Punish politicians for bad decisions

Few will argue that bankers should face monetary or criminal sanctions if “reckless misconduct” makes it into law (your report, 19 June), but why should this only apply to those in financial services?

History is littered with politicians and civil servants who, through incompetence, ineptitude, idiocy, greed and legacy-making, cost the country vast sums and have a significantly detrimental impact on the lives of citizens. Yet there is never any question of politicians or civil servants who commit blatant “reckless misconduct” losing their gold-plated pensions, company directorships, titles or, ultimately, their freedom.

Let us not forget that the political class was culpable in the collapse of the banking sector through lax regulation, desperation for tax revenues and for encouraging reckless lending. Yet, as far as I am aware, only a handful of bankers and no politicians or civil servants have been punished for their actions.

Perhaps if they were made financially or criminally responsibly for the long-term consequences of their decisions more consideration would have been given.

Andrew Black

Columbia Avenue

Edinburgh

I read the article detailing the proposed changes which are designed to make reckless bankers a thing of the past.

All that was necessary was a requirement that all mainstream senior banking employees must have several years of banking experience and have sat and passed the banking examinations of the relevant professional banking institute.

Among other things, these teach the principles of lending and assessment of risk. These abilities were sadly lacking among most of the leaders of the UK banks over the last ten or 15 years.

In the days before non-bankers were parachuted in to senior positions in banks, banking was relatively crisis-free. I fear the lessons have still not been learnt.

Iain Davenport

Mauricewood Park

Penicuik