In the complex web of UK financial regulation, one fundamental truth should be self-evident: the protection of consumers must come first. After all, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was established with a primary mandate to safeguard the public from harm caused by financial misconduct. However, recent developments have cast a shadow over its ability—and willingness—to fulfil this crucial duty.
At the heart of the controversy lies a troubling duality. The FCA’s remit was recently expanded to include a secondary objective: promoting the growth and international competitiveness of financial institutions in the City of London. This addition, heavily influenced by lobbying from City institutions and HM Treasury, has sparked accusations that the FCA is prioritising the interests of the financial sector over the very consumers it was designed to protect.
Protecting the City Over the Public?
A prime example of this conflict is the FCA’s handling of the mis-selling of interest rate swaps to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Thousands of businesses were excluded from the FCA’s redress scheme, based on an arbitrary “sophistication test” that independent reviews have since described as lacking regulatory justification. By shielding banks from full accountability—under pressure from HM Treasury—the FCA effectively left SMEs to shoulder devastating losses while financial giants profited.
This raises an unsettling question: is the FCA too closely aligned with the City to regulate it effectively? Whistleblowers from within the organisation have alleged that senior executives prioritise institutional interests, while junior staff advocate for consumer protection. These allegations have led to whistleblowers being exposed, dismissed, and silenced—a clear signal that internal dissent is not welcome.
A PR Problem or a Fundamental Issue?
The FCA’s response to criticism has been to mount a public relations defence, rather than acknowledging its shortcomings. Recent articles and comments from industry insiders paint a glowing picture of an organisation striving valiantly against bureaucratic constraints and systemic challenges. Yet, these narratives often come from individuals or entities with vested interests in maintaining good relations with the regulator.
While no regulator can prevent all financial failings, the FCA’s unwillingness to fully address its mistakes—or even apologise—undermines public trust. When a parliamentary report calls the FCA “incompetent” and highlights its cultural failings, the regulator’s response should not be deflection. Instead, it should embrace accountability, thank those who have pointed out its failings, and commit to meaningful change.
Rebuilding Trust: A Better Way Forward
Imagine if, instead of defending its record, the FCA had said:
“We deeply regret the harm caused to consumers by past failings. We thank the APPG for their thorough investigation and welcome their recommendations. Our priority remains protecting the public, and we will take this opportunity to improve.”
Such a response would have demonstrated humility and a genuine commitment to serve the public interest. Instead, the FCA risks being seen as a “lapdog” for the financial sector rather than a watchdog for the people.
What Needs to Change?
To restore trust and fulfil its mission, the FCA must:
- Refocus on Consumer Protection: Its primary duty must remain safeguarding consumers, even when this conflicts with promoting economic growth.
- Enhance Transparency: The regulator must communicate openly about its challenges and limitations, ensuring the public understands its decisions.
- Support Whistleblowers: Internal dissent should be valued as a tool for improvement, not suppressed.
- Acknowledge Mistakes: An apology is not a sign of weakness but a step toward rebuilding trust.
- Push for Legislative Reform: If the FCA’s dual mandate undermines its ability to protect consumers, this conflict of interest must be resolved.
Your Role in Shaping Change
As citizens, consumers, and businesses, we have a voice. By holding regulators and policymakers accountable, we can demand a system that puts people before profits. Share your views, engage with your representatives, and call for a financial system that works for everyone—not just the few.
The FCA can and should be a force for good. But first, it must choose to serve its original purpose: protecting the public. Let’s ensure it lives up to that promise.
What’s your perspective on this issue? Share your thoughts below—we want to hear from you.
Academy of Life Planning 