Firstly, congratulations to the Code Committee members. You can check out at list over here, if you haven't already done so. While there will certainly be rewards for Code Committee membership, there is a strong service component to membership, and so thank you to the Code Committee members for being prepared to participate in that.
Like many of the advisers commenting on the Code Committee membership I am disappointed that there doesn't appear to be a specialist in insurance advice, nor, in fact, an adviser of any kind that does not work solely for one product provider. As a consumer I have always believed in comparison shopping and independent advice. Disappointed, but not altogether surprised. Not surprised because advisers typically run small businesses, and by that I mean any business with 50 or fewer staff, or where, say, more than 25% of the revenue comes from the efforts of that one person. It is hard to leave this precious business to spend variable amounts of time on the work of the Code Committee. Plus, you can see already, that the work is public, and likely to come with a fair quantity of criticism. My thoughts are particularly with Angus Dale-Jones, who, as chairperson of the group, will front a lot of the issues and will therefore wear a lot of the flak. There will be flak.
The lack of a good insurance advice participant need not be fatal. The Code Committee is the core of a process which needs to take input, and be seen to be taking input, from the wider marketplace. The problem of committee composition is one that I am sure has been difficult to work through. Trade-offs would have been made. I hope that the committee can take into account the compromises that were made and compensate for them during the consultation process - and get the views that aren't your own through the committee process.