FSA was not supported by public or parliament, says Sants
Share
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) must have support from the public and parliament if it is to be a success, according to Hector Sants, the chief executive designate of the PRA.
Hector Sants
Speaking today at the launch of a briefing document on the approach of the PRA, Sants said the FSA never received full governmental or public backing.
He said: “It seems to me that a major issue for the FSA was that it never achieved the full support of parliament or the public. There was a misalignment of the understanding of the purpose and value of supervision. The PRA must start its life with the full backing and agreement of those it serves.
“We need to recognise that the PRA’s purpose is understood and supported by the community that it serves, namely the UK society as represented by parliament.”
To receive more relevant articles like this one, why not sign up to our briefings and breaking alerts by clicking here and Follow @fundweb
Readers' comments (3)
bill | 19 May 2011 3:58 pm
If this is your wish Mr Sants, then get the UK parliament and the UK Public to pay for it!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hedge | 19 May 2011 11:52 pm
Not really surprising that the FSA never received support or backing from anyone bearing in mind the incompetent morons that work for it.
It never understood the industry, the needs of consumers or the sheer greed of the banks and the ignorance of many of the banks' boards.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Glen McKeown | 23 May 2011 9:04 am
If a public body does not receive public support it should be normal practice to analyse why this is so rather than just whinge about it.
As Mr Sants, as head of the FSA was therefore in charge of the presentation of the FSA's mission it can be concluded that a) his role was a failure b) The FSA's role was a failure or c) both.
Can the Government then explain why such failure has been rewarded by the promotion of Mr Sants. And why there is no enquiry into the reasons behind the rejection of the FSA by the Country.
It wouldn't be a case of "jobs for the boys" would it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment