It seems the FSA is: above the rule of law

I AM sure I'm not alone in offering condolences to the family of the late Emlyn Wynne for the trauma they have had to endure following the PIA visitation.

Your leading article (Stress tops Aifa agenda, FA, 4 May), however does not get to the heart of the matter. During the progress of the Financial Services and Markets Bill the economic secretary to the Treasury, Melanie Johnson defended immunity from prosecution for the FSA on the grounds that legal challenges could occur at every stage of regulation.

True, but the police can be sued for damages, so what's the real objection? It's money. The Treasury denies justice because it does not want to pay for it. As a result, the FSA is above the law and is also not accountable to Parliament.No wonder excesses occur.

Under a tax-cutting government, self-regulation was the only way forward, if regulation could be justified. IFAs picked up the tab, as not so hidden taxation.

The new bill nationalises the FSA, but IFAs are expected to pay increased taxes as well as the current tax burden and be denied the right to sue the regulator for damages.

There is taxation without repesentation and no accountability, a situation common in African and South American republics, but alien in a mature democracy.

There is time for a final protest before the FSA bill goes back to the Commons, but for those who suffer damage from the FSA in the meantime and are unhappy with the Complaints Commission verdict, the European Court would appear to be the only way to seek justice.

ROY BENNET