I noted the following, disappointing announcement by email:
The Treasury Committee is to take evidence from representatives of the audit and accounting profession on Tuesday 9 February at 10.45am. The session is an opportunity to follow-up recommendations made by the Committee in its report Banking Crisis: reforming corporate governance and pay in the City. The Committee will also be seeking information on any recent developments in audit and accounting, with a particular emphasis on regulation and the future role of auditors in banks and other financial institutions.
Witnesses:
Helen Brand, Chief Executive, ACCA,
Ian Paterson Brown, Convenor of Ethics Committee and Chair of working group on the provision on non-audit services, ICAS,
Robert Hodgkinson, Executive Director, Technical, ICAEW, and
Stephen Haddrill, Chief Executive, Financial Reporting Council
I have a simple question for the committee. Why, oh why ask the apologists? Why not ask the critics? Why isn’t Prem Sikka there? The people being asked above are the problem – especially when it comes to the failed model of bank bad debt accounting – and the committee is going to learn nothing unless the critics are there as well.
One Response to “Why not ask the critics of accountancy?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Have you directed your question to the Committee’s chairman, Richard? I’d be interested to hear what the reason is, and given your status and expertise you might get a response.
Certainly taking this kind of ‘partial’ evidence is a tendency of some parliamentary committees, and from what I’ve observed over the years the Treasury Committee is one.