The
complaint by financial sector trade bodies about proposed changes to the
UK's regulatory system raises the interesting question about the accountability - or lack thereof - of the financial regulators. UK banks fear that the scrapping of the
Financial Services Authority (
FSA) will leave power in the hands of a small, unelected group. But can one really say that the
FSA was accountable just because it was required to hold an annual public meeting and had to hold regular meetings with senior industry managers through its so-called
Practioners' Panel? We wonder what the outcome of the Credit Crunch would have been if the regulators would have been subject to full democratic control during the past few years. If anything the reaction to the crisis would have been less decisive and therefore less effective. Democratic control would better be applied during the stage in the legislative process when the framework for the regulatory regime is designed and there is time for more - and more broadly based - discussion between all parties involved. That would allow the voice of taxpayers and consumers to have more weight in the ultimate outcome.