out the strongest, with the largest number of jobs nationwide. In London, the focus switched to secretaries and estate agents which were the two positions for which candidates were most regularly sought.

A spokesman for Adzuna, Andrew Hunter, said ministers should ‘take note’ of the results of the study and ensure that jobs were created in the right regions, as well as providing the necessary training and skills for the trades in demand.

In other employment news, a misunderstanding over a Tesco recruitment advert has escalated into a full blown row, with protests expected to take place outside the store this week.

The issue arose after an advert was spotted for a night shift worker for the supermarket giant which offered no salary, simply expenses and continuation of their Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Tesco has since changed the advert claiming the original wording was simply a misunderstanding but protesters have claimed that the store is trying to replace full-time workers with unpaid volunteers from a government scheme.

The problem arose as the position was being offered as part of the ‘workfare scheme,’ the new initiative created by the government to help those on benefits long term to get used to being back in employment. Those taking part do not receive a salary, the reward is that they get to keep their Jobseeker’s Allowance, rather than being stripped of their benefit payments.

Tesco says the confusion was due to ‘an IT error caused by JobCentre Plus’ and should have explained that it was simply a work experience placement which offered a guaranteed job interview after it concluded.

However, protesters have said that the scheme is a cover for unpaid labour and that out of 1,400 placements only 300 went on to work for Tesco on a paid basis.

Tesco released a statement confirming that it has been part of the JobCentre Plus scheme for ‘many months’ and has been repeatedly assured that all the young people attending a work placement have done so voluntarily to try and gain valuable experience. The supermarket said it was not in favour of the threat of benefits being stripped if individuals did not attend and insisted that it had made those views clear to the DWP.

Chris Grayling, the Minister for Employment, said that Tesco and other companies which had agreed to join the scheme had resulted in ‘literally thousands of young people’ being able to find employment for the first time.

For advice on managing debts before you fall behind on bills, speak to Direct Debt Solutions.

The news comes just as the big six energy companies are about to announce their annual profits, which are expected to be around £15 billion.

According to official statistics, in 2006/2007 just 950 people were treated for hypothermia in hospital but by 2010/2011 this number had jumped to 1876. And the number of deaths that occurred within 30 days of admission nearly doubled, rising from 125 to 260. Three out of four of the patients were OAPs, with the over-60s the group most affected by the plunging temperatures.

Five years ago, there were 633 hospital admissions for hypothermia among the over-60s, a figure which shot up to 1396 during 2010/2011, a 120% increase. The number of adults aged between 15 and 59 saw a 54% rise, while children aged 14 or under suffering from hypothermia increased by 22%. The statistics from the NHS do not provide a breakdown of the deaths, but nearly one in five die within 30 days of being admitted, while a further 6% die between 30 and 90 days after being taken into hospital.

The rise in hypothermia admissions and deaths coincides with a marked rise in energy costs, with the price of gas rising by an astronomical 40% in the last five years, a level of increase that many on low incomes, such as pensioners, simply couldn’t keep up with.

In many households across the UK, the cost of heating means that a stark choice has to be made between buying food or keeping warm, an awful dilemma that is becoming known as ‘heat or eat’. Some analysts have estimated that fuel costs are so high that as many as eight out of ten households are having to ration their use of energy.

Research carried out by Age UK in January revealed that one in two pensioners were either switching off or reducing their heating in order to save money, even when they were very cold. An increasing number of OAPs are also having to resort to more extreme measures, such as only heating one room in the house and not inhabiting any others or simply staying in bed to keep warm.

A separate study from Age UK also estimated that close to three million pensioners are currently struggling to survive while in fuel poverty and of this figure, 1.2 million are living on their own. This total figure has trebled in less than ten years and now represents one in four of all OAPs.

A representative from Age UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the situation as ‘deeply shocking’ and called upon the government to do more to protect vulnerable groups such as the elderly.

The government pays out an additional amount for heating if the temperature falls below a specified level, but campaign groups have pointed to the increase in the number of hospital admissions as proof that the extra money is nowhere near enough to keep vulnerable groups warm in their homes.

In the meantime, the big six energy companies in the UK will be announcing their profits in the coming few weeks, with the total expected to reach £15 billion. Ofgem, the regulator of the industry, says that the average profit per customer reached £100 in January, but will reduce to £70 in the warmer months.

The National Pensioners Conventions said the profits generated by energy firms were ‘scandalous’ and called for urgent action for the ‘most vulnerable individuals’ to receive better protection.

Are you falling behind on bills? Find out about debt help available to you.

The firm in question, Cash Lady, is a payday broker which quotes interest rates of 1737% APR and has sent out scores of emails to customers, offering up to £300 to make this February 14th ‘one to remember.’

Cash Lady is a broker, not a lender and is responsible for providing quotes for customers . It is owned by PDB UK and features brands such as KwikPayday, PaydayDirect and SameDayPayDayLoans.

The email sent out to potential customers from Cash Lady urges individuals to take out loans of up to £300 in order to create a memorable Valentine’s Day, promising to provide a ‘fast cash boost.’

Payday loans are designed as short term finance options for individuals struggling to make their money last until their next pay day. Firms have come under fire for failing to carry out comprehensive credit checks and for providing money to individuals who cannot afford to repay it, creating an increasing spiral of debt.

Una Farrell, a representative from the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, slammed the practice of ‘enticing’ individuals into taking out ‘incredibly expensive loans.’ Ms Farrell described the ‘debt hole’ that the advert was pulling consumers towards and insisted that no individual would want their loved one to rack up ‘expensive credit’ just to pamper them on February 14th.

Stella Creasey, Labour MP, an anti-debt campaigner who has been lobbying the government to introduce new measures to police the payday lending industry, said it was a further example of payday firms putting consumers under ‘relentless pressure.’ Describing it as ‘emotional blackmail,’ Ms Creasey said consumers’ interests were being exploited for financial gain.

However, the payday broker at the centre of the row insisted that it does not target vulnerable individuals and that it was perfectly entitled to suggest a payday loan for Valentine’s Day. A spokesman for the firm said that splashing out on treats for loved ones was an ‘appropriate use’ of the money, for those who either hadn’t got any money or others who just wanted to ‘spend a little more.’

PDB UK admitted that it had recently made ‘responsible lending more of a focus,’ but added that it always operates in line with the Consumer Credit Act.

However, PDB UK was not the only business in the payday lending industry that was under the spotlight, as a separate lender has been criticised for preying on owners who have ill pets.

Petloan.co.uk charges £58 in interest for borrowing £200 over 30 days, the equivalent of 2120% APR. If the pet owner cannot afford to repay the loan after 30 days, further charges and interest are added, meaning many more vulnerable individuals could end up trapped in a circle of debt.

Ms Creasey said that attempting to reach out to those who were struggling to pay their vet bill was ‘cynical,’ describing the move as ‘exploiting an emergency.’

The managing director of Petloan claimed that the firm is offering a viable alternative to pets that are ‘abandoned or killed,’ claiming that insurers often fail to pay up in time.

However, experts have suggested that consumers should not feel they have to resort to borrowing money from payday loans, a move which could end up in debt management. Ms Creasey suggested that those who need to access cash could contact their local credit union, whilst other experts recommend putting a small amount of money away on a regular basis, to create an emergency fund.

So far Greece and the rest of the EU have been at loggerheads about how to proceed and so far the debt-stricken country has not received the next instalment of its rescue deal, with Eurozone finance ministers threatening to withhold it completely, unless Greece complies.

Representatives from the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, met with the Prime Minister of Greece, Lucas Papademos, earlier this week to thrash out a deal which would be acceptable to all sides. However, Mr Papademos now faces the unenviable task of getting his fellow ministers to agree to the package of austerity measures that the rest of the eurozone have insisted are essential.

With the economic problems having rattled on in Greece for some time, members of the public are fed-up with cutbacks and have claimed that much of the money in the past has lined politicians’ pockets. Many are therefore unhappy with the prospect of further austerity measures.

Earlier this week one of the biggest unions in the country held a one-day strike which culminated in the German flag being set alight. Germany are widely viewed as the main country driving the toughest measures in the package.

The content of the measures being put before Greek ministers has not yet been made public but it is believed to focus on cutting around 3.2 billion euros from their budget. This would be achieved by firing around 15,000 public sector workers, dropping the minimum wage by 22%, to 600 euros a month and cutting both basic and supplementary pension payments. Healthcare would also be slashed by 1.1 billion euros.

At the same time as negotiating targets with eurozone ministers, the Greek Prime Minister also has to get the private sector to write off some of their debt. As part of the bailout, private creditors are being asked to forget about approximately 70% of the money that the Greek government owes to them.

Despite the lack of bargaining power Greece would appear to have, some politicians in the country are still reluctant to agree to the cuts proposed. The situation is also being compounded by the fact there is an election looming in April and some ministers are deliberately digging in their heels in a bid to win more votes.

But the deadline to agree a deal is rapidly approaching with Greece due to pay a large debt instalment next month and currently without the means to do so. Experts suggest that the last date a deal could be finalised in order to avert a default is February 15, with the payment due on March 20.

However, outside Greece the mood is slowly changing amongst some leaders who are tired of being asked to bail out a country repeatedly, which is refusing to bear more of the pain itself. When the crisis first broke, eurozone ministers were horrified at the prospect of Greece leaving the single currency, with many feeling the future of the euro could be put in jeopardy by such a move.

However, countries such as The Netherlands are slowly becoming more blasé about the possibility. The Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, is quoted as saying it would now be less risky if Greece were to leave than before, whilst Neelie Kroes from the European Commission told a newspaper from The Netherlands, that one country leaving would not constitute a disaster. Mrs Kroes added that countries could not keep bailing out Greece without ‘evidence of good will.’

The rising energy costs have prompted many customers to review their suppliers for the first time in a while and has led to many opting to change to a cheaper provider.

This competition means that the so-called Big Six have to do something to stop the constant drip of customers leaving, so they have dreamt up the idea to simply hand out cash to cash-strapped consumers who simply switch to them.

According to uswitch.com, around 35,500 households found a new supplier in the first month of 2012, with more people than ever before opting to leave a larger company for the cost benefits to be found by joining a smaller firm. This number of customers leaving the bigger firms represents a tenfold increase compared to just four months ago.

British Gas is still the biggest supplier of domestic energy across the UK and has 15.9 million households on its books. However, even a company of this size is concerned about losing customers who are looking for ways to save money and has offered a great deal for anyone who returns. British Gas has confirmed that any customers who leave for another supplier but opt to return could qualify for £125 of free energy, if they rejoin the company and stay for a minimum of 12 months. British Gas have said that this would be provided by giving a discount off the bill, rather than a cash refund.

Npower is also believed to be working on a similar package which would reward customers who returned after switching to another supplier.

But whilst the move will be welcomed by consumers trying to eke the last penny out of the pound, campaigners have questioned how the energy firms can afford to simply ‘give away’ this level of profit.

Energy prices have been hiked up significantly right across the board this winter, with firms pointing to the rise in wholesale prices as the reason for the increase. However, ministers have asked the firms to explain how they have budgeted for giving away free fuel when they have said their profits are so thin. Incentives such as that offered by British Gas are estimated by experts as running into millions of pounds.

The MP for East Lothian, Fiona O’Donnell,said that the energy freebies ‘raised questions’ over whether the firms had been truthful about how much profit they were really making. The minister for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Tom Greatrex, said the giveaway showed that energy firms were engaging in ‘predatory pricing,’ a practice they have been quick to deny in the past.

A spokesperson for British Gas said that incentives were commonplace in the energy market and offering money, or moneyback, was ‘not unusual’ amongst the big names in the sector. However, the spokesperson added that customers would not automatically qualify for the £125 and that British Gas was providing a range of offers which were ‘time limited,’ as a ploy purely to attract new business.

Other than British Gas and nPower, none of the other big firms was willing to admit they have been considering lowering their prices or giving customers freebies for reverting back to them from a rival.

