ISLANDERS and the outside world are frequently reminded that the regulatory standards of the Jersey finance industry are second to none.

However, when that assertion is made by ministers, agencies such as Jersey Finance Ltd or the Jersey Financial Services Commission, or the industry itself, there is a natural tendency for people to say: ‘Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?’

If this scepticism stops short of out-and-out cynicism which rejects all favourable evidence, it has a role to play in reminding financial services organisations and those who regulate them that there is still an important job to be done in terms of public education and public relations. It also focuses attention on the desirability of having our own official pronouncements endorsed by objective, independent assessments whenever possible.

The effort to promote finance’s image and to highlight its essential probity will, naturally enough, always be easier whenever there is incontrovertible evidence that it is working within an effective regulatory régime which has the interests of the Island as a whole at its centre rather than a drive to ever greater profits.

Fortunately, the latest report into the regulation of financial services – in particular the pains taken to combat money laundering and the funding of terrorists – has confirmed that we are firmly on the right track. Indeed, last year’s International Monetary Fund inspection, and the weighty report that it has just produced, place Jersey at the very top of the regulatory tree. To say that we have passed the inspectors’ tests with flying colours could actually be described as an understatement.

That said, although the standards of assessment used by the IMF show that we are compliant with more internationally recognised criteria than any of the other 120 jurisdictions that are inspected, there remains some scope for improvement. We have ticked the boxes in 44 out of 49 categories, so evidently some further effort is required to be awarded a perfect score.

But this is not to minimise what has already been achieved. The degree to which the requirements of the IMF have been met certainly confirms everything that has been claimed for the high standards we set.

In spite of this, the Island’s arch critics will, in the face of all contrary evidence, continue to insist that we have secrets to hide. If they cannot be satisfied with the highly favourable verdict of the IMF inspectorate, it is unlikely that any standard of proof will be sufficient.