Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards Policy Statement PS17/11* 9 May 2017 PS17/11 Financial Conduct Authority Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards This relates to Contents Consultation Paper 16/24* which 1 Overview 3 is available on our website at 2 Feedback on responses to CP16/24 6 www.fca.org.uk/publications Comments or queries can Annex 1 be sent to: List of non-confidential respondents 12 Steven McWhirter or Annex 2 Alex Koukoudis Industry working group participants 13 Strategy and Competition Financial Conduct Authority Annex 3 25 The North Colonnade Abbreviations used in this paper 18 Canary Wharf Appendix 1 London E14 5HS Made rules (legal instrument) Telephone: 020 7066 4562 Appendix 2 Final appropriate examination standards Email: [email protected] How to navigate this document onscreen returns you to the contents list takes you to helpful abbreviations 2 Financial Conduct Authority PS17/11 Review of the FCA's appropriate Chapter 1 qualification exam standards 1 Overview Introduction 1 1.1 This policy statement provides feedback on responses to CP16/24 ‘Review of the FCA’s appropriate qualification exam standards’. It also sets out the final, updated appropriate exam standards (AES) for appropriate qualifications listed in the Financial 2 Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Training and Competence (TC) sourcebook . 1.2 In addition, we set out guidance in TC Appendix 4.1.1 clarifying how to read and use the appropriate qualification tables (see Appendix 2). 1.3 Finally, we provide our feedback on responses to our question on whether to develop an additional equity release qualification. Who does this affect? 1.4 This policy statement will be of particular interest to those organisations, such as the 3 Accredited Bodies , providing appropriate qualifications to the UK financial services industry. This policy statement may also be of interest to: • firms and their employees who are required to have appropriate qualifications listed in our TC sourcebook • prospective firms, employees or students who may be required to have appropriate qualifications Is this of interest to consumers? 1.5 Consumers will deal with people in financial services firms who need to hold one or more of the qualifications listed in our Handbook. This policy statement should help consumers understand how the appropriate qualifications system works. 1 CP16/24 Review of the FCA’s appropriate qualification exam standards www.fca.org.uk/sites/default/files/cp16-24.pdf 2 TC sourcebook www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/TC 3 www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary?filter-title=accredited 3 PS17/11 Financial Conduct Authority Chapter 1 Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards Context 1.6 The FCA training and competence regime helps to protect consumers by making sure that staff working in financial services are appropriately qualified and well regulated. It includes: • a high-level ‘competent employees’ rule that applies to people carrying on activities we regulate in all UK-authorised firms • more-detailed requirements in addition to this for certain retail activities, including the need to achieve an appropriate qualification 1.7 Under our TC regime, qualifications play an important role in providing an objective and independently verified benchmark of the ‘entry level’ knowledge required to undertake specific activities, for example providing financial advice. 1.8 In September 2016 we published CP16/24, setting out proposals for revising the AES to reflect relevant developments since they were last reviewed. Additionally, we proposed new guidance in TC Appendix 4.1.1 to help people read and use the appropriate qualification tables. 1.9 We also used the consultation to explore stakeholder views on the potential for an additional equity release qualification to help consumers access this market. 1.10 The purpose of this policy statement is to provide our feedback on the responses we received and to finalise our changes. Summary of feedback and our response 1.11 The majority of the respondents agreed with our proposed updates to the AES. We set up a series of meetings with interested parties as part of our review – this was reflected in the feedback we received, with many respondents saying that they felt the review had been conducted in a thorough and systematic manner. 1.12 We consulted on reducing the number of ‘regulation and ethics’ AES from three to two. Respondents welcomed our proposal on Regulation & Ethics unanimously. They believed that this will help avoid duplication in standards and make them more relevant to both individuals and firms. Additionally, there was a consensus among respondents that our proposal allows for standards to be applied based on the individual’s attainment level of either level three or four qualifications. 1.13 All respondents welcomed the introduction of Handbook guidance and believed that this is helpful in navigating the qualification tables in TC Appendix 4.1. However, there was a consensus that more should be done to improve the format and presentation of the tables to make them more interactive, user friendly and easier to understand. 1.14 We received mixed feedback on whether there was a market need for a standalone or top-up equity release qualification. Most respondents didn’t think that an alternative to the current approach would lead to a significant increase in the number of people appropriately qualified. Therefore, we have decided not to change the appropriate qualification for equity release at this time. 4 Financial Conduct Authority PS17/11 Review of the FCA's appropriate Chapter 1 qualification exam standards Cost benefit analysis and compatibility statement 1.15 The cost benefit analysis remains as published in CP16/24. In addition to the compatibility statement published in CP16/24, we have also had regard to the recommendations made by the Treasury under s.1JA FSMA about aspects of the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with our general duties, in their recommendation letter dated 8 March 2017. Having had regard to the recommendations, we will proceed to make changes as proposed. Equality and diversity considerations 1.16 We are required under the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity in carrying out our policies, services and functions. As part of this, we conducted an equality impact assessment to ensure that the equality and diversity implications of our new policy proposals are considered. We published our equality impact assessment in CP16/24 and invited feedback on the potential impact of our proposals on equality and diversity issues. Our initial assessment was that our proposals will not create any equality and diversity issues and we did not receive any comments to indicate otherwise. 