Source · Select Committees · Treasury Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Rejected
Paragraph: 36
Treasury's initial actions are preparatory work, not delivered financial services reforms.
Conclusion
While the Treasury has delivered what it set out to do in these six strands of work, namely publishing documents, welcoming a regulatory consultation, and establishing reviews or taskforces, none of these are in of themselves reforms to the UK’s financial services regulations. We do not consider reviews alone to be reforms. They are merely the preparatory work for future potential reforms. We believe the Treasury is incorrect in considering these strands of work as having delivered reforms. Only when the recommendations from these various reviews, taskforces and strategies have been implemented into regulatory rule changes can these be deemed to be financial services reforms that have been delivered.
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's conclusion, asserting that the Edinburgh Reforms are substantial and cannot be delivered faster, emphasizing that regulatory change is a multi-step process involving consultation and that 21 of 31 commitments have already been delivered.
Paragraph Reference:
36
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
I disagree with a number of the Report’s conclusions, some of which appear to be inconsistent. I particularly reject any suggestion that the reforms will not have a substantial impact on the UK economy and the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector, or that the reforms could be responsibly delivered any faster than they are progressing. Since taking up my role as Economic Secretary, I have consistently heard the resounding message from industry that my key priority should be the delivery of these vital reforms. That work is well underway and as the Chancellor confirmed in his letter to you, as of 6 October, 21 of the 31 commitments set out as part of the Edinburgh Reforms have been delivered. Delivering ambitious regulatory change is a multi-step process that requires careful work, including industry consultation. As the committee noted in its Report, reforms to the financial services rules should be evidence-based, taking into consideration views from both industry and wider society. This engagement takes time and must be done correctly.” I strongly agree with this, and as a result, the Treasury is striving to balance the benefits of completing this work at pace, with the need to allow appropriate time for consultation and implementation. Some of the reforms require multiple rounds of industry consultation, ultimately concluding with significant rule changes that will deliver real, tangible benefits to industry.