Scottish and Southern Energy has admitted that its profits are exceedingly healthy and has promised to drop the rates for domestic customers, but not for two months. After lifting its prices by 18% in September, it is now promising customers around a quarter of the money back with a drop of 4.5%, providing they are still with them by March and don’t switch.

Are you behind on bills? Need help overcoming debts? Speak to Direct Debt Solutions.

Around 44,000 fewer applications were submitted to universities, a drop of nearly 9%, as tuition fees are set to sharply spike.

The huge increases in tuition fees were expected to deter some students from entering further education and the drop seen by the mid-January deadline would seem to confirm the predictions.

England has seen the largest decline, where students could face tuition fees of up to £9,000, compared to this year’s charges of just £3,275. The average net cost of fees is expected to be in the region of £8,000. Mature students and those from middle class backgrounds were the two groups where numbers were affected the most.

Whilst there had been much speculation that poorer students would be those disadvantaged the most by the hike in fees, the evidence points to students from the top 20% most affluent postcodes as being the ones the most reluctant to apply. A possible explanation for the drop is that students from well off families will not qualify for grants or subsidies, unlike those from poorer households.

Universities at the top end of the scale, such as the elite Russell Group institutions, saw far more marked drops, whilst cheaper universities saw their popularity soar. Manchester experienced a 10% fall in applications, whilst Warwick fell by 10.1%, Kings College 10.7% and Liverpool a whopping 11%. Private universities have been promoted by ministers as an alternative route for further education and frequently offer a less expensive route to gaining a degree. BPP University College, which holds its own degree awarding capabilities, saw its applicants leap by 139%, whilst the University of Birmingham, the largest private UK university, recorded a twofold jump in demand.

Despite the tumble in applicants, University UK insisted the fall in numbers was ‘far less dramatic’ than forecasters had predicted. This view was echoed by the Universities Minister, David Willetts, who said the number applying in 2012 was still higher than two years ago.

However, Labour was quick to point out that the drop had been predicted when the rise in tuition fees was announced and said that the fear of amassing huge debts was stopping individuals from being able to ‘invest in their future.’

According to official statistics, the total number of applications fell by 7.4% but a large chunk of the numbers were made up from overseas students. Amongst British applicants alone, the numbers rose to 8.7%, a drop of 43,881 applications.

There were also regional differences across the country, with England the worst off of the four nations. England has the highest level of fees and, as a result, suffered a 9.9% fall in applicants, whereas at the opposite end of the scale, Scotland, which offers free tuition, only experienced a decline of 1.5%. Welsh student applications only fell by marginally more, 1.9%, whereas universities in Northern Ireland recorded a drop of 4%.

The type of subjects applicants showed an interest in also revealed a shift in mindset, with students far more determined to pick subjects which offer a greater chance of getting out of debt more quickly. Subjects such as medicine, a career which could potentially provide a good salary, only fell by 2.5%, whilst business and professional degrees were also down by less than the overall average at 5.2%.

However, humanities, a subject difficult to link to a guaranteed career path and performing arts both plummeted much more sharply than the overall figure, with drops of 14% and 30%.

The traditional 31 January cutoff has been extended by two days because of a mass walkout by HMRC staff but the adverts and warnings are still telling the public that they must file their return by the end of January.

Around 7,000 staff are due to stage a strike in the four call centres on 31 January, which means that the vast majority of individuals who telephone for last minute advice or information will be unable to reach an advisor. HMRC has conceded that they will be unable to cope with the expected influx of calls on a skeleton staff and has agreed to allow individuals a further two days to complete their returns.

The move comes as the taxman gets tough on late returns. For the first time ever, there will be an automatic £100 penalty for a late return, even if no tax is owed. However, the Acting Director General for Personal Tax, Stephen Banyward, said that the aim was always to maximise the number of returns and not simply to slap penalties on individuals wherever possible. He added that it was important that no taxpayers were ‘disadvantaged’ by the actions of striking staff, which was why the extension had been offered.

The industrial action has been scheduled as a result of a year long disagreement with HMRC over the practice of using private companies to answer telephone calls in a pilot, a move which opponents say is inappropriate given the number of public sector jobs at risk. Only around one in five staff is expected to arrive for work on 31 January, making the call centres almost impossible to operate.

