View more on these topics

Call for longer Parliamentary scrutiny of new financial services bill

A pressure group is lobbying the leader of the House of Commons in a bid to extend the length of time allowed for pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft financial services bill.

Joe Egerton, founder of Justice in Financial Services, has written to Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young, warning important issues relating to the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme will be overlooked if Parliament is only given the proposed scrutiny period of twelve weeks.

Egerton has also called for the scrutiny committee to be allowed to appoint sub-committees to consider different parts of the bill.

Egerton says: “Trying to amend the discredited Financial Services & Markets Act rather than introduce new legislation has made the draft bill something of a dog’s breakfast. As the legislative process moves forward, and more and more MPs and peers come to realise this, we could see the same thing happening as happened to the NHS legislation – it started with general support but as more and more difficulties emerged it had to be revised.’”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. “Trying to amend the discredited Financial Services & Markets Act rather than introduce new legislation has made the draft bill something of a dog’s breakfast.” It is way below the standard. of a dog’s breakfast. The FSA, however, considers it good enough for IFA’s who do not have less rights thanf an animal, under this legislation.

  2. Gordon Brown pushed through FSMA 2000 and with all the resulting abuses.

    In 1999 Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Monica Carss-Frisk were asked for advice when FSMA 2000 was at draft stage and this is what they said then:

    We are asked to advise on two issues:

    (a) Whether the institution of disciplinary proceedings by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) purely on the basis of a breach of one of its proposed statements of principle could potentially infringe Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”);

    (b)Whether, in the light of the policy statements in Chapter 5 of the FSA’s Consultation Paper 17, the nature of the disciplinary proceedings which the FSA will be empowered to bring under the Financial Services and Markets Bill (“the Bill”) is criminal or civil.

    For the reasons given below, we consider that (1) the conviction of a firm of a disciplinary offence purely on the basis of a breach of one of the statements of principle, where the conduct in question does not fall within any detailed rule, evidential provision, code or guidance, would be contrary to Article 7 of the ECHR; and

    (2) disciplinary proceedings under the Bill would be treated as criminal in substance for the purposes of attracting the procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

    Irrespective of this advice i.e. that aspects of the FSMA 2000 were illegal and the advice of mant others Crash Gordon pushed through The FSMA 2000 and the FSA was born, the rest is as they say history!

    We now have a second change not to make the same mistakes twice!

Leave a comment