5 PS17/11 Financial Conduct Authority Chapter 2 Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards 2 Feedback on responses to CP16/24 2.1 This chapter sets out feedback on the responses received to our proposals in CP16/24. Appropriate examination standards 2.2 The majority of the respondents agreed with our proposed updates to the AES. We set up several pre-consultation workshops with interested parties as part of our review, which was reflected in the feedback we received. In particular, most of the respondents said that this allowed them to get involved early in the review process. Respondents also said that the review was conducted in a thorough and systematic manner. 2.3 Some respondents believed that the proposed updates allow greater flexibility for 4 qualification providers to develop relevant content to meet the AES requirements. A few respondents reinforced the importance of the standards remaining up to date, reflecting market developments and any changing regulatory requirements. 2.4 One respondent expressed concerns regarding relevant legislative and regulatory changes that have not yet been finalised and so were not part of our proposed changes. 2.5 Some respondents suggested that the dangers posed to consumers through pension scams are not fully addressed within the three AES related to pensions (ApEx 4, ApEx 14 and ApEx 21). 2.6 A few respondents pointed out typographical errors in the draft AES, which we have corrected. Our response The majority of respondents agreed with our proposed updates to the AES. We will now publish them on our exam standards webpage. We agree with the respondents that it is important that the AES remain up to date and we will keep them under review. The content of the AES is indicative and we expect that qualification providers will regularly review their qualification syllabi to incorporate relevant regulatory and legislative changes as appropriate. 4 www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/TC/App/4/1.html 6 Financial Conduct Authority PS17/11 Review of the FCA's appropriate Chapter 2 qualification exam standards Pension scams response: We fully agree that pension scams pose serious risks to consumers. The FCA is a member of Project Bloom, a multi-agency taskforce of government, regulators, financial services bodies and criminal justice agencies tackling pension scams. Our ScamSmart communications campaign aims to raise awareness of investment frauds, including pension scams. We are also aware that HM Treasury is currently consulting on a package of new measures aimed at tackling different types of pension scams. We will await the outcome of this work before considering whether amendments to the AES are necessary. Regulation and ethics 5 2.7 In CP16/24 we consulted on reducing the number of ‘regulation and ethics’ AES from three to two, based on the level of achievement. This was to remove unnecessary duplication and make it easier for appropriate qualification providers to recognise and reward credit for prior learning for students who want to undertake further study that includes the ‘regulation and ethics’ AES in the syllabus. 2.8 As a result of our proposals, ApEx8 (The UK Financial Services Industry) will be withdrawn and two ‘regulation and ethics’ AES will be used in the future. One will apply to RDR level four qualifications, namely ApEx 24 RDR Core Standards (Financial Services, Regulation and Ethics). The other, namely ApEx1 (UK Financial Services, Regulation and Ethics), will apply to all other non-RDR regulated activities that have level three appropriate qualification requirements. 2.9 All respondents welcomed our proposal and believed it will help avoid duplication and make the standards more relevant to both individuals and firms. Also, respondents agreed that our proposal allows for the AES to be applied based on the individual’s attainment level of either level three or four qualifications. 2.10 One respondent suggested that as the ApEx 24 RDR Core Standards (Financial Services, Regulation and Ethics) and ApEx1 (UK Financial Services, Regulation and Ethics) cover similar subject matter, the language within both AES should be harmonised as much as possible. Our response We will proceed as we consulted on and reduce the number of regulation and the ethics AES from three to two, based on the level of achievement. We note the one respondent’s request for further harmonisation of the regulation and ethics language between AES, which we will consider in the future AES reviews. 5 Paragraphs 2.11 – 2.13 www.fca.org.uk/sites/default/files/cp16-24.pdf 7 PS17/11 Financial Conduct Authority Chapter 2 Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards Proposed Handbook guidance 2.11 We also consulted on new Handbook guidance to clarify how to read and use the appropriate qualification tables in TC Appendix 4.1. 2.12 Employees and firms should use the TC Appendix 4 appropriate qualification tables to decide whether an individual has a qualification that is appropriate to the job they are doing. 2.13 When we consult on listing a qualification, we always consider the regulated activity it applies to. Also, where relevant, the time period in which it was judged as appropriate. 6 For example, ‘a’, and ‘b’ in our TC Appendix 4.1.1 appropriate qualification tables provide guidance about the implementation of the RDR qualifications and how closely the RDR appropriate qualifications meet the AES. 2.14 All respondents welcomed the addition of Handbook guidance. 