My FOI request on the FSA threw up SFA

I am at the apparent end of a tussle with the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Or I think I am. Last month it was revealed that 51 individuals had effectively failed to pass muster as “competent” to hold key positions in Britain’s financial services industry.

Or to put it more politely, these individuals had “withdrawn” from the application process after being independently assessed by the FSA.

On the one hand it was encouraging to find the FSA being so hands-on as to be pre-emptively fingering risky individuals who might blight the boards for banks and other financial services outfits.

But on the other, what is the point of barring such people from such sensitive work if we the people have no idea who they are? Where else might these people surface to threaten our corporate life?

The FT revealed that there were 51 individuals whose competence was challenged by the FSA. I wanted to find out who these people were and filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Within the statuary 30 days it was rejected. The FSA admitted they held the names but would not release them.

Then I asked for the jobs for which these people had applied and been rejected as unsuitable for by the FSA. Again the FSA refused. The FOI act is carefully drafted so as not to infringe the human rights of individuals with whom bodies like the FSA interact. There are no viable grounds for appeal.

So on a day when the political classes get to elect a new Speaker for the House of Commons – ultimately because freedom of information exposed the corrupt practices over which the former Speaker presided – we are not allowed to know the identities of the people who threaten the financial system through their lack of competence for such jobs.

My concern is whether the FSA has the competence to ensure that these people never occupy ANY position in ANY company that might threaten our own, or our own society’s welfare. Now, can the the FSA give us that guarantee?