Sir, – John McManus ("Blame McCreevy and Harney not regulator for light touch", Business Opinion, 5th May) reflects on where blame lies for the business failures of recent times. He believes that our principles-based regulation proved to be "almost comically inept".
It may be inferred from this that a rules-based approach is better than a principles-based approach. I would suggest, however, that this would be an erroneous conclusion to draw. The point about a principles-based approach is that principles by themselves are not enough. A principles-based approach must be populated by men and women of principle. Men and women with strong ethical values lacked the freedom to exercise their values.
It can be compared to making a cake. A rules-based approach would give us a tight, step by step, specific recipe with a comprehensive list of ingredients. Then, regardless of who the cook is, a uniform, identical cake of rigid standard will emerge. On the other hand, if we have a simple statement of the values of excellent cake-making , but a cook who is not imbued with those values, of course you will have a horrible cake. You need a cook who understands those values and has the freedom, flair and experience in making cakes that are delicious , varied, can be trusted and in which the cook has pride; as well as providing him/her with a living.
The principles-based approach is not discredited. The ethics of the business people and professionals who applied those principles were under-valued and, in some cases, underdeveloped. Moral agency did not exist. It is in the area of professional and business ethics that we should direct our attention now and not towards an ever-increasing, restrictive mountain of reactive code, regulation and rules. – Yours, etc,
Prof PATRICIA BARKER,
Broomfield,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.