I am not sure that the many letters about the FSA really pinpoint what drives such government-appointed organisations - and there are many of them. The Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal immediately spring to mind.

For example, the employers who defend actions taken against them are certain they have done the right things in the right way and have followed, to the letter, the relevant rules and regulations. Yet many cases are decided in favour of the claimant. The Insurance Ombudsman is another example where decisions can fly in the face of common sense.

It is simply because all such organisations have to justify their existence. The FSA is no exception to this rule. If it is considered that, in general terms, insurers and brokers are behaving properly and not breaking the rules, then why would the FSA be needed? And there is nothing like throwing in some extra rules just to make the point, such as commission disclosure.

Virtually all quangos behave in exactly the same way. I wish I could form a quango to supervise the performance of all the other quangos. Boy, could I find plenty of things to justify my existence.

Malcolm Brockman