Author Archives: GK Strategy

What does the future hold for crypto regulation?

Positioning the UK as a leader in the global market

UK policymakers and regulators have expressed their intention to encourage growth, innovation and competition in the digital assets industry. However, the government also wants to protect consumers and maintain market integrity. This is a balance that policymakers and regulators in other jurisdictions have found difficult to strike. The previous Conservative government wanted to make the UK a global hub for cryptoasset technology and investment – a goal shared by Keir Starmer.

Accelerating the timeline for reform

In 2018, HM Treasury (HMT) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began coordinating a phased regulatory approach, initially focusing on stablecoins before introducing new regulations for the wider cryptoassets industry.

Since the 2024 general election, the FCA’s approach has shifted slightly. The government has indicated its support for most of the reforms set out prior to the general election. However, Starmer is less focused on stablecoins than his predecessor and is likely to accelerate the timeline for the regulation of the wider cryptoasset industry, rather than adopt the phased approach.

The government is aware that other international hubs have also taken significant steps in regulating digital assets. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) became fully applicable in December 2024 and has introduced a comprehensive regulatory regime for the European bloc’s digital asset market. Given the EU continues to work on secondary legislation to supplement MiCA and also requires crypto firms to align with other EU rules on governance and data-sharing, the EU’s new regime is likely to significantly increase the regulatory burden on firms. The second Trump administration has already signalled that it will take a much more lenient approach in the US compared to the Biden administration. Trump has issued an executive order directing agencies within his administration to create a regulatory framework that supports the cryptoassets industry and limits unnecessary government intervention.

Firms operating across multiple jurisdictions need to be cognisant of how the UK’s approach differs with other cryptoasset hubs to ensure compliance. The government is likely to favour an approach that places the UK somewhere between the EU and the US. While the UK’s eventual cryptoassets regime is likely to provide stronger consumer protections than a Trump-inspired US regime, it is unlikely to be as prescriptive as the EU on the categorisation of cryptoassets, the scope of regulated activities, and disclosure obligations for cryptoasset issuers.

Implementing the new regulatory regime

In November 2024, the FCA published a “Crypto Roadmap” of key dates for the development and introduction of the UK’s cryptoasset regime. The roadmap sets out a series of consultations focused on different aspects of the future regulatory regime to be held over the course of 2025 and during the first quarter of 2026, with the final rules published in 2026. This includes the completion of a consultation on the proposed creation of an information sharing platform for industry stakeholders (to be approved by HMT) to prevent market abuse and boost compliance with future regulation. The FCA also plans to consult on a governance regime in autumn 2025 including further measures to ensure crypto firms adhere to the FCA’s Consumer Duty and its Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). This would likely require individuals in senior roles at firms be approved by the FCA or the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

The cryptoassets industry is likely to benefit from Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ decision to urge regulators to accelerate efforts to support growth and innovation. As part of a wider deregulation push, Reeves tweaked the FCA’s secondary objective to make it clear that the regulator must do more to make the UK financial services markets more competitive than other countries. Although the FCA’s CEO Nikhil Rathi is concerned that deregulation could lead to ‘bad actors slipping through the net’, he has said that he is willing to consider the easing of some consumer protections to reduce the regulatory burden. This could be significant for the cryptoassets industry. Larger firms are currently better placed to comply with expected new regulatory measures, while smaller firms may not have the internal structures and resources to do so, potentially forcing them out of the market or creating opportunities for consolidation.

We’d be delighted to share our perspectives on what the government’s crypto and fintech reforms could mean for you and how you can engage with policy debates. Please contact joshua@gkstrategy.com if you would like to discuss the reforms with the GK team.

GK Podcast: Skills England and Apprenticeships Reform

GK Strategy is pleased to present the latest episode of its podcast. This episode focuses on the government’s wide-ranging reforms to the apprenticeships and skills system, and the potential impact on employers, providers and learners.

In this episode we speak to GK Strategic Adviser and former Minister for Skills and Higher Education, the Rt Hon Robert Halfon, and former advisor to the Department for Education and former Director of EDSK, Tom Richmond.

The podcast can be listened to here: GK Strategy Podcast – Episode 3.

Policy Spotlight: Health

GK Strategy is pleased to share its ‘Health Policy Spotlight’ report which sets out some of the key health policy trends to watch out for in 2025 as we look ahead to the government’s eagerly anticipated 10-Year Health Plan.

The report can be accessed here: Health Policy Spotlight – GK Strategy – March 2025

Does the latest financial settlement for local authorities shift the dial on council finances?

The government has now confirmed the local authority financial settlement for 2025-26. This is a crucial time of year for councils who rely on these funds to deliver statutory services including adult and children’s social care, and support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Independent providers of these services should pay close attention to the financial settlement as it provides a good indication of future cost pressures for councils at a time when demand for statutory services continues to rise.

The final settlement will provide £69.4 billion of core spending power to local authorities in England. This represents a rise of £4.4 billion compared to 2024-25, constituting a 6.8% cash terms increase (or 4.3% when adjusted for inflation). Of this £69 billion figure, 24% is non-ring-fenced settlement funding, 14% is grants for social care, 6% is other grants, and the remaining 55% is council tax. While the overall increase in spending power is broadly aligned with increases in recent years, in real terms it is approximately 9% below where it was in 2010-11. Since this date, councils have become increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to meet their statutory obligations.

The funding settlement does not appear to provide much relief to local authorities who continue to struggle under the pressure of growing demand for services. Chair of the Local Government Association, Cllr Louise Gittins, said the extra funds ‘will help meet some of the cost and demand pressures they face but still falls short of what is desperately needed’. She went on to say that that the funding landscape remains extremely challenging for councils of all types and many could be forced to make further cuts to non-statutory services.

However, the government hopes change is on the horizon with its proposed reforms to local authority funding. Ministers believe these reforms will provide more financial certainty to councils, which will in turn allow them to better manage their spending and reduce cost pressures. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently concluded a consultation on local authority funding reform and is in the process of analysing the responses it received. One of the primary proposals under consideration is to move to a multi-year settlement from 2026-27, which the government believes ‘will enable [councils] to better plan ahead and achieve better outcomes for local residents, as well as better value for money for taxpayers.’

Overall, the recent confirmation of the local authority funding settlement points to more of the same for councils up and down the country – mounting cost pressures will leave council leaders scrambling to meet rising demand for services. For providers of local authority funded services, this demonstrates the ongoing importance of communicating to commissioners their high-quality, value for money offering which will reduce the burden on council resources. It will also be vital for businesses to monitor the government’s response to the consultation on local authority funding as this will allow them to best anticipate and respond to possible future changes to commissioning practices following the policy’s implementation.

To discuss the local authority funding landscape in more detail, please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com).

Unpacking the government’s 2025 mandate to NHS England

At the end of January, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting delivered the government’s 2025 mandate to NHS England. This is a crucial document which sets out the health secretary’s goals for the health service over the next 12 months. It also provides all-important detail about the government’s emerging views on reform of the health and social care system ahead of the much-anticipated 10-Year Health Plan, due to be published later this year – likely in June or July.

The findings of Lord Darzi’s investigation into the health service, commissioned and published in the weeks immediately following Labour’s general election victory, have unsurprisingly been hugely influential in shaping the development of Streeting’s inaugural mandate to NHS England. The health secretary has said the mandate will help address the urgent challenges identified by the Darzi investigation and includes a ‘sharp focus on improving efficiency and productivity.’ Streeting again warns that the ‘culture of routine overspending without consequences’ is over.

At the heart of the 2025 mandate are three key aims: reducing waiting times, improving access to primary care, and improving urgent and emergency care. To reduce waiting times, Streeting has said he is refocusing the NHS on making progress towards an 18-week standard, whereby 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment, which will work in tandem with the steps set out in the government’s Elective Reform Plan published earlier this year. Patient choice is also at the heart of this agenda. The mandate emphasises the importance of implementing a cultural shift in the NHS to prioritise the patient experience in reducing waiting times, including through the use of the private sector to enable greater patient control over their treatment.

Improving access to primary care is the second key aim of the mandate. This mirrors one of the three strategic shifts the health secretary wants to see as a result of his reform agenda: shifting more treatment from hospitals to communities. Streeting is clear that primary care services are the front door to the health service but for too many people it is not possible to get a timely appointment, if at all. The mandate requires NHS England to enable patients to access general practice more quickly and tackle ‘unwarranted’ variation in services provided by general practice.

Improving urgent and emergency care is the mandate’s third aim. The mandate labels ambulance response times and waiting times in A&E as ‘unacceptable’. While the health secretary recognises that transforming these services will take time, he does state that a start must be made ahead of the government publishing its strategy to improve urgent and emergency care later this year. The mandate therefore includes a specific focus on reducing long wait times to improve patient safety, experience and outcomes.

The ambitions set out by Streeting in his first mandate are laudable. The bleak fiscal situation means the health secretary will have a hawk-like focus on monitoring performance against budgets. This is in recognition that the uptick in funding that the Department of Health and Social Care received at the October budget is unlikely to point to further significant cash injections in the immediate future. For providers, it also underscores the importance of positioning themselves as a high-quality, value for money partner to ICBs and NHS Trusts in delivering strong outcomes for patients.

If you would like to discuss the 2025 NHS mandate in more detail and what it means for businesses in the sector, then please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com) or Arth Malani (arth@gkstrategy.com).

Sugar, we’re going down: is the review of the soft drinks industry levy a taste of things to come?

The health secretary has warned he will “steamroll” the food and drink industry by launching a new plan to tackle obesity. In an interview with The Guardian setting out his priorities for the year, he said the move is part of a broader focus on preventing ill health rather than simply treating it. The plan is being worked up across government departments and the sector will soon be invited to feed into a consultation process.

Is this political rhetoric indicative of a heavier-handed approach to public health than under the previous iterations of government? Our gut instinct is yes, but proof of the pudding will be in the government’s response to the Soft Drink Industry Levy (SDIL) review. Launched last October, health and treasury ministers are considering revisions to the existing sugar content thresholds, including increasing the scope to milk-based and milk substitute products, and the levy rates.

Although the SDIL is widely considered to be a successful and effective policy intervention, the UK’s sugar consumption remains significantly above recommended levels, especially among children. By lowering the sugar thresholds and widening the scope of products, more soft drink producers will be impacted by regulations and will be forced to either reformulate products or see their production costs increase. The review will be completed in the spring with changes enacted in the 2025 Budget, so producers should be closely following policy developments throughout the course of this year. The government’s response to the review will set the mood music for the National Food Strategy so this is a crunch point for all those in the sector, not just soft drinks producers.

Beyond the health merits for cracking down on sugar content, there are political and economic factors at play. Politically, the Prime Minister insists that 2025 is a year of delivery after a slow and difficult start to his tenure. Further state intervention in food and drink markets in the name of public health would play to a large section of the labour backbenchers. Party morale is likely to be put to the test in the coming months as the nation’s economic woes continue. This is where HM Treasury comes into the picture; amid turbulent financial markets and disappointing economic growth, the Comprehensive Spending Review will be an uncomfortable experience for the Chancellor and her team. Raising revenue from the levy could ease some of the pressures that will undoubtedly fall on the schools budget, which the levy supports.

For industry there is a fine balance to strike. Full resistance to public health reform would be counterproductive and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of consumers. Developing and maintaining an open, constructive dialogue with government, including showcasing innovative reformulations, will be a far more effective approach. Framed in this way, industry will be able to better make the case that a proportionate approach to SDIL and wider reforms will deliver positive health and economic change.

If you would like to discuss the sugar levy and the government’s public health agenda in more detail, please contact GK Associate Director David Mitchell at: david.mitchell@gkstrategy.com