The FCA's proposal to “name and shame” remains a controversial topic of debate.  We first wrote about it back in March 2024.  The serious issues raised by the proposal prompted scrutiny by the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, which recently published the written evidence it received.

Among other organisations, the City of London Law Society’s Regulation Committee provided evidence.  It focused on the FCA’s proposal to publish announcements and updates about enforcement investigations where these cover firms rather than individuals.

The CLSS said that it has material concerns with the FCA’s proposed new approach to publish announcements and updates about enforcement. It considers that the policy as presented is ill-conceived, lacks justification, and, if implemented as envisaged, is likely to risk undermining confidence both in regulated firms and the FCA as an institution. Its concern is that these changes are proposed without due consideration of their likely adverse impacts, and without giving due consideration to whether similar objectives could be achieved through proportionate means with less risk to market confidence and integrity. It has commented further under the following headings: 

• Destabilising and undermining of confidence in regulated firms.
• Disproportionate, irrational and justified on false premises.
• Adverse impacts on market stability.
• Inadequate "public interest" safeguards.
• Adverse impact on international competitiveness.
• Undermining confidence in the FCA.

The CLLS’s conclusion is that the FCA's proposed new approach should not be progressed, at least not in its current form, or without further consultation.

In September, the FCA indicated that the proposals are very much the topic of ongoing conversation, but that the case for more transparency remains strong. The debate continues.