The government said they were ‘pleased’ the HMRC had taken what they described as a ‘common sense approach’ and agreed not to penalise individuals for delays not of their own making. Around 90,000 callers telephoned HMRC on 31 January 2011 and a similar volume is expected in the coming days. Those who were unable to reach HMRC for much-needed advice on 31 January had previously been expected to be told they would have to plead for clemency by writing to their local tax office.

But despite the confirmation from HMRC that taxpayers had an extra two days to file their returns, advertisements on both TV and the radio were informing the public that the deadline was 31 January, a message which left some consumers confused.

A spokesman for HMRC said that they could not afford to have all of the advertising re-done and that it would also not get a refund if it pulled them early. They added that the taxman had been in touch with ‘hundreds’ of different media sources, both locally and nationally and HMRC staff had been briefed to let all callers know about the extension.

The deadline has been extended for all taxpayers needing to submit their return and not just those with queries they need to resolve with HMRC. The new cutoff means that any individuals filing their return on either the 1 or 2 February will escape charges or additional interest.

Despite the explanation from the HMRC spokesperson, top accountancy firm, Grant Thornton, said they were ‘surprised’ that the adverts with the old information were still being allowed to run. Mike Warburton from the group said that there was a danger that consumers could become ‘confused’ as the advertisements seemed to be contradicting the fact that the deadline had been extended.

Behind on bills and need help dealing with debt? Speak to Direct Debt Solutions.

If the new proposals get the necessary backing from ministers it will mean that not only will existing firms face much closer monitoring, but new providers will also find it much harder to launch into the market.

Payday lenders have come under fire recently, with some consumer groups blaming them for taking advantage of vulnerable groups and suggesting that their charging structure allows debts to rapidly escalate. They have also been accused of not carrying out proper checks to make sure customers can afford the repayments and simply going through the motions before granting credit.

The UK has been deluged with payday lenders after restrictions across the Atlantic in the US were tightened, making it more difficult for firms to provide payday lending services. The economic difficulties and cautious lending approach adopted by many banks has also driven many customers into the arms of payday lenders, as they have been unable to get finance agreed elsewhere.

However, the government has revealed that the new financial regulator will taking a much tougher stance with payday lenders, with firms being forced to explain their conduct and those found guilty of mistreating customers potentially facing an unlimited fine.

At present, payday lenders are subject to review by the Office of Fair Trading, which has responsibility for the whole consumer credit market. Any firm deemed to be in breach of regulation can be slapped with a fine up to a limit of £50,000.

The government intends to transfer responsibility for consumer credit from the OFT to the newly established Financial Conduct Authority – one of the bodies being set up to replace the Financial Services Authority. The FCA would have far greater powers than the OFT and would have the freedom to fine firms as they see fit, with no ceiling on the penalties that could potentially be handed out. The new regulator would also be able to pursue action against key individuals within the organisations, if they were believed to be responsible for the firm’s breaches.

The rules currently governing consumer credit are currently much more lax than the government would like and, despite some regulation, firms are partly allowed to self-govern and trusted to behave in a moral manner. The FCA would plan on taking a far more ‘proactive’ stance and would be a much more visible force in the market.

If the switch in powers goes ahead, payday lenders can expect to be subjected to regular assessments and audits, even if no complaints have been made about their conduct. The FCA’s target is to identify firms guilty of treating customers poorly, before anyone actually suffers a loss. New payday lenders would have to provide the regulator with a copy of their business plan, as well as setting out in writing how customers would be treated, neither of which is currently mandatory for firms in the consumer credit industry.

The measures are likely to meet with approval from consumer groups, which have been calling for some time for a firmer hand from the industry regulator. There have also been demands for changes to the law to cap the APR that firms are permitted to charge, but the government has been unwilling to act.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban, described the proposals as ‘good news’ for potential customers and said that the FCA would be granted ‘much stronger powers.’ He said that the regulator would be far more ‘proactive,’ which would help not just consumers using payday lenders, but any kind of credit facility.