2.15 A few respondents stated that due to their complexity, the qualification tables in TC Appendix 4 are difficult to navigate. They welcomed further work to improve the format and layout, such as the development of a searchable database or the separation of current qualifications from legacy qualifications that are no longer available to study. Our response: We will add the new guidance to our Handbook. As part of our broader work on TC this year, we also aim to update our TC webpage. To improve the layout, we will work towards separating the current qualifications in TC Appendix 4 from legacy qualifications that are no longer available to study. Other responses 2.16 We also received responses relating to: a. how the consistency of coverage between qualification providers is monitored and assessed b. whether the AES might limit retail investment advisers from undertaking the widest range of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) activities relevant to their role c. how work experience and CPD combine with the listing and award of appropriate qualifications 6 www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/TC/App/4/1.html 8 Financial Conduct Authority PS17/11 Review of the FCA's appropriate Chapter 2 qualification exam standards Our response A. When a qualification provider wishes to have a qualification listed as appropriate, we request evidence of how the qualification maps to the AES. This evidence includes an assessment of whether the qualification maps to all of the AES learning outcomes and whether mapping to the indicative content is acceptable. Mapping does not need to be exact, but it should demonstrate that it covers all the necessary elements. Where the qualification meets our criteria, it is subject to a formal FCA consultation and feedback process before we list it in TC Appendix 4. As per TC Appendix 5.1(3), the FCA expects the qualification provider to meet certain criteria. These include: • procedures for reviewing and refreshing its syllabus and question banks to ensure that they are relevant and up to date • robust and credible procedures for assessing a candidate's demonstration of the learning outcomes specified in the relevant examination standards (i.e. passing the qualifications) As stated in CP16/24, we expect that existing appropriate qualification providers will review the content of their syllabi during the 12-month period following the publication of our finalised guidance and make changes where appropriate. We will contact the existing providers to confirm this, but we don’t expect these changes will affect existing or prospective students. B. Our TC sourcebook includes examples of CPD activities as well as guidance on training needs and maintaining competence. The AES are not qualifications themselves, but they set out the learning outcomes, the levels of attainment that a candidate must achieve and the indicative content relevant to each learning outcome to inform qualifications that providers make available. Where, for example, a retail investment adviser uses an AES to help them demonstrate their CPD it should be consistent 7 with our guidance . Appropriate qualifications remain valid, no matter how long ago they were awarded, but must remain relevant to the activities in question (for example, the regulated activities of retail investment advice and mortgage advice). Firms must ensure that their employees are and remain competent – this may include asking staff to re-take qualifications, where appropriate. C. Qualification providers decide how work experience is taken into account. People seeking credits or exemptions for previous work experience, CPD or other qualifications will need to speak to their qualification provider. 7 www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/TC/2/?view=chapter 9 PS17/11 Financial Conduct Authority Chapter 2 Review of the FCA's appropriate qualification exam standards Equity release qualifications 2.17 In CP16/24 we consulted on whether to develop an additional equity release qualification. This followed some stakeholders telling us that the current structure of the equity release appropriate qualification may be a barrier to advisers becoming qualified, and so might be limiting consumers being able to access equity release 8 products . In particular, it was suggested that some independent financial advisers may not be offering equity release because, before they can do so, they need to be appropriately qualified for a product (eg mortgages) that they have no interest in selling. 2.18 We received 18 responses from lenders, intermediaries and their trade bodies as well as qualification providers. We did not receive any responses from consumer representatives. Overall, views were mixed on the merits of introducing an alternative route. 2.19 Respondents generally welcomed the aim of consumers having greater access to equity release and the concept of holistic retirement advice, while acknowledging the difficulties in achieving this. 2.20 Only two respondents believed a change to the equity release qualification would lead to a significant increase in the number of people appropriately qualified in this area. 2.21 If there was to be an additional qualification, several anticipated a small and gradual increase in the number of advisers qualified in equity release. This was because pensions and investment advisers might see an increase in numbers of clients with insufficient pension incomes but significant housing wealth. 2.22 Two respondents suggested that there were greater barriers to entry into the equity release market for pension and investment firms than the current structure of the equity release qualification. These were twofold. Firstly, the need to gain authorisation in regulated mortgage contracts (including lifetime mortgages) and home reversion plans, involving the need to demonstrate appropriate systems and controls. Secondly, one respondent argued that generalist firms were unlikely to have a significant number of customers where equity release was a suitable option and acquiring leads would be costly for these firms. 2.23 One respondent told us that because the main equity release product was a lifetime mortgage (and equity release was likely to continue to be dominated by mortgage- like products) firms may require a mortgage qualification for their advisers working in equity release even if FCA rules did not. 2.24 Several respondents told us that there are already far more advisers qualified in equity release than are selling equity release. They argued that increasing the number of qualified advisers would not necessarily increase access to advice on equity release. 2.25 Those in favour of a top-up for pensions or investments advisers believed this would help deliver holistic retirement advice where equity release was considered alongside other sources of retirement income. 8 www.fca.org.uk/publication/feedback/fs16-03.pdf 10