View more on these topics

Tory Treasury team meets with Sants and senior FSA staff

The Conservative Treasury team including Shadow Chancellor George Osborne met with FSA chief executive Hector Sants and FSA senior management teams yesterday to talk about their regulatory policy for the financial services industry if they win the next election.

According to sources close to the Tory Treasury team, shadow minister for the Treasury Baroness Noakes, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Philip Hammond and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne presented an outline of the main proposals in their white paper released earlier this year.

This was then followed by a question and answer session where FSA staff asked questions about financial capability, enforcement and European regulation and how the proposals would work in practice.

The Conservatives sought to reassure the staff that although they were proposing to scrap the FSA, there would still be a continued demand for regulators under their new proposed system of a Consumer Protection Authority which would sit in the Bank of England.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Dear Mr Osborne

    Are proposals to dismantle the FSA going to create more gaps than they are expected to fill? Would it be far better to esure that the FSA is truly independent of government influence via HM Treasury policy makers? The RDR is a government brainwave, so is the latest mortgage regulation paper. Everything we see has pros and cons but all too often there are far more of the latter.

    If there was lax regulation of the banks can we blame the former Bank of England regulators who were transferred to the FSA and who will no doubt be scrambling to get back from whence they came in order to restore their gold plated pensions? If we can’t blame them must we accuse the banks of a clever bit of lobbying, making everyone believe they were lovely cuddly little bunnies and that they should regulate themselves because they were creating all that money for HM Treasury?

    I have been through FIMBRA, PIA and latterly the FSA. The same people were involved, including Michael Foot!

    Both the country and regulated firms need stability, neither of them need yet another five year vacuum or a printer’s invoice for new stationery just because some politicians want to make a name for themselves, it is the financial services sector which has to pick up the pieces every time there is a change of government, if you think back it was politicians of all parties who voted for a flawed piece of legislation, the FSMA 2000, what would the next one look like and how many Parliamentary days will be spent by those few who are interested enough to debate the issue until the small hours? Would you like a list of regulatory ‘flips’ which have happened in the name of change for the sake of it? Most of it while you were in full time education. All this ‘flipping’ of regulators creates uncertainty and instability, please think carefully with all the facts in front of you and then make an informed decision based upon what is good for the country rather than some goal scoring in the game of political football.

    If the FSA can prove it is listening to and learning from the people who have been unhappy participants, and footballs, for the greater part of three decades and it is allowed to make its own policy for implementation would you allow a period where everyone in the financial sector could demonstrate that regulation can work and hopefully there will be no more gigantic “collective intellectual failures”?

  2. I forgot to mention that I was also regulated by the Securities and Investments Board (SIB), this company was set up in 1985 by the previous Conservative government. When New Labour was elected in 1997 they decided to amalgamate all the Self Regulatory Organisations into one single regulator, they used the SIB as the vehicle and changed its name at Companies House to the Financial Services Authority. I really don’t see the point of changing the name yet again do you? Until the SROs are all working together as intended it is premature to ‘flip’ the whole thing once more.

  3. As one who has supported victims of flawed home income plans (circa1989) for seventeen years I can state categorically that the FSA are dynamic compared with SIB and FIMBRA who displayed total inertia. My only regret is that the
    FSMA is not retrospective.
    A.B.Craven pp HIPS(97) – A National Support Group for Victims

Leave a comment