Source · Select Committees · Treasury Committee

First Report - Future of financial services regulation

Treasury Committee HC 141 Published 16 June 2022
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
25 items (4 recs)

No response data available yet.

Filter by:

Recommendations

4 results
7

There is a clear view from the financial services sector that co-operation between regulators is...

Recommendation
There is a clear view from the financial services sector that co-operation between regulators is more significant than trade deals for ensuring reciprocal market access for financial services. While trade deals can open up new markets for financial services, the … Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
8
Para 72

We recommend that there should be a secondary objective for both the Financial Conduct Authority...

Recommendation
We recommend that there should be a secondary objective for both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to promote long-term economic growth. The wording will be crucial: pursuing international competitiveness in the short term is unlikely to … Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
12
Para 90

The FCA should make every effort to ensure that it is not designing or implementing...

Recommendation
The FCA should make every effort to ensure that it is not designing or implementing regulation in a way which could unreasonably limit the provision of financial services to consumers who might benefit from them. When placing new requirements on … Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →
14
Para 96

The Treasury and regulators should publish a forward-looking schedule of approximately when they expect each...

Recommendation
The Treasury and regulators should publish a forward-looking schedule of approximately when they expect each EU financial regulatory file to move across to the regulatory rulebooks, including timelines for consultation, and when they expect the overall project to conclude. This … Read more
HM Treasury
View Details →

Conclusions (21)

Observations and findings
1 Conclusion
Para 20
The EU has reasons to be very prescriptive when setting its financial services rules: it must ensure that all member states are acting together and implementing the same rules consistently across multiple national legal systems. The UK, now that it is outside the EU Single Market, can operate with greater …
View Details →
2 Conclusion
Para 21
Given that the UK has historically exercised significant influence in the framing of EU regulations, the UK’s exit from the European Union should not in itself be the cause of instant or dramatic changes to financial services regulation in the UK. Nevertheless, there will be opportunities to tailor inherited EU …
View Details →
3 Conclusion
Para 22
The Treasury should respect the principle of regulatory independence, and must not pressure the regulators to weaken or water down regulatory standards, or to accept changes to the regulatory framework which could impede the regulators’ ability to achieve their primary objectives. The regulators have been made operationally independent for a …
View Details →
4 Conclusion
Para 23
We will remain alert for any evidence that regulators are coming under undue pressure from the Treasury to inappropriately weaken regulatory standards.
View Details →
5 Conclusion
Para 30
Deregulation or simplification will in themselves impose costs on industry in the short term. Regulators should make every effort to limit the costs of compliance with the rules, for example by communicating planned changes in advance, grouping sets of changes together, and minimising the frequency of changes to those where …
View Details →
6 Conclusion
The UK’s exit from the European Union has had an impact on the UK’s ability to export financial services to the EU. However, it remains the case that the UK still has many competitive strengths as a global financial services centre. Brexit has served as a catalyst for a renewed …
View Details →
9 Conclusion
Para 73
In designing the new secondary objective, there should also be some consideration for the ways in which financial services serve the ‘real economy’. The financial services industry can help deliver economic growth not simply by growing itself but also by facilitating economic growth by providing capital, credit, insurance and other …
View Details →
10 Conclusion
Para 74
The Treasury should continue to reject any calls for a growth and/or competitiveness objective to become a primary objective. This would increase any pressure on regulators to trade off competitiveness against resilience, and would undermine the regulators’ ability to deliver on their core functions. There is a danger that as …
View Details →
11 Conclusion
Para 89
The regulations made by the FCA, and the manner in which it supervises and enforces those regulations, could have a significant impact on financial inclusion. However a primary role of the FCA should not be to carry out social policy, or to fill the gaps where it is Government that …
View Details →
13 Conclusion
We welcome the clearer acknowledgement that the FCA is working to support financial inclusion, and we would urge the FCA to continue to do so. The FCA should provide an annual report to Parliament on the state of financial inclusion in the UK and the Treasury should consider putting this …
View Details →
15 Conclusion
Para 100
Regulatory independence is critical for the competitiveness and effectiveness of UK financial services regulation. The host of new accountability mechanisms proposed by the Treasury must be carefully reviewed in this light, to ensure that regulatory independence is not compromised. These mechanisms largely seem reasonable as individual changes, but there is …
View Details →
16 Conclusion
Para 105
The Treasury should be sparing in its use of the proposed power to require regulators to review their rules, and should not use it to implicitly require the regulators to consider a general ‘public interest’ requirement for rulemaking. Each use of this power is a potential weakening of the independence …
View Details →
17 Conclusion
Para 106
The Treasury has not set out the expected impact of this new power on regulatory resources. In order to avoid imposing a significant burden on regulatory resources to conduct these reviews, and to safeguard regulatory independence, the Treasury should fund these reviews itself, whether they are conducted by regulators themselves …
View Details →
18 Conclusion
We expect the regulators to prioritise changes where the cost for consumers is lowest in comparison to the benefit. Regulators’ approaches to assessing the marginal impact of new policies is already well-developed. We therefore believe that the creation of a new statutory panel to advise regulators on cost-benefit analysis—in addition …
View Details →
19 Conclusion
Para 119
The information the FCA has made available on how it is performing against its service standards shows a deteriorating picture. The FCA has a reputation for being too slow in its authorisation work, and this will inevitably hold back British fintech companies and crypto firms as well as larger firms. …
View Details →
20 Conclusion
The FCA should consider how to improve its engagement with the poorest consumers, including seeking opportunities to improve the availability of data about people who are on the lowest incomes. The FCA must seek data on the issues vulnerable consumers experience directly. Civil society groups and other researchers can provide …
View Details →
21 Conclusion
Para 136
We will conduct scrutiny of the Prudential Regulation Authority’s ‘Strong and Simple Framework’ proposals. We will examine the impacts of the proposed reforms on the safety and soundness of smaller firms, and whether the reforms would successfully reduce the burden of regulation for these firms.
View Details →
22 Conclusion
Para 147
In their review of Solvency II, the Treasury and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) should aim to secure a robust insurance regulatory regime that adequately captures risk and incentivises investment in infrastructure and business, but one that is also appropriately tailored to the UK market.
View Details →
23 Conclusion
Para 154
The Prudential Regulation Authority should consider where there is more that can be done to reduce the advantages from which large banks and insurers benefit through modelling their own capital requirements. The purpose of doing so would be not only to strengthen competition by reducing the barriers faced by smaller …
View Details →
24 Conclusion
Para 160
The FCA should investigate whether there are more opportunities to enable larger firms to undertake controlled, supervised experiments with innovative products. For example, it may be desirable to allow firms to be more experimental with the designs of new products, by setting aside additional capital in order to compensate consumers …
View Details →
25 Conclusion
There is a range of innovations taking place in payments systems and with alternative means of exchange, including crypto-assets, stablecoins, and central bank digital currencies. These innovations could provide opportunities to address weaknesses in international payments systems and potentially to serve consumer needs, and in the case of central bank …
View Details →