Letter: Plenty of cash for battle

It will progress to appeal court, then to the Supreme Court and finally to the European Court of Human Rights.

That is if Mr Calland is able to bear the costs should he lose. It would seem to me that his case may be strong. However unless it can be fought the whole way then the FSA and Fos are in the position that they have available any amount of money necessary, from levies on IFAs, to financially break anyone with who they have a fight. 

The real problem is that when Parliament pushed through the Financial Services and Markets Act, it passed totally flawed legislation which was contrary to the laws of natural justice by giving unlimited executive power to a quasi-judicial organisation which was not even answerable to Parliament.  The cavalier treatment of the Treasury select committee last year, which questioned much of the FSA’s agenda relating to the retail distribution review, surely is an example of the hazard of allowing any organisation to be more omnipotent than Parliament itself. 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case relating to Mr Calland and indeed others that may have similar features, what is totally wrong is that the matter can only finally be resolved by taking the case outside the jurisdiction of the UK, as not even the Supreme Court can be the final arbiter, when a quasi-judicial organisation with total and unrestricted executive powers can effectively be judge, jury and executor in its own court. 

Dare we hope that the new Financial Conduct Authority which eventually will take over the responsibility for regulation of the financial services industry, but less bank regulation, will be answerable to Parliament and fall within the remit of a minister with final responsibility for its actions. The fact that far too many quasi-government departments are inaccessible on issues of justice, other than to millionaires, is just not acceptable in a parliamentary democracy.

Peter R French, 

IFA in process of retiring

London