Today's attempted public relations triumph can often be tomorrow's mistake - and it's hard to avoid that conclusion with Alistair Darling's attempt to head off public anger with an inquiry into City bonuses and excessive risk-taking.

These are exactly the subjects into which an inquiry of this kind should be held. However, the fact that Sir David Walker will not report for more than a year means that he will be able to do nothing about bonuses paid in respect of 2008 nor, in all probability, those for 2009. That will do little to assuage public anger and particularly not in the light of recent revelations of big payouts at RBS et al. The accusations of dithering from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats look justified.

Meanwhile, there is palpable irritation among institutional shareholders in Britain's banks about the appointment of Sir David, a man wedded to the status quo. Sir David, of course, was invited two years ago by the British Venture Capital Association to devise a code of conduct for private equity at the height of union-inspired public outrage over alleged asset-stripping at the AA, among other companies, by firms such as Permira. His response was little more than a recommendation that private equity companies do more to disclose what they do and how they make their money. In any case, by the time he reported, everyone was back on the bus and the issue had gone away.

However, hiring Sir David to do a report like this is worse than simply hoofing the ball into the long grass. It is appointing the wrong man for the job. Sir David, best known in the City as the former chairman of Morgan Stanley International, is steeped in what might be called the bonus culture. It is like asking Pini Zahavi to investigate whether football clubs are paying too much in commission to players' agents.

In fact, it's worse. We do not even know the extent to which Sir David himself has benefited from the bonus culture. There are certainly no clues in the recent accounts of Morgan Stanley International. All these disclose, in this area, is that, in the year to the end of November 2007, the highest-paid director received $10 million and the board as a whole shared $85 million.

There is a wider question over Sir David's suitability for carrying out a review of this kind. Almost by definition, he is a fully paid-up supporter of the investment banking model, with all its use of financial products, such as derivatives and structured products, which are, by their nature, more risky than the traditional lending activities of commercial banks.

The Financial Services Secretary, Lord Myners, yesterday claimed that this review would be a “first step in generating renewed commitment from institutional shareholders”.

Sadly, it doesn't seem as if the Government has actually consulted any of these people before embarking on this exercise.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive