Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 1927

Vol. 8 No. 8

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - REGISTERED ACCOUNTANTS BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I move that this Bill be read a Second Time. When it was introduced it was late in the sitting, and it was thought better not to make any detailed explanation of it. Consequently I only very briefly introduced it. The object of this Bill is to organise the profession of accountants in the Irish Free State on much the same lines as the professions of solicitors, surgeons or physicians, veterinary surgeons and dentists are organised at the present time. In doing so the Bill aims at setting up a standard of competence, integrity and etiquette which shall be a safeguard both to the public and to the State. That it has been of advantage to have registration in the case of the legal profession, of doctors and dentists will not be disputed now by anyone, although there were, no doubt, difficulties at the time it was done. The profession of accountants has, in recent years, reached an importance to trade and commerce—there are no accountants here, but there are members of the legal profession here—which, shall I say, almost equals that of the legal profession. I think it is no exaggeration to say that, to a very great extent, the business credit of the Irish Free State in the future will depend on the competence and the integrity of its accountants.

The exacting requirements of the income tax authorities from the point of view of the individual, and the importance of an equitable and fair collection of income tax from the point of view of the State are, to mention only one matter, of considerable difficulty and the public as a whole depends to a very large extent on accountants. Shareholders, particularly in very large companies, are dependent, almost entirely, on accountants as their safeguard for the proper management of business, or perhaps I should not say the proper management of business, but at any rate for the accuracy of the accounts presented by managers or directors. Bankers, who have to a large extent the control and the credit of the State, recognise that it is essential to have a large number of competent and, above all, straightforward accountants who will certify the various accounts on which they pass loans, or the accommodation which they give regularly to the public.

The importance of accountancy nowadays will not, I think, be disputed, and there is no need to labour it. Accountancy became first a more or less organised profession in the second half of the nineteenth century, and between the years 1854 and 1888 Charters were granted to the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh, the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow, the Society of Accountants in Aberdeen, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. All these bodies came into existence about the same decade. In 1885 the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors was formed under a licence from the Board of Trade. An Irish branch of this latter body was set up at a later date to provide a separate organisation for Irish members. Within recent years a number of other accountants' societies have been formed, but one may safely say that none of these other bodies has anything like the same standing in Ireland at present as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors. In Great Britain it is usual, where there is a specific legal provision, in the case of auditors to municipal corporations and other bodies to provide that the auditor must be a member of either of these two bodies. In spite of certain demands that were made, the Parliament at Westminster has declined to give the same recognition to any other body of accountants than these two. To the best of my belief that is the case. In addition to these two in Ireland there are four other bodies in existence at present who have accountants practising in the Irish Free State. These are the London Association of Accountants, whose head office is in London. It has an Irish Free State branch, the Central Association of Accountants, Ltd., with its head office in London, and no Irish Free State branch; the Corporation of Accountants, Ltd., whose head office is in Glasgow, and on the 11th March of last year the Irish Association of Accountants, Ltd., was registered in the Irish Free State.

I have not got the figures up to the present date of the membership of these societies, but from the figures given in the 1926 year books of the respective bodies I find that of the persons in actual practice as accountants in the Irish Free State 48 are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and 30 are members of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors. Of the remainder, 16 are corporate accountants, and 9 are members of the London Association of Accountants; 4 are members of the Central Association of Accountants with the head office in Glasgow. These figures may have varied since the year books for 1926 were prepared, but they are the latest figures published by the societies. It is same date figure that I have taken in each case. I do not know the exact membership of the Irish Association of Accountants. I gather that while it has taken some members from some of the other bodies, in the main it is made up of persons who are practising as accountants. All of these bodies have, of course, in addition, a number of members not in actual practice as accountants and who did not belong to any of these bodies which I have mentioned. There may be twenty or so of them. I cannot vouch for the figures, but there may be that number of accountants who are not associated with any of these bodies at present but who have set up and who are in practice in the Free State as accountants.

The principal provisions of this Bill deal with the setting up of a General Council, which it is proposed shall commence operations in January, 1928, for the formation of a register of qualified accountants. The proposal is that this General Council shall have power to make regulations for the keeping of the register, for the holding of examinations, and for the determination of questions relating to qualification for registration and the refusal of registration under certain conditions, and also for the removal of names from the register, subject, of course, to the provisions in the Bill. Generally speaking, it is intended that the Council shall set up standards of etiquette, governed, of course, by the provisions of the Bill as far as admission to the register or removal from it is concerned. The Bill as at present drafted proposes that the Council shall consist of twelve accountants. Five of these shall be chosen from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and four from the Association of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors. There are to be chosen from amongst those who are not members of either of these bodies. In the first instance, these latter are to be chosen by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and afterwards when there is machinery in the matter of organisation they shall be chosen by themselves. The Bill recognises that the actual number of members of the Council is a purely transitory proposal, because it provides that it can be altered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce by an order to be laid on the Table of the two Houses of the Oireachtas at any time that he considers it desirable to alter the proposed allotment of members of the Council. Such order can be annulled by either House in the usual form.

The two underlying principles of the Bill are that all persons practising as accountants in Saorstát Eireann shall be subject to the control of a body which is capable of enforcing high standards of conduct and efficiency, and secondly, that subject to certain transitory provisions no person shall be allowed to practise as an accountant in Saorstát Eireann who has not first had actual experience and served under articles with a registered accountant. These are the two principles underlying the Bill. The Bill looks to the future and recognises that it would be grossly unfair to do anything which would penalise any persons at present acting as accountants, no matter whether they have simply put up a plate and set up without any examination, or whether they have ever been admitted by any one of these bodies or not. It further recognises that it would be wrong to penalise any person at present in training under any of these societies or undergoing experience at the present time, having commenced their examinations, and it consequently provides that all such persons—there are elaborate details in the Bill dealing with this—must be placed on the register, provided that they were in actual practice on the 31st December of last year or that they had commenced their training. All the details in connection with this are set out in the Bill. I shall refer to that in a moment or two.

There were other points I intended to deal with, but I think, perhaps, it would be better, at this stage, to deal with the memorandum criticising the Bill which has been circulated by the London Association of Accountants, which has nine members actually practising in the Saorstát.

Let me say at first that the Bill is anything but personal as far as I am concerned, and that before I deal with the specific criticisms, in introducing the Bill, I for one, do not stand over any single detail in the Bill other than the two principles, namely, that there should be registration to provide for high standards of conduct and efficiency, and, secondly, that in the future, but not so far as the past is concerned, there should be actual experience of accountancy as well as examination in order to be allowed to practise as an accountant. If you feel, as was suggested in one of the letters in the newspapers recently, that it is unnecessary to have experience, and that any person from any occupation, if he passes an examination, should be entitled to act as an accountant, then you should vote against the Bill, because that is the underlying principle. But as far as the details are concerned, I, as the introduces of the Bill, and I know, too, that Senators Brown and Brady, as promoters of this Bill, do not desire to stand for any particular section or provision and say that it is the best. Consequently, I have put down a motion which will be dealt with later, suggesting that this Bill should be sent to a Special Committee, and that that Committee, as was done in the case of the Coroners Bill at the suggestion of the Committee itself, should have power to send for persons and papers and get evidence from various interested bodies in order that we may endeavour to get a Bill which will have a fair measure of consent and which will be of real value to accountants and to the public as a whole.

