FSLA’s response may be found here.
FSLA has submitted a response to the FCA’s Consultation Paper CP24/2 Part 2 titled “Greater transparency of our enforcement investigations”, following on from our response to the initial Consultation Paper, which may be found here.
Despite some of the proposed amendments detailed in CP24/2 Part 2, FSLA remains of the view that the Publication Policy goes further than what is necessary, legitimate and proportionate to achieve the FCA’s stated objectives of transparency, consumer protection and the delivery of a more streamlined and effective Enforcement process. We contend that the FCA’s objectives could be achieved through existing regulatory tools and a more balanced approach, including a cost-benefit analysis and further consultation before implementing such a fundamental policy change
Our response examines the aims and objectives of the FCA, the process and safeguards of the Publication Policy, the case studies detailed by the FCA in CP24/2 Part 2, the potential implications for individuals of the Publication Policy and the possible next steps.
FSLA was pleased to see our evidence referred to in the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee’s report into the FCA’s CP24/2 consultation, titled “Naming and shaming: how not to regulate”, a link to which may be found here.
Please note: The response is submitted on behalf of FSLA and is intended to capture the overall weight of contributions received from its membership, but the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this response belong to the individual authors of this paper (and not, for example, the author’s employer, chambers, organisation, committee, or other group or individual members of FSLA). For the avoidance of doubt, this paper does not contain the views of, or purport to make any representations on behalf of, any FSLA members who are employed by the FCA, the Bank of England (including the Prudential Regulation Authority) or any other regulatory bodies.