This policy paper will consider the public duties and social responsibilities of UK shareholder-owned deposit taking banks. Because they leverage their equity using deposits to make loans and to purchase other risky assets, banks have a fiduciary duty to depositors as well as shareholders. To the extent that they are large or complex enough to enjoy insurance from taxpayers above and beyond that paid for through the UK deposit insurance scheme, they also have public duties and social responsibilities. It is unreasonable to expect depositors to choose the safest banks because they are at an information disadvantage and generally lack the level of financial literacy required. Further, it is wasteful for each of them to spend the time necessary for the task. For the public good, specialists should monitor the riskiness of banks in order to ensure that deposits are safe. Confidence in banks is an archetypical ‘Public Good’ in the sense that consumption by some does not preclude consumption by all. Households access to the payments system needs to be assured through the provision of ‘basic’ (nor credit providing) bank accounts in a modern society and banks should have a duty to provide access as a result of a ‘universal service obligation’ because the payments system is infrastructural and access to Direct Debits reduces payment costs. The retail products and services provided by banks and the payments system should thus be regulated as a utility, especially in light of the increasing complexity of mortgage and pension products inter alia. Access to credit to facilitate the smoothing of consumption in the face of irregular income and over the life cycle might also be considered to be a right of a modern citizen. Access to credit to foster entrepreneurial activity might also be considered to be a right, and beneficial to the economy. A balance needs to be struck between the rights and responsibilities of borrowers and the responsibilities of lenders, and bankruptcy laws set accordingly. In recent years the big UK banks have abused their market power by using excessive charging of some customers to cross-subsidise others, in the name of ‘free banking’, and have closed ‘unprofitable’ branches. It is time to assure that all retail banking customers are ‘treated fairly’, that charges for services reflect usage, and the costs of providing them, and that depositors earn a ‘market related’ return on their savings. Following a broad ranging review of UK retail banking, a ‘utility’ regulator should be established to assure appropriate access to finance and to regulate retail banking products and service provision.