2
Not Addressed
The Treasury consultation alluded to certain UK-derived rules that are set out in UK statute,...
Conclusion
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.
Government Response 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.
Paragraph Reference
28
Government Response
Not Addressed
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
Second, I note the Committee’s view that ‘the body of EU financial services law that was on-shored during the process of leaving the EU should be moved into the regulators’ rulebooks.’ As set out in the previous consultation, the government’s proposed approach is that the independent regulators should have responsibility for setting the direct regulatory requirements that apply to firms, operating within an overall policy framework set by government and Parliament. The government considers that this continues to be the most effective way of delivering a stable, fair and prosperous financial services sector.
Source
Committee
Treasury Committee
Inquiry
Future of Financial Services
Report
Fifth Report - The Future Framework for Regulation of Financial Services
06 Jul 2021
HC 147
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
5.1 yrs
Report published
06 Jul 2021