26th March 2009
Now Read This!!!
Is this why “Principles” is to be replaced by “Outcomes”?
There has been considerable concern and speculation surrounding the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2000 in particular in regard to whether this act is in breach of the Human Rights Act.
The European Convention of Human Rights- ECHR applies to criminal and civil rights and article 7 provides for no punishment without law. The Financial Ombudsman Service and it’s lack of appeal process offends the “fair trial” provisions of article 6 and 7 of the ECHR incorporated into law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
IFA representations to Gordon Brown requesting that he release evidence of the advice he received that may confirm or indeed at least lead one to believe that the FSMA 2000 is or is not compatible with the Human Rights Act have so far fallen on deaf ears.
Well, look what Panacea has been provided with this week- details of the opinion provided by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC on7 April 1999 from Blackstone ChambersBlackstone House, Temple, London.
One is minded of a comment by Thomas Sowell, a noted American academic for his views on social, legal and economic issues.
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
When you read this your will see clearly that Lord Lester takes the view that elements of the then proposed FSMA 2000 are in breach of the Human Rights Act. Is this why the Government is reluctant to release the requested opinion?
We would like your comments on this opinion soonest to forward to those in a position to try and do something about it. Also, forward this article to your fellow IFAs, the industry needs to act as one in regard to the impact that the FSMA 2000 is having upon individual IFAs, IFA firms and product providers in terms of financial loss and commercial distress.
You need to be logged in to comment on this article