Aifa wants overseers to check regulators
Share
Aifa has called for a college of supervisors to oversee the new regulatory bodies that will take over from the FSA.
In July, the Treasury proposed a wide ranging reform of the current tripartite system. It will replace the FSA with the newly created Prudential Regulation Authority and the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority.
Policy director Andrew Strange believes the PRA and CPMA need to be held to account by a group of supervisors who would ensure co-operation between the different regulators.
Strange says the FSA has introduced waves of different requirements on the financial services industry, causing “rising costs and regulatory fatigue.”
He says: “Looking forward to the new structure, it is essential that the newly formed statutory bodies should formally have regard to each other’s objectives and have a college of supervisors to ensure crossbody cooperation, coordination and control.
“There also needs to be far more joined-up working from the policy, supervision and enforcement teams to ensure consistency of delivery across the board.”
Strange adds that, in practice, the FSA did not deliver principles of good regulation and says it is important that the new regulatory structure addresses this.
Thameside director Tom Kean says: “To have an independent body overseeing the new regulatory bodies is a must-have position. It was often said that the FSA lacked coalface experience, they seemed too removed from the day-to-day realities of how advisers operate. I have also heard many times the call for the regulators to be regulated. One level of separation seems essential if the new regulatory bodies are to offer a credible alternative to the current incumbents.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (4)
Julian Stevens | 19 Nov 2010 10:45 am
Well done AIFA ~ except you're about ten years late chiming in with all the other calls for a regulator to regulator and now you're trying to dress it up as some great new proprietary idea.
How about registering with the FSA a formal complaint about its wanton disregard for the Statutory Code of Practice For Regulators? (YTou have heard of the Code, I trust?). In case you hadn't realised, (y)our right to do this is covered by the Legislative & Regulatory reform Act of 2006. Further, if the complainant is dissatisfied with the progress or outcome of the FSA's own investigation (pretty much a given), the process allows the complainant to refer his complaint to the Complaints Commissioner which is supposedly independent of the FSA.
In case you don't know the address of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner, AIFA, I'm informed by HM Treasury that it's 8th Floor City Tower, 40 Basinghall Street, LONDON EC2V 5DE.
So there you are ~ off you go now and do what we're paying you for.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Smug | 19 Nov 2010 11:25 am
AIFA get it wrong again.
What we need is for regulators that can be held accountable under law.
Fairness will be restored when the regulated can sue the regulator.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Blair Cann | 19 Nov 2010 12:22 pm
This particular question is as old as history itself-quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The answer as far as we are concerned is Parliament which has ultimate power under our constitution; that's why for me at any rate the debate on Nov 30th is so important.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julia Stevens | 21 Nov 2010 8:17 pm
To Blair Cann ~ oddly, though Parliament has the power to scrap (though in practice, we all know it'll only involve partitioning) the FSA, Mark Hoban is still churning out the same stale old lie that the FSA is independent of government and that the RDR et al is a matter for the FSA. Even Harriet Baldwin, valiant though her support for us may be, has admitted that the best hope for the debate on 30th November is to "influence" the FSA in its obdurate refusal to give any ground over the RDR. With the backing of Hoban, the FSA may consider itself under no obligation to change its stance.
The only real hope, as I see it, is for a body such as AIFA to raise a formal complaint against the FSA in respect of its wanton disregard for the Statutory Code Of Practice For Regulators, followed by referral to the Complaints Commissioner if the FSA's response is what most of us expect, i.e. an obfuscatory fob-off.
THEN, if that fails, our next best hope is by way of a Judicial Review initiated by Regulatory Legal. More, I suggest, rests on the judge's determination on the issue of the FSCS's special levy imposed on the IFA sector in respect of the failure of KeyData.
That having said, I shall watch with interest the Parliamentary debate to be held on 30th November, as it may achieve something of value, if not an outright rout of the FSA.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment