Speeches by Lowe.

“We have to get at the answer to this.”

“Right, me again for round 2. This one is probably for you, Jim, given that both of us have had a career in the City [Interruption.] Dear me, that’s my wretched watch. As you and I probably know and understand, which not everybody will, in the financial services markets of 2000, London was the most vibrant capital marke…”

“I have no more questions, Geoffrey.”

“Okay. I am still not clear, but over what time are you looking for them to deliver this? What is your timeframe for delivery? I am not clear on the definition, but assuming they are—I am far from certain they are—what is the timeframe over which you want this delivered? If you do not know the objectives, they cannot de…”

“So how do they judge whether they have been successful or not?”

“Yes.”

“What do you consider success and what do you consider failure in terms of GDP growth? Have you told them that?”

“I am still not clear: how do you define economic growth?”

“What do these regulators need to deliver for you to consider it successful growth? I am not clear.”

“Can you define what you consider to be delivering growth?”

“Right. I asked a question of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about “the number and proportion of senior civil servants within his Department that have (a) historic and (b) current directorships listed on Companies House.” In July 2023, there was one. What I am asking you—the question I am trying to get at…”

“Thank you for your example, Gareth, but I think labelling is a different issue from regulation. I would argue that you deregulate for growth; you do not regulate for growth. The NAO rightly sets out that regulators are primarily set up to correct market failures and to protect consumers, the public and the environment.…”

“Good afternoon, everybody. If you will indulge me, I want to understand the genesis of the name “Regulating for growth”. Who actually came up with that? Rachel Reeves irritates me when she spreads it around the Chamber liberally, so who actually thought that that was a sensible name?”

“I am glad you clarified that; I was going to double-check that.”

“This is, I think, the 10th plan to effectively reduce regulatory burden and increase growth. Hopefully we will not need an 11th, but I can’t quite see how we aren’t going to need it.”

“I would rather watch what the hands are doing than what the mouth is saying. What we as a Committee want to see is some action.”

“Okay.”

“When you have machinated long enough, I think we need to have a report on exactly what that is. Will this “could” become a “should”, or will we be given all sorts of complex reasons why the MoD cannot make it a “should”? If a report like this NAO Report was done about my Department, I would be very worried and have all…”

“I think that word should be “should”, not “could”, which seems to be common sense. I hear your answer, and I hear you talking about the reasons why it is difficult, but you have to overcome those problems. This is about fraud and dishonesty, and as I said, this needs to be dealt with. We have basically moved from being…”

“I think my question is to Simon. I am again reading the MoD Report, and I would just like some clarity. It states: “The MoD told us…Fraud Defence and the police are also working jointly on a new investigative model for fraud and economic crime—which”—this is the key word—“could include joining police and Fraud Defence …”