https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/peers-call-on-fca-to-pull-name-and-shame-plan/

A House of Lords committee has told the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to withdraw its ‘name and shame’ plan, which would see the City watchdog name firms under investigation if believes it is in the public interest.

Peers Financial Services Regulation Committee adds that the FCA’s attempt to consult companies on its proposals has been “an abject failure.”

The regulator has “not made a convincing case for the proposed shift away from its current policy of publicly announcing enforcement investigations into firms before they have concluded only in ‘exceptional circumstances,’” the committee says in its report on the move.

It adds that the FCA “could have avoided much unnecessary controversy by engaging with stakeholders in the development stage of the proposals”.

Peers tell the watchdog to “withdraw the proposals if it has not found an acceptable balance between realising the potential benefits for consumer protection and managing the potential risks to firms, individuals, and market stability”.

The report comes after the FCA said in November it had made ‘significant changes’ to the plan, which included faster probes, longer notice for firms in would name, and stricter guarantees on naming businesses under investigation. Its plans were first tabled early last year.

However, the watchdog has continued to come up against fierce City opposition to its plan, who say the move will destabilise valuations and staff at firms who have not yet been found guilty of misconduct.

The plan may also be seen to run counter to repeated comments by Chancellor Rachel Reeves who says she does not want regulators not to hinder competition in the financial services sector.

House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee chairman Lord Forsyth of Drumlean says: “It was incumbent on the FCA to make a strong and unequivocal case for why such a fundamental change was needed and it has failed to do that.

“Less than 18 months ago the FCA stated that it recognised that the disclosure of an enforcement investigation could inappropriately damage a firm’s reputation if the investigation did not substantiate the FCA’s concerns.

“We simply could not understand the FCA’s about-turn in such a short period of time.

The peer adds: “The FCA told us that the average duration of investigations is around three to four years and in 56% of cases no further action was taken.

“If it presses ahead with its proposals on past performance it could mean that half of the firms it investigates, and the people involved in them, will have their reputations unnecessarily and unfairly damaged. This is not acceptable.”