Industry responses

As well as proactively campaigning, the BSA frequently comments on consultative papers issued by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, and by Government departments such as the Treasury or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 

Keep in touch

Join our mailing list to receive alerts as new content is published.

Sign up for alerts.

Management expenses levy limit for the FSCS, 2017/ 18

We argue for more detail on IT spend.

View Industry Response

Our response to a further technical consultation on the apprenticeship levy

Information on the reclaim mechanism for employers in the devolved nations sought.

View Industry Response

FCA Mission consultation

This BSA paper responds to the FCA's consultation, Our Future Mission.

View Industry Response

Strengthening accountability in banking - PRA CP 34/16

The BSA supports the PRA's proposals regarding the duty of responsibility and the application of the conduct rules to notified/standard NEDs, which are consistent with earlier representations made by the BSA.

View Industry Response

Strengthening accountability in banking - FCA DP 16/4

This paper responds to FCA Discussion Paper 16/4 (the DP).

View Industry Response

Strengthening accountability in banking - FCA CP 16/26

This response supports the proposals in, and comments on, FCA 16/26, which consults on guidance on how the FCA will enforce the 'duty of responsibility', which is now in force under the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016.

View Industry Response

Strengthening accountability in banking - FCA CP 16/27

This BSA response supports the proposal in FCA CP16/27 that 'standard' - sometimes called 'notified' - non-executive directors (NEDs) should be subject to the regulator's individual conduct rules and to rule 4 of the senior conduct rules

View Industry Response

Our response to the FRC consultation on the triennial review of UK and Ireland accounting standards

We argue for a later implementation date and the development of a more proportionate approach to expected credit loss provisioning.

View Industry Response