What utter nonsense. The assertion that it would prejudice future discussions between Government departments does not hold water. It is in the interests not just of the financial services industry and IFAs in particular but also in the interests of the British public to disclose what was said. The 1 per cent stakeholder price cap was poor policy, poorly conceived, poorly executed and then for all matter of political paranoia defended for years by successive ministers. No wonder the powers that be do not want to disclose the information. But what are we to believe went on in exchanges between the FSA and the Government? Could the FSA have suggested that the price cap was unworkable or could poleaxe pension sales? Did Treasury or other Government officials or bullying special advisers glibly and negligently retort that 1 per cent was a nice round number easily understood by the public so they were going to impose it and see what happened? Might the regulator have suggested that borrowing a charging structure from the giant American mutual tracker funds or even from largely unsuccessful direct marketing operations in the UK was, at best, folly? Why should anyone believe otherwise if the FSA insists that these discussions remain cloaked in secrecy? Money Marketing is going to do all it can to shed light on this matter. We will challenge this decision and keep challenging it until we get to the truth.