Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
On the one hand the Government argues the strategic objective merely supplements the operational objectives. On the other hand it argues the strategic objective will act as "a check and a balance" on the operational objectives. The stance therefore appears contradictory. Furthermore, the Government also appears confused as to whether it is a strategic objective or a "mission statement", which are not the same thing. A "mission statement" has no place in primary legislation. At best the supplementary objective adds nothing. It may be harmful. Multiple tiers of objective risk adding to complexity and diffusing the focus within the FCA. It will not assist in "focusing the regulatory culture of the FCA" and could have the opposite effect.