It could have been worse. That was the verdict in bank boardrooms when they learned that John Healey was making them pay an extra three per cent surcharge on top of the tax they already pay on their profits. They must hand over 25 per cent of their profits in corporation tax plus an existing three per cent surcharge, which for 15 months, becomes six per cent. So, 31 per cent in total.

That seems like a lot and it is, but the banks were braced for having to cough up even more. That six per cent is still less than the initial surcharge rate of eight per cent imposed by the Conservatives in 2016. It went down to three per cent, now it is creeping up again, but only for a limited period. The move had been well-trailed. Equally, the banks had received reassuring words from Healey. He repeated them in his Budget when he paid tribute to their “world-leading contribution to the country”.

Warm words, accompanied with a sting. The banks, and for them read the City-at-large, were entitled to feel hard done by. Yet again, the financial services industry had been singled out; yet again, the UK and London’s successes, as Healey himself portrayed them, had been made to suffer for that success.

In cost terms, the additional charge will not hurt much. Healey was able to strike because the banks have been making whacking great profits — HSBC this week announced a 32 per cent rise in profits for the three months to September, of £7.14 billion, Barclays last week unveiled a 12 per cent increase in profits for the same period to £2.3bn. These are not annual sums, don’t forget, but quarterly. Higher interest rates and inflation have seen the UK lenders making tonnes of money, hand over fist.

At the same time, the big UK banks have continued to close branches on high streets, relying more and more on technology and detaching themselves from ordinary people. Against that backdrop, one exacerbated by the collective memory of the 2008 crisis, the subsequent long period of austerity and a perceived lack of contrition on the part of the banks, it is little wonder that the Government, encouraged by the trade unions, sees them as fair game. Indeed, it is tempting to speculate whether a Tory administration would have done the same. Given the paucity of suitable targets for public revenue-collecting, it probably would.

One senior banker in particular made a case for their exclusion. Jamie Dimon, boss of JP Morgan and the world’s leading banker, pushed hard on the benefits they bring, the investments they make and attract, the businesses they finance, the jobs they create. Dimon had a card of his own to play, which was the new £3bn tower his company intends to build at Canary Wharf. Mess with us, suggested Dimon, and you risk losing us, and with it a scheme that will boost the UK economy by £10bn.

The danger as well was in the negative signal that would send to the international investment community. Investors would be reluctant to commit their cash to a country where the Government treated their funding as a hole-in-the-wall ATM, to be withdrawn and spent as and when it pleased. There is no doubt Healey listened to Dimon — they spoke and met more than once. Others too, were heard and seen. Ideally, the Chancellor would almost certainly have liked to exclude the foreign banks from the tax increase but practically that would have been difficult, if not impossible.

The UK banks also lobbied. Barclays’ chief, CS Venkatakrishnan, warned that a fresh bank tax would hurt growth and undermine plans to bolster the economy. The industry body, UK Finance, said similar and pointed to other nations not requiring banks to pay such high taxes. The claim was made as well that while times may be advantageous now, that is not always so — bank profits are capable of falling.

In Barclays’ case there was a subtext, which was that a new charge would hit their profits and therefore their stock market value, making them especially vulnerable to takeover. As it was, Barclays shares rose 2.11 per cent on Healey’s news — a sure sign the City felt they had been let off lightly.

To soften the blow, Healey has indicated he is leaning towards a lighter regulatory regime in the City. That is welcome. As was the absence of a concerted drive against the wealthiest folks in society — a step that would be viewed disdainfully by overseas investors. It didn’t happen. That, plus the fact Healey made strenuous efforts to maintain every measure he took was fully funded, explained the muted but positive reaction on the markets as UK gilts and stocks generally rose after his address.

So trebles all round in the City bars, then? Not quite. The extra three per cent, albeit temporary, is evidence of a direction of travel, that Healey, for all his praise, still felt emboldened enough to tax the banks. He’s done it once, in this, his first Budget and he could easily do so again.

Healey comes across as pragmatic and sensible, for which he has his City admirers. Equally, though, there are those behind him on the backbenches and in the wider Labour movement who take a different approach.

The pressure to repeatedly tax the banks has not diminished.

The challenge to the banks and to the City is to make a stronger case, to convince Healey and his colleagues of the good they do. They can raise a welcome glass, but in cautious relief not triumph. They still have work to do.