Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
2
Conclusion
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for…
Not Addressed
The Treasury consultation alluded to certain UK-derived rules that are set out in UK statute, and it suggested that regulators might be constrained as a result. But we found that the regulators did not appear to feel constrained by the existence of any domestic rules being set out in statute. …
Read more
The Treasury consultation alluded to certain UK-derived rules that are set out in UK statute, and it suggested that regulators might be constrained as a result. But we found that the regulators did not appear to feel constrained by the existence of any domestic rules being set out in statute. We therefore conclude that while periodic review of domestically-derived rules to see whether they would fit better in rule books rather than in statute may be necessary, they do not need to be included in the exercise that moves the EU on-shored rules out of statute and into the regulators’ rule books.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government noted the committee's view on EU on-shored law but did not directly address the conclusion regarding whether domestically-derived rules need to be included in the exercise of moving rules out of statute.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for…
Not Addressed
We understand the need for Treasury Ministers to be well informed of the regulators’ policy intentions as a matter of routine. However, we have not been provided with compelling evidence to justify changing the law to allow Ministers the absolute right to see financial services regulators’ policy proposals before they …
Read more
We understand the need for Treasury Ministers to be well informed of the regulators’ policy intentions as a matter of routine. However, we have not been provided with compelling evidence to justify changing the law to allow Ministers the absolute right to see financial services regulators’ policy proposals before they are published for consultation as opposed to the current arrangements whereby significant interaction between Ministers and regulators happens informally as a matter of routine. By doing so, the perception of regulatory independence from government could be damaged. The independence of regulators to be free from political interference is one of the key aspects of UK financial services regulation, and it is, arguably, one of the reasons why the UK is a world-leading financial centre. Regulators must continue to be free to choose what they share with the Treasury in this respect.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the Committee's concerns that its proposals might damage regulatory independence, affirming the importance of independence and the need for balance. However, the response does not explicitly commit to refraining from changing the law as recommended.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for…
Not Addressed
The Treasury has in the past been able to delay policies in the interests of the wider negotiations that took place during the UK’s departure from the EU. This suggests that there is already sufficient and appropriate Treasury oversight of the regulators’ policy proposals without needing to put such a …
Read more
The Treasury has in the past been able to delay policies in the interests of the wider negotiations that took place during the UK’s departure from the EU. This suggests that there is already sufficient and appropriate Treasury oversight of the regulators’ policy proposals without needing to put such a power in law.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the Committee's concerns that its proposals might damage regulatory independence, affirming the importance of independence and the need for balance. However, the response does not explicitly commit to refraining from legislating for increased Treasury power.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
5
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for…
Not Addressed
If the Treasury does wish to give itself the formal power to see policy proposals before they are made public, comments or suggested changes to them using this power should be published alongside the public consultation.
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns about regulatory independence but does not address the specific recommendation to publish the Treasury's comments or suggested changes to policy proposals alongside public consultations.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for…
Not Addressed
Our Committee has been consistent in its regular monitoring of the work of the Financial Conduct Authority and of the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the extent to which they meet the objectives set for them by Parliament, and their responsiveness to consumer expectations. There is a strong logic in aligning the …
Read more
Our Committee has been consistent in its regular monitoring of the work of the Financial Conduct Authority and of the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the extent to which they meet the objectives set for them by Parliament, and their responsiveness to consumer expectations. There is a strong logic in aligning the scrutiny of draft regulations and policy proposals with that of policy implementation and the day-to- day work of the regulators.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Government's response states that the structure for scrutiny is a matter for Parliament, which does not directly address the Committee's conclusion about the logic of aligning scrutiny of regulations and policy implementation.
Read full response →
HM Treasury