Select committee: Financial Services Regulation Committee

Conclusion 99

2nd Report - Growing pains: clarity and culture change required - An examination of the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective Published 13 Jun 2025

Financial Services Regulation Committee FCA and PRA’s secondary competitiveness and growth objective All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Conclusion (the committee's words)

Whilst low authorisation rates for these firms may be indicative of regulatory inefficiency, it is important to note that there is also a lack of a dedicated regulatory regime for digital assets, with these firms instead regulated under general MLRs. This concern was echoed by Innovate Finance, which told us that: “On digital assets, use of blockchain and regulation of crypto currency services, the Government needs to set out clearly the UK’s risk/opportunity approach. The EU has a very clear approach implemented through MiCA; the incoming US administration has also given a clear signal to the market of its support for crypto currencies and digital assets and this is already affecting investment decisions. The UK meanwhile has yet to give a comprehensive statement of direction or position that stands out internationally and provides clarity and confidence for investors.” 161

From: Financial Services Regulation Committee, 2nd Report - Growing pains: clarity and culture change required - An examination of the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective, 13 June 2025

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 3 September 2025 (deadline 3 September 2025).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government says there is "strong alignment" between the Committee's recommendations and its July 2025 Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, agreeing with many recommendations while declining some, including a new compliance cost study and a review of the secondary objective metrics.

On compliance costs (Recommendation 1), the government agrees burdens should be proportionate but "does not intend to commission a new study" "at this time", to avoid duplicating its baselining exercise; it will consider next steps once that work is complete.
On secondary objective metrics (Recommendation 11), the government "does not plan to undertake a further review at this time", citing the granularity of the existing metrics, but says it will continue to monitor the regulators' progress.
On regulatory overlap (Recommendation 2), the government will "consult on the detail" of consolidating the PSR within the FCA and legislate "as soon as possible", but says it would not be "practical or proportionate" to review all financial services legislation and regulator rules in detail.
On reporting to the Committee (Recommendation 15), the government says it cannot "commit to producing specific research" but will provide an update on its work to the Committee within twelve months.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error