To date, the FCA has only issued one fine in response to the BSPS case.36 It told us that it is working on a further 30 enforcement cases, but despite working as “swiftly 22 Qq 37, 38 (27 April) 23 Qq 37, 38 (27 April) 24 Qq 72–75 (27 April) 25 C&AG’s Report, para 2.12, 2.13 26 Qq 45, 46 (27 April) 27 HC Work and Pensions Committee, British Steel Pension Scheme, HC 828, 15 February 2018 28 Q 76 (27 April) 29 Qq 19–22 (13 June) 30 Q 63 (27 April) 31 Qq 28, 109 (27 April) 32 Q 91 (27 April) 33 Qq 12, 13 (27 April) 34 C&AG’s Report, para 2.18 35 Q 29 (27 April) 36 C&AG’s report, figure 10 12 Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme as possible” these have been ongoing for years without progress. The former Chief Executive of the FCA noted that meeting the legal tests for conducting an enforcement case involves a long period of investigation and to rush this may risk losing the case.37 In this investigation period, the FCA does not publish lists of firms or advisers who are under investigation, so consumers are not aware, for example, when searching the FCA Register to find firms which have their permission. The FCA must look into whether it would be an option to publish lists of those under investigation, where there are significant grounds to believe they are committing serious harm to consumers. Two enforcement investigations have been reported publicly by the FCA; however, the remaining cases are subject to legal restrictions and obligations until final decisions are made.38 The FCA maintains a register of regulated advice firms and works to ensure that consumers can quickly identify where non-compliance has occurred.39 However, as unsuitable advice is linked to firms rather than individual advisers, consumers do not know which advisers have provided unsuitable advice.40 These issues risk signalling to consumers that the advice market is safer than it is and highlights the FCA’s failure to deter bad actors from operating within the market.41 This problem