The Financial Conduct Authority has launched a major consultation on its role but shouldn't it be obvious?

The watchdog was set up in 2013. While it has put forward some good ideas, the fact that it is still engaging in a seemingly interminable debate on what it should be doing, and how it should do its job, is disturbing

Andrew Bailey: Is he planning to go soft on the City? (PA)

Just what everyone needs right now: a consultation from the Financial Conduct Authority on its “mission”.

Britain’s financial watchdog thinks this needs “redefining” now it has a shiny new chief executive in place in the form of Andrew Bailey, latterly of the Bank of England.

“The FCA has clear objectives set by Parliament, principally to ensure that relevant (financial) markets function well,” he tells us. “This is a helpfully broad objective which allows us the scope to deal with many issues, but its breadth emphasises that we must provide clear explanations of how we interpret our objectives.”

Is it worth mentioning at this point that he got the job after the former Chancellor George Osborne (remember him?) kicked his predecessor Martin Wheatley out. Sorry, after the former Chancellor refused to renew his predecessor Martin Wheatley's contract. For being too tough.

A cynic might very well wonder if this consultation is not unconnected to that.

If you wanted to take that line of reasoning further, there is also the issue of the EU referendum and the fact that half the City is considering slinging its hook as a result of it, given the fact that the Conservative Government has decided to try and out UKIP UKIP by moving towards a “hard” Brexit that would pull up the drawbridge at the white cliffs of Dover.

Au contraire, says Mr Bailey, at pains to point out that he mentions Brexit only once in his 53 page consultation document. The trouble is, it hangs over everything, and it will play an enormous part in how the FCA does its job in future whether Mr Bailey wants to admit it or not. Going easy on the City might help to ensure there is a City left to regulate post-Brexit. It is fair to ask whether or not this is part of Mr Bailey's motivation.

No, no, no, say sources close to the FCA. They point out that there is no question of going soft on banks, because in many cases that would be illegal. Mr Bailey also makes a point of talking tough about the crisis of conduct that emerged after the financial crisis, citing Libor rigging, foreign exchange fixing, breaches of money laundering rules. Oh, and let’s not forget PPI misselling.

“This is a very sorry history and the future needs to be radically different from the past. We owe this to the public who are the consumers of financial services,” says Mr Bailey. See, I can be tough too. I can be a bruiser, just you watch me.

This exercise, I’m told, it’s just about working out how the FCA should focus its resources when it comes to the admittedly large job of overseeing the activities of some 56,000 firms. So no need to worry.

To be fair, there are some decent ideas in the document. The aim of bringing some consistency to the way consumers get redress when they become caught up in scandals is a particularly good one.

Sometimes predecessor bodies have taken direct responsibility for cleaning up messes, sometimes the job has been handed to the Financial Services Ombudsman (such as with the PPI scandal). Sometimes it has been left to the industry, albeit with supervision. A more consistent approach would be welcome.

Mr Bailey also has good things to say on the issue of vulnerable consumers, and is thinking about ending the practice of giving firms a private slap on the wrist when they’ve get caught with their pants down but haven’t been bad enough to warrant disciplinary action. In future they’ll either be publicly hauled them over the coals or they won’t

I’ve met Mr Bailey, and was impressed with him when I did. He’s extremely intelligent, and highly capable. Too intelligent to realise he’s fallen into the trap of wasting time effort and money “redefining” a role that ought to be self evident?. That's quite possible.

When it all comes down to it, the FCA’s role shouldn't need debating: Protect consumers, ensure redress for the victims of scandal, seek out and punish wrong doing, keep the City clean. The rest is just detail.

The fact that we’re still conducting a seemingly never ending debate about it all is just a little bit worrying.