foundations of competitiveness and growth since february, we have been continuing our work on strengthening the three foundations i proposed by progressing on the pipeline on policies that speak to them. as already flagged, one thing we also did was carry out a pilot survey asking for views about the extent to which the pra ’ s regulatory framework is advancing the new objective and about how the pra can further facilitate its implementation in the future. luckily, all the responses mapped quite well to the three regulatory foundations. let me share how and some highlights. maintaining trust in the pra and the uk prudential regulatory framework i ’ ll start with trust. the first important finding from our survey is that stakeholders care about the reputation of the prudential regulator to preside over a stable and predictable prudential regulatory framework that can withstand episodes of financial stress. this slide ( annex - slide 1 ) shows that 93 % of the respondents agree that the pra ’ s regulatory framework fosters trust in regulated firms. around the same proportion believe that the pra provides a stable and predictable regulatory environment. i think this points to the conclusion i had set out in february. we should approach the new objective by enhancing the competitiveness of uk - regulated financial services firms at least in part through maintaining strong prudential standards. this approach preserves growth prospects in the medium - to - long term because it reduces the harm from future financial instabilities and creates trust in the prudential regime. it is also entirely consistent with the primary objective of advancing safety and soundness which must always be advanced, by law, for any rule we make. of course, the design and calibration of standards needs to be appropriate : excessively high standards might not only hamper economic growth [ 9 ] by constraining the provision of financial services to the real economy, but also harm the attractiveness of the uk as a good place to do financial services business. it is hard to identify simple quantitative metrics that capture the strength of standards and their appropriate calibration. the pra ’ s main mechanism is through cost benefit analyses ( cbas ), which are aimed to be fully integrated in the policy making process. we try to assess the costs and benefits of our proposed rules on firms carefully and seek to provide information in a transparent fashion from the consultation stage, although they won ’ t always be fully quantitative. we are currently in the process of setting up an independent cba panel, as required by the act,

future of finance - our response, june 2019. 18. see pra supervisory statement 2 / 21 - outsourcing and third party risk management, march 2021. 19. see artificial intelligence public - private forum ; machine learning in uk financial services, october 2019 ; pra discussion paper 5 / 22 - dp5 / 22 - artificial intelligence and machine learning, october 2022. 20. see bank of england report - bank of england report on climate - related risks and the regulatory capital frameworks, march 2023. 21. see federal reserve board - office hours series. 22. see overview of regulatory sandbox ( mas. gov. sg ). in the uk, the bank of england, the financial conduct authority and hm treasury will set up the first fmi sandbox, known as the digital securities sandbox or dss. the dss will focus on the trading, notary, maintenance and settlement functions for securities. the dss will be established later this year via secondary legislation under powers granted as part of the financial services and markets act 2023. more information is available in the consultation on the approach to the dss published by hm treasury in july 2023 : see consultation on the digital securities sandbox - gov. uk. 23. see digital transformation and innovation at central banks | deutsche bundesbank 24. see pra consultation paper 11 / 23 - pra statement on the review of rules, june 2023. victoria saporta executive director, prudential policy.