I am sorry that the person who wrote this memorandum that was circulated thought fit to imply motives to the two Senators and myself who are the promoters of this Bill, suggesting that we were acting in a selfish interest or in the interests of certain bodies. There is no truth whatever in that allegation, and I think it is unworthy of those who made it. Some time ago the Chairman here and several other Senators suggested that it would be helpful to the Senate if an effort were made to introduce Bills of a useful purpose here for discussion. In one case we had the Coroners Bill, which, when it passed the Second Reading Stage, was hopeless. But that Bill emerged from the Committee as a very good and useful Bill, and it is generally recognised as a very great improvement in the law. I think this Bill is much more detailed, and it has gone further than the Coroners Bill. At the same time, I shall not get it forth as something which should be adopted or rejected because of any particular detail in it. As long as the Seanad accepts the principle, that is all I ask.

When I was Chairman of the Joint Committees on Private Bill Standing Orders, I was approached by certain persons and asked for advice as to a certain Bill which they were thinking of putting forward as a Private Bill. I gave my opinion, which has since, I may say, been confirmed by leading authorities, that it would not be possible to introduce as a Private Bill a Bill which set up registration because it was a matter of public interests and not of private interests, and a matter that must be governed by considerations of public and not of private policy. In effect, they were putting under regulations the potential right of anybody to be an accountant, and, therefore, it must be a public Bill. That was the view I put before them, and the Bill was not proceeded with. But at a later date, having regard to the suggestion made here, I offered to bring in a Bill—the Bill which you have before you now and which is not the Bill which was proposed as a Private Bill. It is a Bill which was evolved after conferences between the leading members of the two bodies of accountants and Senators Brown and Brady, who afterwards agreed to join with me in promoting the Bill.

It is a perfectly bona fide effort to bring into this House the skeleton of a Bill which could be amended to reach, we hope, if not a completely agreed measure, at any rate, to reach a stage at which it might be passed by the general consent of the leading sections of this House. Now, I want to deal with one or two particular references in the memorandum that has been circulated. The suggestion is made in this memorandum that bodies of accountants should join together to promote an agreed Bill. I personally deprecate that suggestion altogether. I think that is not the best way to get legislation. It is undoubtedly better that the body should come to a Committee of this House or to a Committee of the Dáil, or a Joint Committee of both, and give evidence, estate their case, and be questioned, and then that a Committee of this House or of the Dáil or a Joint Committee of both Houses should promote legislation rather than bring in an agreed Bill.

It is suggested that this Bill, in its present form, will render it practically impossible for a poor man to become a registered accountant. Now, I think there is no truth whatever in that, and if there is any measure of truth in it I certainly will be very glad to accept amendments. On the contrary, I believe very strongly that the creation of a register and the passing of this Bill, even in its present form, would go a long way towards making it easier for the poor man to become a highly qualified accountant than it is at the present moment. At the present moment only two bodies of accountants actually take articled pupils. The result is that the number of accountants taking articled pupils is limited, with the consequence that the fees are high in some cases. This Bill provides that every registered accountant in the future will be able to take articled pupils, and it does not require very much argument to show that if every accountant at present practising is to take an articled pupil it will not be so easy to get high fees, even assuming that there was a desire to obtain them. But, in any case, if there is a genuine feeling that there might be too high fees being charged, I do not think it would be very hard or very difficult to provide safeguards against that, and any such safeguards I will welcome.

One matter in this Bill with which I am in entire and absolute agreement is the suggestion that there should be an appeal. In consultation this matter of appeal was considered, and the reason why it is not provided in the Bill is because there were considerable difficulties, and we felt that it would be much better to wait until the Bill got to Committee in order to decide which would be the best method of appeal. In the Bill which was introduced but not proceeded with in the House of Lords in England a provision was made for an appeal which would be to the Privy Council. That was not proceeded with and it is not workable here. Another suggestion is that the appeal should be to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, alternatively, it is suggested that there should be an appeal to the High Court, and the Bill itself suggests that. That is where a person practising as an accountant is refused admission to or removed from the register. We think there should be an appeal for the man who is refused registration equally with the man who is removed from the register, and I have no doubt that provision will have to be made should the Bill be proceeded with. Then the Council should have power to insist on a certain standard of examination, and if it is to be given that power, then I think there should be an appeal, at any rate, to the Minister against that particular standard if it is considered unreasonable or impracticable. I think that some arrangement should be made that the rules should be published and that there should be an appeal, say, to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce between the time they were first published and until they are finally adopted. I mention these because I think there are certain useful and concrete suggestions in the memorandum which was circulated, and also to show that so far as that is concerned I, at any rate, have no hostility to it.

There are a number of statements made which I think are due to an entire misapprehension. It is suggested that an English member of one of the bodies enumerated in the Bill, because he happened to have a branch here, could come over and be registered. I do not see that that is provided in the Bill. If it is it should be amended. It is clearly stated in the Bill that only persons in actual practice in the Saortát can be registered. It does provide for reciprocal registration if registers are set up in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is just possible, particularly in Northern Ireland, that the Oireachtas may have to provide that accountants who, though in practice in Northern Ireland, have a certain amount of work across the Border, should not be unduly penalised. But that is a detail and will have to be considered.

In conclusion, I ask the Seanad to pass the Second Stage of this Bill and to send it to a Committee, where there will be a public hearing. If you do that you are not committing yourself to any particular section of the Bill. You are only committing yourself to the principle of the approval of registration provided that it can be worked out in a satisfactory manner. And on my part I go so far as to say that if it is not possible in Committee to get a Bill on which there is a fair measure of agreement, and which at that stage the Government will adopt in much the same way as they adopted the Coroners Bill, I at any rate would not think it wise that the Bill should be proceeded with. But I do suggest that this is just the kind of Bill where personal interest comes in. I think solicitors are afraid it will encroach on their profession, and they may want to give evidence. From the solicitors' point of view, I do not think it is very bad, because otherwise Mr. Brady would not put his name to it. I do suggest that this is the kind of Bill where the Seanad could perform a very useful function in hearing all the parties interested and seeing whether it was possible to provide a satisfactory measure of this kind.

Nobody, as far as I know, and certainly none of the accountants' organisations that I have seen, questioned the principle of registration. The London Association did not, and I do not know that the other bodies do. Therefore, it is only a matter for working out in a satisfactory manner the details of the Bill. In conclusion, I say that there are two principles for which I, at any rate, stand. (1) There should be a competent, well-chosen council; and (2) in addition to passing an examination, the candidate should have definite experience in a place where accountancy is learned.

Mr. BROWN

I beg to second this motion.

Dr. GOGARTY

It is always interesting to see the method by which a certain body of men can rise to what is supposed to be professional status. In this instance, I have certain objections against this Bill. First, I do not see the need for the Bill. Secondly, the Bill is an application to the Government for a charter which will embody twelve men and empower them to deal with those whose occupation in this country is examining and dealing with figures. Again, the important operation —that inter-action between the Council and the accountants—is a thing utterly outside our power. We will hand over this peculiar position to twelve men by giving them the power to make rules, charge fees and impose time limits for qualifications. These are very important things which are outside the scope, I submit, of this House, and would give a monopoly and carte blanche to twelve men to hold up all men engaged in accountancy in this country. I am not at all satisfied that accountants have been sufficiently disreputable to deserve this honour. I never heard any complaint of the accountants in this country, but if we empower and give twelve men authority to act, and become collectors of a tax from which the country will not benefit directly, we ought to have something to say to their procedure.

It would be very desirable if these men who are to endow all the accountants in Ireland with professional status could be made responsible for the restrictions which that status would impose. For instance, if there was any way of making a law preventing accountants being members of boards or directors of public companies and at the same time certifying the accounts of such companies, it would be well. It is obvious that that would be a matter for the protection of the public. But it would be outside the scope of this House to take that precaution, because the people who will have the power under the Bill is not the House but the twelve gentlemen who will be set up as examiners and degree conferrors. I myself suffered from degree conferring to a very considerable extent. With any chartered body such as the College of Surgeons, the Apothecaries' Hall, Trinity College or other universities, the tendency is to make themselves more important and to increase the length of time of the student as a student, so that you may have some particular profession raising the course from a three year period for a degree to a seven and possibly an eight year period if the students were sufficiently disorganised or were wretched enough to stand that length of time. In the same way there are a lot of men who are earning their bread and who will be put in a reprehensible position as. regards professional accountancy. It may have the effect of making all figures and accounts for institutions and such like which are added up by the officials of these institutions no longer acceptable. It might impugn all book-keeping as at present existing. To go back to my earlier remarks, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient need for this Bill. Accountants may have a certain sort of definition of accountancy, but it really means anyone who can add up legibly and correctly, and there are hundreds of men who every week in their lives act as accountants without knowing it or without acquiring a professional status.

The chief difficulty in this matter is that by this Bill we are handing over a monopoly. In the face of our experience of what happened in England and in face of the fact that in England such a Bill was thrown out, we are asked to hand over a monopoly to twelve men who can say to all the bookkeepers in this country: "You are not qualified to do this work unless you come through our sieve," but we have no control over that sieve and no control over the length of time they say is necessary in their opinion that people should serve as apprentices. In other words, it is a monopoly and entirely outside our control. We cannot control the monopolisers on what they may think wise to impose upon anybody who wishes to apply himself to book-keeping.

For these reasons, and for the reason that every chartered body conferring. degrees upon students wishes to increase its own importance by making. the student period longer, I am against this Bill. The moment the Free State separates from the General Medical Council you will have the General, Medical Council making the term for medical students before they qualify seven years. Three years is enough for anybody. The period of the student going for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Berlin used to be three years. When the Japanese came along they said they had not the time to wait so long and they said: "If we pass the final examination, may we enter ourselves?" They were allowed, and the result was that in eleven months they had the three years' degree. If you give power to twelve men in the Free State to collect taxes from every book-keeper, they will say no one is fit to be an accountant unless he studies for three years and spends five years more learning his business.

I say every member of this House could become a book-keeper. You cannot compare that profession with that of dentistry, which is really a matter of life and death. There is no parallel. Until we passed a law registering dentists, any wandering Jew could come along, take out people's teeth, and leave them in danger of blood poisoning. I repeat what I have said already, that I do not see the need for this Bill. If we pass it, it will leave this body entirely outside our control. We will be simply giving carte blanche to a number of self-elected people to make it hard for other people to live who are earning their bread by book-keeping.

Mr. KENNY

I think all Senators who have read this Bill will be very much relieved by Senator Douglas's statement. It would appear he is now prepared to make concessions on every clause of the Bill as a result of the case put up by the other side, typed copies of which have been circulated to members of the Seanad. Senator Douglas said the promoters of the Bill had under consideration whether it would not be better to proceed by way of an agreed measure by all the parties. I think he would have done well if he had carried out that intention. It certainly would have saved us the necessity for amending nearly every section of the Bill, and it would have expedited the measure and broken down a lot of opposition. I understand that the unassociated accountants in Ireland and the parties mostly concerned are quite prepared to enter into conference with the associated accountants and see how far they could come to an agreement. That course was never suggested or proposed to them.

The pivot of this whole measure is the general council which it is proposed to set up, and without any conference or reference the promoters of the Bill gave figures that Senator Douglas could not be sure of——

Mr. DOUGLAS

I did not say that I could not be sure of them. I said that they were taken from the 1926 year books of those bodies and that they might have been altered since.

Mr. KENNY

Then there is the question of the whole allocation of the general council, and in regard to that we find in the Bill that five of these seats are reserved for chartered accountants, four for the Incorporated Society, and three for what are called practising accountants, unassociated with either of these bodies. I am given to understand that practically 50 per cent. of the aggregate members are unassociated. As to the calibre of those unassociated members in the public view, the general opinion is that you must have a chartered accountant if you want to have the hall-mark on your balance sheet. We know in practice that there are accountants to-day who stand out in a very pre-eminent way in their profession and who are not members of either the Chartered Accountants body or the Incorporated Society. We know that many of these men in the law courts have stood the cross fire of most eminent counsel, in regard to most intricate questions, and I venture to say that they came out with such credit as no member of the associated bodies would be able to achieve. Some of these men, who left their ordinary business at an early period of life and who had been connected with very large concerns, banking houses or otherwise, have been real top-notchers in their profession without association with either of those bodies, but simply from their own merits.

That is the position to-day. As against them and as against men who may do that in the future, what barriers are set up in this Bill? A man is precluded from doing that in future. He must first serve an apprenticeship in order to get his qualification, he must serve, two, three, or five years or whatever the time may be. A boy of 15 or 16 may go into an accountant's office and after five years he may come out aged 21 years. He may have spent the interval in an accountant's office licking stamps or at the postage book, yet he can come out and put up his sign as a chartered accountant with all the halo and the glory that the public will attach to that name. Now, on the matter of relative ability and practical experience, or from whatever standpoint you approach it, here are two men, and one in the public eyes is a lesser man than the youth or fledgling of 21 who has taken his degree because of the power given to a body to insist that a man must serve an apprenticeship for a number of years.

The principle of this Bill is really to set up a kind of glorified trade union, but the legislation proposed or suggested when promoted on somewhat similar lines was rejected in Great Britain and in South Africa and in some other centres, I believe. The groundwork of the objection to legislation of this sort was that it created vested interests. Now, the unassociated men, ranking amongst their number the most brilliant men in the profession, are not given sufficient representation on the council. The other bodies are to have five and four, and they are only given three, but their strength numerically is 50 per cent. and over of the whole body. You will never reach agreement upon this measure so long as that allocation remains, and until the promoters and Senator Douglas have more accurate figures and take into account, as they do not seem to have done in their allocation, the number of practising unassociated accountants, the back of the Bill is broken and it will not get through.

Then there is this question of disqualification. A business man may be running a very remunerative business and may also be practising as an accountant. That man is deriving, let us say, £500 per annum from each source—£500 from his business, an industrial business or a shop, and £500 from his practice as an accountant. We find that under Section 5 of this Bill the Council which it is proposed to set up will have the right to say to-that man: "You will have to select what you are going to do. We think it is not good form for you to be running a business and practising as an. accountant. You must drop one or the other." He is then, as it were, between the devil and the deep sea. In any case, that position is put up to him, and in order to get within the magic circle he must sacrifice £500 per annum.

