Bose,
Peter didn't say that. He said lack of oversight was a massive misconception and he is right.
His other points are that Europe has a safety model based on "organisational approvals" rather than "individual accountability". The former works well in the airline world, because there is the scale to make it work and no other model makes sense. Part 121 is much the same in the US.
For GA maintenance and training, the organisational approval model adds a lot of overhead and little benefit IMHO. As an aircraft owner, I would have zero extra confidence in the costs and complexity Part M introduces. I also think the Peter is right that an organisation can "hide behind its approvals" and I do get the sense that if a poor Part M business ticks the boxes, pays its fees etc, the actual quality of what it does is almost secondary. Similarly for flight training to an extent. UK training is of a good quality because there are a lot of good people involved. The vast amount of paperwork adds little. You run a TRTO, you know this. The students who lost £70k when Cabair went bust know this.
The CAA's economic model adds to the distortion inherent in the EASA and pre-EASA framework. The CAA can't charge a general tax or a ramp inspection fee, they can charge for approvals and paperwork. It's no criticism of the people, you make any organisation dependent on a hammer, and that organisation will start seeing a lot of nails out there.
brgds
421C