Accountancy Bodies Seek Protection of the term “Accountant”

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and other Accountancy bodies through the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) is campaigning for legal protection for the term ‘accountant’. It believes that, in the same way that the term ‘solicitor’ means a client will have the services of a qualified solicitor, the term ‘accountant’ should denote the service is provided by a fully qualified accountant. A petition has since been lodged with the UK government (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Accountants/).

Presently, the term ‘accountant’ is not defined or protected by law. Anyone is able to set him or herself up as an accountant without professional training. This is a serious issue in terms of consumer protection. Every year, qualified accountants lose business to people who purport to offer accountancy services, but who are not qualified, regulated, or familiar with the latest changes to law and accounting standards. The public do not know the difference between a qualified accountant and someone calling themselves an accountant, and often end up getting wrong advice. Small businesses and individuals, believing they have engaged qualified accountants, are at risk from harmful and costly business advice from unqualified, unregulated, possibly uninsured advisers.

It observes that although some unqualified accountants may do good work, an unqualified accountant is not answerable to any regulatory body and so cannot be disciplined; further notes that legal protection of title is viewed as essential in professions where there is a substantial degree of public interest, for example for doctors, barristers, solicitors and auditors; feels that greater accountability needs to be introduced; and urges the Government to consider introducing legal protection for the term ‘accountant’.”

This campaign follows an increasing number of cases where people have been given poor advice by individuals claiming to be qualified accountants, when they have little or no professional training or qualifications to deal with complex financial issues. Too frequently, members of the public and small businesses believe they have engaged qualified accountants only to find out, to their loss, that the individuals are unqualified and not competent to act on their behalf.

According to the petition, the use of the term ‘’accountant’’ should be restricted to members of the prescribed accountancy bodies, who are subject to a range of significant regulatory and monitoring measures.

My take:
1-The ACCA and CCAB should clarify how Accountants trained at degree level or any other qualification should be viewed.

2-There is evidence to suggest that qualified accountants have often offered bad advice or service.History is repreat with examples such as Anderson, the Auditors and business advisors of the collapsed Enron.

3-Further clarification ought to be sought also on how such law would be enforced in different legal jurisdictions considering that the Accountancy bodies are global associations.

4-This campaign is viewed in many quarters as an infringement of the human rights of experienced and honourable accountants and as a crafty ploy to deprive accountants of other qualifications other than those qualified with the CCAB of their livelihood, acquire their businesses/clients without compensation and obtain a service monopoly which ultimately will be detrimental to consumer choice and potentially result in increasingly exorbitant accountancy and taxation fees.

5-There is also a danger that it will worsen unemployment figures as those affected will become jobless.

Accountancy Bodies Seek Protection of the term “Accountant”

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and other Accountancy bodies through the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) is campaigning for legal protection for the term ‘accountant’. It believes that, in the same way that the term ‘solicitor’ means a client will have the services of a qualified solicitor, the term ‘accountant’ should denote the service is provided by a fully qualified accountant. A petition has since been lodged with the UK government (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Accountants/).

Presently, the term ‘accountant’ is not defined or protected by law. Anyone is able to set him or herself up as an accountant without professional training. This is a serious issue in terms of consumer protection. Every year, qualified accountants lose business to people who purport to offer accountancy services, but who are not qualified, regulated, or familiar with the latest changes to law and accounting standards. The public do not know the difference between a qualified accountant and someone calling themselves an accountant, and often end up getting wrong advice. Small businesses and individuals, believing they have engaged qualified accountants, are at risk from harmful and costly business advice from unqualified, unregulated, possibly uninsured advisers.

It observes that although some unqualified accountants may do good work, an unqualified accountant is not answerable to any regulatory body and so cannot be disciplined; further notes that legal protection of title is viewed as essential in professions where there is a substantial degree of public interest, for example for doctors, barristers, solicitors and auditors; feels that greater accountability needs to be introduced; and urges the Government to consider introducing legal protection for the term ‘accountant’.”

This campaign follows an increasing number of cases where people have been given poor advice by individuals claiming to be qualified accountants, when they have little or no professional training or qualifications to deal with complex financial issues. Too frequently, members of the public and small businesses believe they have engaged qualified accountants only to find out, to their loss, that the individuals are unqualified and not competent to act on their behalf.

According to the petition, the use of the term ‘’accountant’’ should be restricted to members of the prescribed accountancy bodies, who are subject to a range of significant regulatory and monitoring measures.

My take:
1-The ACCA and CCAB should clarify how Accountants trained at degree level or any other qualification should be viewed.

2-There is evidence to suggest that qualified accountants have often offered bad advice or service.History is repreat with examples such as Anderson, the Auditors and business advisors of the collapsed Enron.

3-Further clarification ought to be sought also on how such law would be enforced in different legal jurisdictions considering that the Accountancy bodies are global associations.

4-This campaign is viewed in many quarters as an infringement of the human rights of experienced and honourable accountants and as a crafty ploy to deprive accountants of other qualifications other than those qualified with the CCAB of their livelihood, acquire their businesses/clients without compensation and obtain a service monopoly which ultimately will be detrimental to consumer choice and potentially result in increasingly exorbitant accountancy and taxation fees.

5-There is also a danger that it will worsen unemployment figures as those affected will become jobless.

A banknote paper supplier withdraws from Zimbabwe.

On 1st July 2008, a German company Giesecke & Devrient(http://www.gi-de.com) which supplies banknote paper to different central banks was forced to withdraw from supplying the paper to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. This followed international pressure. Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation forced the country’s central bank to print more Zim dollars creating demand for the German company’s banknote paper.

In a press statement the company said;
“Our decision is a reaction to the political tension in Zimbabwe, which is mounting significantly rather than easing as expected, and takes account of the critical evaluation by the international community, German government and general public,” explains Dr. Karsten Ottenberg, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO of Giesecke & Devrient GmbH.

In delivering banknotes and banknote paper, Giesecke & Devrient is subject to strict rules defined by the World Bank. The company continues to rely on the political and moral assessment provided by international trade regulators.”

Will this situation slow down the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe? What will the German company do with the profit it made whilst helping to accelerate the downward spiral of the Zimbabwe economy? What will the German goverment do with corporation tax received or receivable on profits from this transaction?

When a ship containing arms from China that were meant to be chanelled to Zimbabwe for use by the ZANU PF government, I felt that China was being insensitive to the whole saga that ensued just after the disputed March 27,2008 elections. However, today I ask you as I ask myself, was the world blind to see that this German company was constructively perpetrating the worst abuse on the people of Zimbabwe by supplying these papers for so long without condemnation?