They should tell people whether we are meeting our commitments to regulate in a way that harnesses the UK’s strengths as a global financial centre, that maintains trust, and that is tailored to UK circumstances. They should also be designed in a way that is consistent with how Parliament has  Page 8  ranked our objectives – they should make it easy to see how we have pursued our new objective properly subject to advancing our primary objectives. For example, we know that the operational effectiveness of the PRA is important for the UK’s success as a global financial centre. That is why we have committed to increasing the frequency with which we report on our efficiency handling regulatory transactions, including authorisations. We will also provide more information on the time taken to determine cases and provide new breakdowns of these metrics by type of firm. [25] Amongst other things, this will help people understand how long it takes to set up a new bank or insurer – which clearly matters for the UK’s competitiveness. Conclusion Let me briefly sum up. Be in no doubt that our new objective will lead to big changes in how we make rules. We have already been working hard developing our ideas about what competitiveness means for the financial services industry and how it is connected to growth. We have a plan for pursuing the new objective. That plan recognizes the hierarchy of our objectives and it is focussed on what we can control.
In general, we will always listen to arguments when people disagree with us, and we will always take into account new evidence. This includes tailoring rules that are already in place in response to our own evaluations or to evidence from industry, broader civil society and other stakeholders. Page 6  This is what we did when we implemented an earlier Basel regulatory package known as CRR2. In that case, we implemented a new standard for banks’ long term funding after tailoring it to be more risk sensitive for activities that are important for the UK. That was a change we made in response to evidence-based arguments we received during the consultation. We are now taking the same approach to work on Solvency II rules for insurers. Debates between us and the Government have got a lot of public attention. But there are many areas where we fully agree about the benefits from simplifying the regime to better reflect the needs of the UK. And with the high-level policy decisions now clear, we are focused on implementation and on delivering detailed proposals for consultation. My colleague Sam Woods recently set out what we are committed to doing. [18] All of this will be on top of what we are already doing to remove unnecessary rules we inherited from our time in the EU. We have so far deleted 13 guidelines issued by EU regulators, five superseded Supervisory Statements and 26 technical standards onshored from the EU. This work will continue.