People always seem to want regulators, someone to oversee this or give an opinion on that. It’s a growth industry.

This week we heard more and more calls for regulatory intervention. Prime minister Gordon Brown has even set up a new agency at local government level to ensure there aren’t too many agencies spewing out too many regulations.

I dread to think what its first job will be. Issuing a regulation against regulation, perhaps?

The ICAEW is up to it too. Senior figures want an ombudsman to protect members, who may suffer under the new public disciplinaries being mooted.

Of course, it may be suggested it is hypocritical of a journalist to criticise regulation. Newspapers create much of the noise demanding that things are looked into and made more transparent.

And doing away with what we contemptuously refer to as ‘red tape’ risks, on the other side of the coin, letting go of what may well be valuable checks on unscrupulous behaviour.

But it’s important to take a broader view of regulation, to target it at the issues that matter and remove it elsewhere.

For instance, multi-nationals are too lightly regulated. Why shouldn’t they report on a country-by-country basis? It would be cumbersome, but they make mind-boggling amounts of money and seem to have to answer to no one.

Government agencies don’t need an over-arching regulator to stop them regulating, either. If a new rule is silly, we can all tell them so in print, in parliament and in public generally.

In short, there’s already a body to regulate regulators ­ - us.

Alex Hawkes is the news editor of Accountancy Age