Coalition agreement suggests FSA to be kept
Share
The coalition agreement for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government suggests the Tories have backtracked on their plans to scrap the FSA.
The agreement says: “We will reform the regulatory system to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis. We will bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.”
However, it does not mention the role of the FSA, suggesting the Government has left the door open to retaining the regulator under the supervision of the Bank of England as commentators have predicted.
The agreement confirms that a single agency will be created to tackle financial crime - bringing together the work of the FSA, Office of Fair Trading and Serious Fraud Office in this area.
The agreement says: “We take white collar crime as seriously as other crime, so we will create a single agency to take on the work of tackling serious economic crime that is currently done by, among others, the Serious Fraud Office, Financial Services Authority and Office of Fair Trading.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 20 May 2010 11:57 am
I'm sure the trolls will disagree, but this is a sensible decision (if it is one). Splitting up the FSA would have proved very expensive, and would have left large holes in the regulation of financial services.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 20 May 2010 12:18 pm
To Anon 11.57 I agree with you. It woudl be a bit like invading Iraq having dispanded the Iraqi Army, bombing all it's utilities and purging all party members from the system.
You only need to remove a few people at the top (be afraid, be very afraid), to change the culture, there are some good people at the FSA, and even the lawful evil can follow through lawful plans put in front of them. The problem is we have had chaotic good/evil for the last 9 years.....
The colation needs to step back and look at the FSA before deciding whetehr it is terminally ill and should be put down and a new dog bought or if a bit of amputation of pointless limbs and removinga few parasitic growths could result in a lean guard dog whose up to the job of regulation which doesn't want to keep licking it's own balls, ball's balls or even worse sniffing the banks a*****
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
terry | 20 May 2010 12:42 pm
I have never been against regulation, however, I am totally against the way the FSA have regulated it in a bombastic and dictorial manner. I am sure that there are some good and sensible people work for the FSA but the rot has set in coming from the top. This is where a review should start together with senior management using their own phrase"fit for purpose"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Fallas | 20 May 2010 12:48 pm
Agree changing the FSA would be expensive but to keep it as it is will be even more expensive. Regulation needs a complete overhall and I would hope a change of name and objectives and above all "accountability" will help to put us in the right direction.
Dont hold out a lot of hope of that though seeing as they have just lumbered us all with the total cost of £1.7 billion for the Money Guidance scheme.
Only the larger players can survive if the ever increasing massive costs are dumped on the industry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Mansell | 20 May 2010 1:10 pm
The Human Rights Act 1998 is being breached by the FSA's. FSMA 2000 gave the FSA Statutory Authority which places it above UK law but now EU law. The issue is not one of FSA V no FSA it is one of accountability. Brown knew this and refused to release legal opinion to the contrary.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Incompetent Regulators Award Team | 20 May 2010 3:26 pm
Distributors of packages financial products should not be regulated. When one considers examinations which have to be passed which is a form of licensing, cooling off notices which give consumers a chance to cancel and a dodgy Ombudsman to boot!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment