The FCA's proposal to “name and shame” remains one of the hottest topics of debate. We first wrote about it back in March this year. The serious issues raised by the proposal prompted scrutiny by the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee (“HLFSRC”) in April, and by the House of Commons Treasury Committee (“HCTC”) in May. Post the general election, the HLFSRC was reappointed and resumed its inquiry into FCA CP24/2 on publicising enforcement investigations.
Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, has clarified the current position in a speech published on 24 September 2024 :
- The FCA is considering over 130 responses to the consultation.
- The FCA is not proposing moving from publicity in zero cases now, to 100% of cases in the future:
- Publicity decisions will be taken on a case by case basis.
- Such decisions will be taken following assessment against clearly defined criteria.
- The assessment criteria will include consideration of the potential impact on the firm and market.
- The FCA heard “loud and clear” that the criteria it consulted on were too high level and lacked specificity.
- The FCA also heard firms’ concerns on having insufficient time to make representations, and has indicated firms will be allowed time to provide their views on whether, what and when the FCA announces.
In terms of next steps, the FCA intends to meet with those on all sides of the debate in the Autumn to discuss development of the proposals, including a potential new public interest test.
The FCA then intends, later in the Autumn, to publish case studies illustrating:
- How the criteria might apply;
- What announcements could look like; and
- Information on the number of cases that might be affected
The Guardian has reported that the City minister, Tulip Siddiq, has asked the FCA to rethink the name and shame plans.
The FCA has indicated that the proposals are very much the topic of ongoing conversation, but that the case for more transparency remains strong. So it is definitely not going away, but can the proposal sufficiently change shape to be more acceptable to firms and more compatible with the regulators’ secondary international competitiveness and growth objective?
We are committed to achieving this in the right way for UK consumers and markets, so we won’t be rushing into any decisions. We want the right solutions, not the quickest ones. And rest assured, as we work to find those solutions, we will be mindful of all our objectives – including supporting the international competitiveness of the UK’s financial services and the medium to long term growth of the economy
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/change-better-evolving-approach-enforcement
unknownx500
