It would be fair to say that the Professional Oversight Board’s (POB) review of the monitoring arrangements by the UK professional accountancy bodies of their members who practise non-regulated accountancy services has provoked some debate and discussion.
As our response to the POB sets out, we are fully behind the principle that clients and prospective clients must be assured of a high quality and professional service when they engage a qualified accountant. That’s why we introduced our Practice Assurance scheme back in 2005 and why we want to help firms assess and develop their practices with practical help and support.
I know that POB shares that view and wants to play an active role in protecting the public by ensuring that qualified accountants maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and competence.
My worry is that in its efforts to cover all the bases, POB is in danger of increasing the regulatory burden and associated costs to firms at a time when they are facing growing competition from ‘accountants’ who are not members of any professional body or indeed who aren’t even qualified.
As a profession, we can always do more to improve quality and standards. However, the public can never be fully protected if individuals and firms that don’t have any regulatory oversight compete with similar products and services.
This is something the Professional Oversight Board needs to consider. As a starting point, it should evaluate the risk to the public arising from the fact that the term ‘accountant’ is not legally defined or protected. I have no doubt that the professional bodies and their members will be willing to contribute to this debate.