Broadly speaking, I would say that there should be only one qualification —registration. Nobody objects to registration. I think all unassociated accountants admit that registration would be very desirable and, in fact, essential to establish the whole profession on a proper basis, but the only qualification for registration should be a test of the man's ability. There should be none of this preliminary work, the creation of vested interests to enable two bodies of accountants to charge fees running from £100 to £200 to apprentices, and then the turning of them out in a very indifferent way after five years. The true and logical test should be an examination, a uniform examination. There should be an equal and fair representation on the Council of all parties concerned. We want no barriers set up to prevent the poor man's son, the rich man's son, or any man's son, provided he has sufficient ability and character, from going forward and entering that profession in the same way as, say, a barrister would enter his profession. Let the examination be as severe as you like, but provided there is nothing against his character, every man's son has a right to enter that profession. There are other flaws in the Bill—for instance, the question of whether this avenue of employment should be thrown open to all and sundry in the Free State and outside or whether it should be confined to the Free State. These, of course, are matters that can be gone into in Committee. I welcome the proposal of Senator Douglas that the Bill as it stands should be referred tea Joint Committee, who can go into all the details and consider suggestions from everybody interested and affected by the measure.

Mr. BRADY

It is a very happy circumstance that, for the first time on which I have the privilege of addressing the Assembly which has done me the honour of co-opting me as a member, my remarks will be very brief. In fact, I had not intended to take part in this debate at all but for the two speeches which have followed the introduction of the Bill. I regret that Senator Dr. Gogarty has gone away, because I would not like to offer any criticisms of so able a member of the House in his absence, but it cannot be helped, seeing that it appeared to me when he was criticising the Bill he went so far as to suggest that there should be no authority or body of men to regulate any profession or calling whatsoever. If he had his way—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—there would be no governing body in the profession of which he is so distinguished an ornament; there would be no governing body in the legal profession which you, sir, adorned for so many years as its chief, and there would be no governing body in the profession to which I have the honour to belong. As Senator Douglas has already told the House, although I am associated with Senator Brown and Senator Douglas in the introduction of this Bill, I myself have some very great objections to some provisions in the Bill.

I think that it is eminently a Bill in which it will be found in Committee that substantial alterations should be made, and Senator Douglas has made it quite clear that he invites those criticisms and those alterations. He went as far almost as to suggest that he was only introducing the Bill to enable its enemies and its friends to come in and improve it in every respect. In introducing the Bill—that is why I say my remarks will be very brief— Senator Douglas gave most conclusive reasons for the passage of such a measure. Its chief object is to secure for accountants—I put them first—and secondly for the public, competence in the art of accountancy. With all respect to Senator Gogarty, accountancy is not quite so simple a matter as he seems to think.

I am speaking in the presence of some very distinguished members of the banking profession and they will bear me out when I say that accountancy is a highly technical art, requires very experienced training, and that it is a very dangerous thing for a person not very well versed in accountancy to venture on the production of balance sheets. In that respect, looked at exclusively for the moment from the banking point of view, it is very desirable that anyone who ventures to ask the public to employ him as an accountant should be well qualified to do such work, and that he should not be in any sense an amateur. There is no attempt to create any closed borough or to create a glorified trades union. We are all members of trade unions. Even Senator Brown was a member of a trades union until, unfortunately, he left it a few months ago and ceased to practise at the Bar. I think it is in the interests of individual members of any particular calling that they should be members of some society which would have a governing body to regulate the profession to which they belong, and to ensure proper professional conduct. I do not wish to say any more at this stage of the Bill beyond endorsing what Senator Douglas has said—that when the Bill goes into Committee, as I hope it will, every conceivable point of view will be considered and discussed, and that the Bill will ultimately emerge as a thoroughly workable and useful measure.

Sir THOS. ESMONDE

I would like to congratulate my old friend and colleague on his maiden speech in the Seanad of Saorstát Eireann. I hope that we shall hear him for a very long time. I can pay him this compliment all the more unreservedly because I happen to be opposed to him in connection with this Bill. How deeply I am opposed to him will remain to be seen. I listened to Senator Douglas with very keen attention, and I wish to congratulate the Senator on the lucid way in which he explained the provisions of this Bill, and also upon the attitude he took up in regard to it. With very much of what Senator Douglas has said in connection with the Bill, I am in complete agreement. I do not go quite as far as he does in certain respects in the matter of registration of accountants, but in the matter of the perfecting of our methods of accountancy, I am with him all the time. We have to look at facts, and the fundamental fact appears to me to be from the statements and the letters that have appeared in newspapers, that this House is asked to take sides in a dispute. This House, I am quite certain, does not want to take sides in disputes. Most of us have friends in the various sections into which accountancy is divided in this country. Why should we be asked to interfere in this matter which, to them after all, is a domestic concern?

I agree with Senator Kenny that it would have been very much better if these gentlemen had come together and decided upon some Bill upon which they could agree.

Then, so far as it did not conflict with public principles or public equity, I am quite certain the Seanad would have assisted them to the best of its ability. I would remind my friend, Senator Brady, that the distinguished profession to which he belongs appears to be attacked by this Bill. It is a very terrible prospect, and I hope there is nothing in it, but there are certain things that a family solicitor does for us with great skill and philosophy, that he may be prevented from doing by this Bill. He assists us in legacy matters, farm accounts, and in one form or another of the various modern plagues with which we have to contend. I am not sure, if this Bill is passed, that it will be possible for our family solicitors in future to interfere in farm accountancy. It is quite possible that he would not be allowed to interfere even in legacy matters, the probate of a will, or matters of that kind. These are points that will have to be considered and made perfectly safe before the Bill goes through. I think this Bill is rather premature. It would be very much more satisfactory to members of the House if the gentlemen concerned had succeeded in agreeing amongst themselves and had presented an agreed measure for our consideration. A great deal in the Bill will have to be remedied as we cannot stand over anything that looks like discrimination against any particular individuals or sections. A great many things in the Bill will have to be amended if it is ever to be passed into law. This Bill should be withdrawn or substituted by a new Bill.

Sir EDWARD BIGGER

I wish to support the Bill. I think it is most desirable that a Bill of this kind should be passed. It is more in the interests of the public than the profession. The public know very little about an accountant's business, whether he is qualified or not. As to the governing body it has been suggested that there should be a council of twelve and that they should be all accountants. I know of no other governing body composed in that way, except the legal profession, both branches of which, I understand, are governed by a council consisting of members. As far as the medical, dental, and nursing professions are concerned, there are lay representatives. I would suggest that at least three laymen should be appointed under this Bill, by the Minister.

Sir JOHN KEANE

It is with great reluctance that I bring myself to vote even for the Second Reading of the Bill. I have a general objection to this tendency to extend legislation and break down the policy of free trade in the professions. It is a question of degree, whether selective protection is justified. It is justified for certain control in certain positions. I agree that it is very undesirable that all and sundry should be allowed to practise in professions. The law, I think, will probably settled the question, and the public will soon realise the necessity of exercising a wise selection. I cannot adopt the view that accountancy is a subject for the same control as the other professions. It divides itself into two heads. So far as professional experience is concerned, I do not think the same method of acquiring technique that applies in other professions applies to accountancy.

I visualise an intelligent young fellow, in an up-to-date commercial business, rising from the book-keeping ranks, ultimately competent to practise accountancy. I do not think there should be anything to prevent him doing so. A young, energetic student, as far as I see, will get just as much experience in business, in fact better experience, than he would get in an accountant's office. In the long run the public will have to judge. The real danger. I submit, is not incompetency but lack of integrity. There have been serious breaches amongst accountants in big concerns. There is the case of the City Equitable, a few years ago. It was not that the accountants there were incompetent. They were highly qualified, but their integrity was in doubt. If you want to protect anything it is a question of integrity. I do not see how you are going to do that by making a profession a close corporation, any more than you are able to do so now in the solicitors' profession.

Mr. BROWN

You are.

Sir JOHN KEANE

We read of a case only two days ago where there was lack of integrity in the solicitors' profession. We know that penalties follow. No doubt in the case of an accountant where there is lack of integrity penalties also follow.

Mr. BROWN

No, he breaks the criminal law.

Sir JOHN KEANE

A criminal offence will follow and the law proceeds. In this Bill I see that there is no definition of an accountant. There is of practising accountant. It strikes me that the duty of an accountant falls under two heads. First of all he should be able to draw up a set of books and show bookkeepers how they should be kept, from time to time inspect the work and, probably the more important part explain the closing entries. Another aspect is that of auditing and certification. I would be in favour of close control over auditing and certification, because that is where the public is protected. So far as advanced bookkeeping is concerned, I would strongly object to that being made too close. As they say in the United States: "I think that should be an open shop."

I have a case in mind which may arise under this Bill concerning a practising accountant. There are costs and works accountants, a specialised branch of accountancy, which ascertains the precise cost of producing an article involving machinery, pricing of stores, overhead charges and things like that. I have no doubt the associated bodies will say all that is unnecessary. Nevertheless, there is a special body of accountants for dealing with these matters, and on the council are Sir J. G. Beharrell, Sir Robert Hadfield, Sir Ian Heathcoat-Amory. These accountants earn high fees. They do technical work, and, as far as I can see, unless this Bill is amended, they will be disqualified from practising here. That would be entirely wrong. I would be more favourably inclined to the Bill if it ensured that professional accountancy was in some way to be introduced into our public accounts. There, to my mind, is a very fertile field of operation. There is an old saying in Ireland: "Have you ever seen a dead donkey?" I ask "Have you ever seen a statutory order annulled in Ireland?"

Mr. O'FARRELL

I approve of the principle of registration of accountants, and to that extent I am in agreement with some of those who oppose the Bill. What opposition I want to offer is not on the principle of registration of accountants, so much as the measures whereby the Bill proceeds to effect that purpose. I think the promoters of the Bill made a mistake in drafting it by confining it to the members of two societies, obviously coming to the conclusion that these were the only two worthy of consideration in a matter of this kind. While we may have general agreement with the principle that people who call themselves accountants shall be such in fact and not merely in name, I think we should be very careful to see that in effect that declaration does not, in the first place, create an unjust and dangerous monopoly, and at the same time bang the door on the poor man's son. This board that is to be set up is to be composed of five nominees of the Chartered Accountants' Society—not elected but nominated—four of the Incorporated Society and three representing unassociated accountants, to be nominated by the Minister. Senator Douglas gave certain figures about the membership of these various organisations in the Free State. I am unable to say whether they are correct to date as figures were also given to me.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I did not give the figures as to membership, I gave figures as to the number of practising accountants; persons holding themselves out to the public as accountants and auditors. All these bodies have quite a number of clerks and others who are members. This Bill does not affect clerks and persons in employment. The figures I gave were those of practising accountants.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The figures given me were chartered accountants; 54 members in Dublin; Incorporated Society, 27; 111 unassociated, 48 of whom are not in touch with any association. That means that the Bill proposes to have the board composed of nine people representing a good deal less than 50 per cent. of those affected by the rulings and important powers conferred under the Bill. I fancy that if the figures for the rest of the country were available the balance would be greater on the side of unassociated accountants. There is keen competition between the members of these respective bodies. To anyone who is any way conversant with them it is quite evident that there is anything but love between the London Association of Accountants and the Incorporated Society. Nevertheless, you leave it to the members of these two bodies, the so-called principal bodies, to say whether a member of the London Association of Accountants or any other associated bodies shall go on the register. He has no appeal from that decision. He is absolutely at their mercy. I do not think that is a position that this House should easily contemplate.

Mr. DOUGLAS

It does not leave it to the Council as the Bill so provides. They must place any members of any of these bodies on the register, if at present practising. As to the future it will be a matter of the standard of examination set up.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I am referring to the future, as we have to deal with that. That will be the position. These people are competing with each other, and you will have one section saying whether the other set shall, or shall not, go on the register. From my point of view, and mainly on behalf of those I represent, a very serious objection to the Bill is the fact that in future nobody will be admitted, or have his name entered on the register, unless he served, as an articled apprentice, and was able to pay what will, undoubtedly, be a very big fee. He will also have to work for five or six years at an exceedingly low salary. As a matter of fact, little or no salary is given. My experience is that if you want to get proper slave drivers especially in the clerical profession, you have to go to the offices of chartered accountants. They pay most scandalous salaries and drive their employees to an extent that, I think, is not equalled in any other profession. That is what the Bill tries to impose as a condition for the future.

I have had representations from clerks employed in railway accountants' offices, intelligent young men whose parents were poor, and who had to go to work and earn a salary that would at least maintain them. In addition to being engaged on practical accountancy work they devoted a great part of their spare time to study and qualify for examinations. A number of them have passed these examinations and may desire, at some future date, to set up as practising accountants. They cannot do that under the Bill. The poor man's son, unable to pay fees, is absolutely shut out. In addition to paying fees he has to serve at least five years without any salary. Senator Douglas says that that situation is met, to a certain extent, by the fact that registered accountants will be able to take articled students. We know very well that there are such things as rings and, although they may be able to take articled students, there would be a minimum fee that they will have to charge. They will see to that as soon as they get their monopoly. I would strongly object to the board being composed exclusively of accountants, without any representative of the State or, of any of the trading and commercial interests that would be so vitally affected by the laws of accountancy and the regulations governing the profession.

A circular issued by the other two societies mentioned that there are in the societies it is proposed to recognise at least 14,000 members in England, Scotland and Wales while the London Association of Accountants consists of 3,000 members. They are leaving out of consideration altogether quite responsible bodies. The inconsistent and inequitable suggestion about the whole position is the fact that there are many members of the Incorporated Society who are not articled accountants at all, and never served an apprenticeship. They are like people who have got into heaven on easy terms but having secured themselves seek to impose far more difficult tests on all humanity. If they could become competent and get on the register, under certain conditions, I fail to see why they should seek to impose more difficult and expensive conditions on future entrants. Each of these societies has a high standard of examination. The Institute of Chartered Accountants insists on five years articled apprenticeship, as well as passing an examination at the age of 21 or upwards. Many chartered accountants occupy positions in large companies.

In order to become a member of the Incorporated Society articles are not essential as they can be dispensed with by proving service as a practising accountant or in the Accountants' Department of a municipal or other public body; the passing of examinations is essential. As an example, there is the London Association of Accountants. Articles are not essential there, but the members have to pass as severe a test as is set by the practising society. They admit accountants similarly employed by big commercial undertakings, men in a big factory concern and other big undertakings who have a life experience of accountancy, and who have passed the requisite examinations. It is sought to shut out those associations and associations like them in the Free State and to give a monopoly to these other two societies. It is known that at the present time there are not nearly sufficient accountants in Ireland or the Free State, and if business develops there will be a greater shortage. That shortage will undoubtedly be made up hereafter by the British members of those two societies. I do not know what the position is now, but some two years ago if you went into a firm like Craig, Gardner's you found that the majority of the paid staff were Englishmen, because the Irish members, being poorer, were unable to pay the high fees demanded by the chartered societies. That position is going to be intensified if the main principles of this Bill are to be adopted.

Senator Brady is one of the supporters of the Bill, but it seems to me he is likely to get into hot water with the members of his own profession if certain sections of the Bill are maintained. For instance, it would be an offence against the law in future for anyone "to sign or certify the accounts of any business, undertaking, body or company as accountant or auditor" or "to exercise any function which according to law should be exercised by an accountant or auditor," or "to hold himself out to the public in Saorstát Eireann as being ready to undertake (either with or without remuneration) business as a practising accountant." Solicitors do a lot of work like the preparation of income tax returns, making out accounts for firms and so forth, that for the future will be a breach of the law if this Bill passes. Land agents have to make out big statements. My reading is that all that work will have to be done by a registered accountant who will only appear on the register by being an articled clerk. There is a position like this at the present time. A small trader down the country, living far away from a registered accountant, may want his accounts made up. He very often goes to a school teacher or a local stationmaster, a man who has a knowledge of making up returns. Those men make up his accounts for him. That is quite sufficient for his purpose, and it is done free of charge. Under this Bill that would be impossible. With or without remuneration they could not do it. The practising accountant must do it. There may be a different interpretation on that, but it will require to be explained.

In regard to the examining authority and those responsible for the setting of the examinations I think it is absolutely essential that the State and the public should be represented. It should not be left to accountants alone to set the standard of the examination. They can raise or debase it at their own sweet will. Then there is no appeal from a decision of the Board. As Senator Douglas says, they are prepared to consider amendments on that point. In any case the public are only concerned with the efficiency and the integrity of the accountants they employ, and it is no concern of theirs how that efficiency was achieved, whether it is by way partly of brains or financial assistance, or purely by brain power only; they are merely concerned with getting a proper accountant. In a poor country like this we should be very slow to penalise the poor man's son. Already a great many of the professions are barred to him, and this is going to block up another avenue of progress. He will have to go elsewhere to get the facilities denied to him here. The South African Parliament twice turned down a Bill similar to this. I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but it is faulty in so many respects that I think it would be far more convenient if it were withdrawn for the present, and the various points embodied, as far as the promoters will agree, in a new Bill.

The various associations of accountants should agree on the terms of the Bill itself at first. We should see that the public are safeguarded. Here is a Bill which the promoters had to apologise for straight away. It is almost a lone orphan already. I think, for the sake of the future of the measure, it would be far more merciful to withdraw it until it is dressed up in a far better attire, so that too much time of the Select Committee of the House should not be taken up in hearing evidence from all kinds of people. I prefer that to be done outside. Let them adjust their differences there. Having arrived at a material amount of agreement, the Bill might then be introduced. Then let the House do the rest as far as amendment from the public point of view is concerned.

Mr. BENNETT

Senator Douglas has made a statement with which I agree, that this is a public Bill. It is questionable whether it is a Bill, as it stands, capable of being made a good measure of. One cannot build a house on a bad foundation. This Bill will undoubtedly be the basis of argument, and is a measure to be settled by a Select Committee. One of the greatest defects in the measure is the absence of the right of appeal. Senator Douglas admits that.

There is one other matter—the question of Ministerial representation on the council. That was overlooked in the present Bill, and I think it is essential. In addition to that there is the hasty manner in which the accountancy bodies in the United Kingdom were considered. Here had it not been for the interference of a body, animated it may be by a desire for the welfare of Ireland as a whole, or it may be for their own improvement we should have been left with very little light. When we consider the faultiness of the Bill itself and the absence of consideration of bodies, as Senator O'Farrell pointed out, we should bear in mind when considering whether this Bill gets a second reading or not that if the basic facts are such that you can build such an edifice as will be worthy of the Saorstát then I think it should get a second reading but if the basic facts are not such I think it would be better to abandon it now and proceed with a new measure which will include the principles which the promoters say are essential.

I have one other objection. I agree with Senator Sir John Keane's statement that it is not advisable to extend the system of registration at all. Whether we should advance it still further is a question I should not like to decide at the moment. This Bill is apparently very faulty. I think it would be wiser for the promoters to abandon it and to bring in a Bill nearer to the sentiment which Senator Douglas desires and which we all hope will be achieved.

Mr. JAMESON

Senator O'Farrell and Senator Bennett seem to think that we should reject this Bill and not appoint a committee to consider the matter. But when are we going to get another Bill? Senator Kenny asked the promoters of this Bill to draw another one. I think that the three Senators promoting this Bill are likely to have exhausted every avenue of information before they drew this one. What they have done is to bring in a measure which gives the groundwork on which a proper Bill can be founded. That I think is Senator Kenny's wish and also Senator O'Farrell's. The question for the House to consider is: Is this the best way of getting a proper Bill brought in? From what one can hear, if we leave these various societies to settle among themselves the bringing in of a Bill, well then I am afraid it will not have arrived till the Greek calends. Some other body will have to be set up to take evidence for the purpose of bringing in what would have to be more or less an agreed measure. It is quite easy to see that there is no good in throwing out this Bill and waiting for another one. I do not see that other people are going to take the trouble of drafting another Bill of this sort. I do not believe that the associations referred to are likely to bring in a measure which the House would consider.

There is a good deal of unanimity amongst all of us on the question that there should be somebody to regulate accountants, that there should be examinations, and that there should be some sort of certificates for men dealing with the accounts of public and other companies. These certificates would be a guarantee that these men were properly qualified. At the present time in this State that is a very important question to consider. Lately we have had a great deal of trouble in various ways in looking into the financial conditions of the State. One thing that became quite clear was that we ought to do all we could to induce our citizens to invest their money in home industries. A great deal of course will depend, in that connection, on the names that appear at the end of prospectuses that are issued inviting people to invest their money in certain undertakings. One thing that stands out clear to me is that for that purpose you would require high-class men in the accountants' profession. This is a matter that could be properly thrashed out with the different societies when they came to give their evidence before the Committee of the Seanad that it is proposed should be set up. The members of that Committee hearing the evidence will be able to judge what is the right thing to do, and will be in a position to come to a decision as to what ought to be put into the Bill.

I do not think we are likely to get a better set of individuals to judge the matter than a Committee composed of members of this House. If this Committee, after hearing all the evidence, comes to the conclusion that they cannot recommend a Bill, then I suppose we must leave the matter alone. I think we are all agreed, however, that it is for the good of the whole community that some standards in the matter of examinations and experience for accountants should be set up here. Senator Sir John Keane referred to the question of integrity. I hold that the establishment of a Council such as is proposed under the Bill would be an enormous gain to our citizens in the way of taking care of this question of integrity. Supposing any of us who are obliged to go to accountants at the present time had reason to believe that the figures they gave us were wrong and not what they should be, what remedy is provided for us? There is none whatever. But if there is a Council, composed of men of repute in the profession, any appeals made to them on a matter like that will be investigated, and if the complaint made against the person concerned is sustained, then disciplinary action can be taken. Protection of that kind would certainly be a great help to the citizens of this State. On the question as to whether this is a democratic measure and whether we are handing over control to people who can pay and taking it away from our ordinary young citizens, I think the measure, from the study I have made of it, will have the opposite effect.

I think that both Senator O'Farrell and Senator Bennett will agree that the right to be able to obtain the qualifications of a professional accountant is going to be a valuable one. The number of houses that take pupils at present is very limited. One of the proposals in this Bill is to make it possible for every practising accountant in Ireland to take pupils and give them certificates of qualification. Only very few houses can do that at present. I do not know whether it was Senator O'Farrell or Senator Kenny said that such a thing as that would tend to create a ring. I do not think that that could be so.

My opinion is that this Bill, if it goes through, will enable more young people than at present to take up the profession of accountancy, and that instead of tending to put fees up it will have the effect of bringing them down. I think there is a good deal to be said for this measure both from the public point of view and the point of view of the profession. I am quite sure that there are members in the profession at present who will lose as a result of this Bill. They will not in future be able to charge the big fees they received heretofore. There will not be the same competition in the future that there is now amongst pupils to get into the few houses that now take them. I hope that the Seanad, quite irrespective of their different ideas as to the various clauses in the Bill, will give it a Second Reading. I suggest that we ought to agree to appoint nine of our fellow-members to act on a committee to take evidence and give a considered opinion on the whole matter. I believe that is the only way that we are likely to get an agreed measure. I feel myself that if we had such a Bill in operation, it would be a useful measure both to the community and to the profession, and I hope the Seanad will take that view of it.

Mr. FARREN

To my mind, the first argument put forward by Senator Jameson was most illogical. He based his argument on the fact that if we were going to start new industries or to float companies that it would be necessary to have some kind of a registered body that would give its imprimatur with regard to accountants. On that I want to say that in England, where very large companies are promoted and where the industries are much bigger than here, they have no such registered body. At present we have here the same facilities that they have in England. Seeing that they are able to get on in England without a Bill like this, I think that we ought to be able to do without one, too. Senator O'Farrell dealt with an important point to which I desire to refer.

It is a point that concerns me very much because I am always pleading for the poor man and for the poor man's son. From my own personal experience I can say that this Bill, if it were passed, would inflict injury on the poor man's son. In my school days I had some friends who, like myself, had to leave school at an early age. We all had to do that to earn our bread. While they were out during the day earning their bread they went in the evening to the poor man's university—the technical school—and by close attention to their studies in the evening time after putting in a hard day's work at their ordinary occupations, they qualified themselves by passing very stiff examinations indeed to become accountants. Many of these boys having passed their examinations in accountancy, are now in positions as practising accountants.

As Senator Douglas explained, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, it provides that in future young people preparing for the profession of accountant would have to become articled pupils to a registered accountant. If that provision in the Bill were to become law it would mean that no poor man's son could become a registered accountant in this country. For that reason I am opposed to the Bill, and will vote against its Second Reading. I am out for the principle of every man and woman having equal opportunities. I believe that positions should be given on merit and merit alone. In my opinion if the son of a poor man after a hard day's toil is prepared to go to the poor man's university in the evening— the technical schools—and study there for the examinations which are necessary to qualify him for the position of accountant, and that he has sufficient brains and ability to pass those examinations, then I hold that that opportunity should not be taken away from him. I would not give power to anybody to refuse him permission to do that. I do not think that he should be obliged to become an articled apprentice. We all know that he could not afford to do that. If the provision in the Bill dealing with that matter were passed, you would be shutting out the sons of poor men from becoming qualified accountants. There is another matter that I want to refer to—it is the proposed method of alloting the number of representatives that are to compose the council. The allotment, from the information I have received, is not proposed to be given on an equitable basis. The proposal, as I understand it, is to give two organisations nine representatives, and only to give three to all the other organisations. I do not think that would be a just or equitable way to make the allotment, and I therefore protest against that proposal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think the answer to the first question put by Senator Farren might be obtained by getting the mortality statistics of the companies floated in England, and the certificates of which were signed by somebody. But the Second Reading of this Bill is under consideration, and I would not like to have it read into my vote, if that were cast in the affirmative, that I was voting for the section with regard to articled clerks. I am not sure, however, that that is fundamental to the Bill. You are asked at this stage to decide is it or is it not a proper thing that the profession of accountants and auditors should be regulated. That is the simple question—that they should be regulated. But it is the matter or manner of regulation that is to be set up that is very much to be questioned. I would not like to go as far as Senator Dr. Gogarty has gone or to appreciate the accountants' profession to the point which Senator Gogarty has attempted. I think there is a big difference between the various people in that profession in this country.

Nobody would, at this moment, think of insisting on regulating the ordinary small trader, and insisting that he should be under the control of a government body of small traders and that he should pass a certain examination before he would be allowed to enter into that business. I think nobody can deny the necessity for regulations in such professions as medicine and dentistry, and somewhere between these extremes is the profession of auditors and accountants. I would hold this: that whatever be the degree upon which one views this that certainly Clauses 13 and 14 would be the gist of this Bill. I cannot believe that Section 15 can be read to cover the objection of Senator O'Farrell. If this were the case I would take a decided objection to it. We have this fact that there is no lack of accountants of the type that is called for in this country. We have a considerable number of small business men who want to get their accounts looked after and they want to get a man of repute, or local repute possibly, to make out these accounts. The cheap accountancy service which the small trader in this country will require will be undoubtedly discouraged rather than promoted by this Bill if it is read as Senator O'Farrell reads it, or even if it is read in the manner interpreted in Section 15. If one had my point of view one would argue that this Section 15 weakens what I shall describe as the cheap accountancy service which the small men in this country need and which they want to secure for themselves. These traders get an accountancy service according to the payments they give.

It has been said that an ordinarily educated man after a fair amount of practical experience is capable of becoming a fairly good accountant and that that accountant is what is ordinarily required in small businesses in this country. In the absence of any demand for regulation of the profession it could be argued that the Bill was premature, and that it could wait. But I would prefer to have a Bill of this sort making regulations for this profession brought in, and when the matter is before this committee, the whole question can be argued and Sections 13, 14, and 15 may be either made more rigid or may be relaxed according to what people think of the circumstances.

But the picture presented by the Bill as it stands is, to my mind, a very hopeless one. We have resurrected here what has been described as mediævalism with regard to the medical profession. We have here a section setting up a council composed entirely of members of the profession with powers given to this council to select members of that profession and to regulate at their own sweet will what is described as the etiquette of the profession, and only incidentally, as far as I can discover in the Bill, a right of appeal is given. That is what most people have come to the conclusion is wrong in the profession of medicine. Why should it be brought forward here?

Sir EDWARD COEY BIGGER

As a matter of fact, medical councils can be composed of laymen.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A layman was appointed last year after a tremendous controversy.

Sir EDWARD COEY BIGGER

He was appointed, and was appointed both by the Government and the University.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

At the moment under the terms of this Bill no layman can be appointed to this council. I think Senator Bigger objects to that.

Sir EDWARD COEY BIGGER

I do, because I do not know of any other body except the two branches of the law which has the power to do it—I am speaking of registered bodies.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Bill I think requires considerable amendment on that point alone—that is the matter of giving to these people who are members of the profession, and who are going to be hand-picked, a power of control over the whole profession, and giving them this tremendous discretionary power with regard to the etiquette of the profession and allowing them to strike off members of their own sweet will, or allowing them to refuse to admit of their own sweet will, anybody who applies. I assume that the reason for this, and the reason for the Bill at all, is that if somebody did not start and bring in some Bill there would be no consideration given to this question at all. I think, for that reason, the Bill is to be praised. But imagine a council of twelve people, entirely of the profession, to regulate the profession with nobody to interfere with them. That right of appeal is only hinted at. These twelve are composed of five members of one body and four of another body, and what is being done is to make the Seanad interfere in the row between the members of the different associations. The Seanad erects a platform and supplies certain pulleys and ropes and trusts me as a sort of second Daniel with the lions of the unassociated and unrepresented associations to make my decision instead of they themselves making it.

The latest figures I got show that the bodies which get the representation of nine on the council represent about 50 per cent. of the practising accountants in the Saorstát. It is certainly somewhere around that figure. The point, therefore, is that on this council of twelve, three of whom are to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, there is to be no Government representative. The greatest representation for the other 50 per cent. at the start is a representation of three on a council of twelve. There is to be no Government representative; the general public or laymen—the possible sufferers —are not to be represented on this body all. There is a provision in the Bill that if at any time the representation as divided amongst the twelve is not satisfactory or properly based, then by Order it may be changed. I think it would be better if the Seanad here, and those nine members of the Seanad who are to be appointed on this Committee to take evidence, should try to arrive at a more equitable distribution of the seats, and have a provision inserted to change this. This affects future members of the profession.

If these regulations could be submitted to the two Houses this would put the whole question on a better basis of representation. Senator Gogarty referred to the question of the powers given to the council in the matter of determining, say, the period of service, in some way complicated by examination. There I have some hesitation in agreeing with the Senator. I think the members of the profession, provided they are properly picked, and that there is some public say as to how they are chosen, should be the people to say what is the proper period in which to admit accountants either by examination or apprenticeship.

One particular matter that I want to refer to, is the question of the fee for registration. That has not been spoken of here. The question of fees has been spoken of, but it was more in the line of the fees to be paid by apprentices. But the fee for registration might be out of all proportion. The fee that might be fixed by this council with regard to the mere entering of one's name on the register might be out of all proportion to what is required, and I think that is one matter that should be attended to before the Select Committee. It may be remarked that while the Friendly Societies Bill gave the right to appoint auditors to the Treasury in certain circumstances, the fee for such people was definitely prescribed by statute. I think it is a fact that in the medical profession the fee for registration is actually settled by statute. With regard to registration here, Section 7 of the Bill, with regard to eligibility for membership, is deplorable. Read in all its details you can get a better picture than what is presented at first sight. On this council of twelve there is proposed to be given, at the start, to 50 per cent. of the profession a representation of three. What is its duty with regard to admission? It is mainly this, to register people who have passed the test of examination by five foreign bodies. That is what is mainly imposed upon it.

It said that an examination may be held and the council is given power to prescribe regulations and times and places for such examination. It seems to me that it would be much better that all the members of those foreign bodies should have their names entered on the register of accountants in this State, and that the register should be confined to those actually in practice or under articles on the date of the passing of this Bill, and after that to insist on an examination test, in the main, as the chief way to the accountants' profession in this country. Also, to leave it to the council if they can get good reciprocal conditions with outside bodies. Then they could admit members of outside bodies to the right to practise here. I think it would be injurious to our name if it were definitely put in the foreground that the main duty of the new council was to register here those who had passed certain tests set up by certain foreign bodies. The examinations should be much more definitely set out and prescribed, and made compulsory on all entrants other than those who go on the first register that is compiled. I do not think that the analogy that was attempted to be made as between dentists and doctors and the accountancy profession would hold. Dentists and doctors have to acquire a certain technical knowledge which they cannot get in the ordinary way in their ordinary life. Putting accountancy, not at its minimum but at its low point, it can be said that a man with a good education and a certain amount of experience can acquire competency as an accountant of a particular type. How far that competency should be raised is for the House to determine. Later, if it says that we think some test with regard to competency should be passed, then that would be a matter of seeing how Sections 14 and 15 come back from the Select Committee.

I am not clear that the Select Committee proposal is so phrased that the outside bodies, say the non-associated accountants and auditors, the more or less non-recognised bodies, will be able to make a case to go before the Committee. If that is so, then I think those difficulties could be easily enough cleared up before the Committee meets so that they will hear those people making their own case, and they can do it better than any of us. That being so, I appeal to the Seanad, not to attempt to take it as part of the particular point to which Senator Farren objected and a point as to which many of us take objection—that is the necessity for an apprenticeship period under articles—but to take it on general lines, as to whether or not it is a good and proper claim that the profession should be regulated in some way by council if appointed, or in some other way. On that question I urge very definitely that the House should allow the Bill to be sent to a Committee so that the fuller facts may be brought out and that members engaged in the practice of the profession would have an opportunity of saying what form of control they desire. If that is done there is very little left to have any dispute about when the measure comes back from committee.

Dr. GOGARTY

As a matter of personal explanation—I did not like to interrupt the Minister—I would like to dispel what may be a false impression. I am afraid the Minister might carry away the impression that I spoke disparagingly about the profession of accountants. I did say that I did not think they were sufficiently disreputable to deserve all this regulation of their conduct. In that way I meant to pay them a tribute but I think the whole House will agree that the integrity and honesty of the accountants of Ireland is beyond reproach. Another reason why I did not like to interrupt the Minister was that he was making short work of the Bill, and in a manner much better than I could.

Mrs. WYSE-POWER

I believe that the intention of Senators is to send this Bill to a Joint Committee. The only thing I would like to point out is that if a general council is to be established, at all events it should consist of Irishmen. The second suggestion I would like to make is about the investment of moneys that may accrue to this council. I think there should be a proviso that any money so raised should be invested in this country. I understand that some of the associations have a good deal of their money invested outside the country.

If we are to set up this new body I think it should be seen that their money is invested at home where it comes from. With regard to examination I am more or less opposed to a body such as this being placed in the position of setting up their own examinations. I think that when that time comes for examinations whether for competency or for admission to articles the university should set the examination and the university should give that a cachet of its own and take it out of the hands of those who cannot be so competent. I understand some of the associations take their examiners from their own bodies and some people do not approve of that. I think there is a Chair of Accountancy in the National University and if they were asked to set the examination I think it would lift the whole thing out of the sphere of suspicion.

Mr. BAGWELL

I have hitherto abstained from taking any part in this debate. I felt that I had not any particular qualification but it seems to me now that we have arrived at a position as to whether this Bill can be profitably referred to a Joint Committee or withdrawn altogether and another submitted by the promoters. In deciding between these two courses the main consideration seems to me to be how much of the Bill before us is generally accepted. I think the debate has shown that there is no unanimity even as to the necessity of any such proposal. There has been very strong and effective criticism as to many of its provisions on the part of Senators who are generally in favour of some further regulations in the practice of accountancy in this country. There is so much difficulty that if this Bill is referred to a committee I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether anything will result from it except the expenditure of a great deal of time on the part of a great many people. I am disposed to think it would be much better that it should be withdrawn and that a very much larger and better measure should be introduced which will avoid a number of the features that were so strongly and effectively criticised during the debate. It is not usual to submit a Bill to a committee for the purpose of evolving an entirely new Bill. It seems to me that that is very much like what the committee would have to do here. That appears to be a misapprehension of the functions of a committee and I think the thing ought to be done de novo if at all.

Mr. BROWN

At this stage of the debate I do not intend to say more than a word or two but I would join with Senator Jameson and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the appeal they made to the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill and allow it to go to a Select Committee. In my opinion if this Bill is thrown out now on Second Reading no new Bill will be brought into this House or the other House for years. The only chance of getting a Bill which a large majority of this House and, I think, the entire body of the accountants' profession believe necessary, is to pass the Second Reading of this Bill and send it on to a Select Committee. It is suggested that there is not enough of good in this Bill to send it to a Select Committee. With great respect the principle that everyone wants to carry is in this Bill. There are a number of good points in it. I admit that there are a good many clauses that want alteration. We are not wedded to the form, the number or qualifications of the general council. There is nothing in the Bill that we are not prepared to consider further. How are we to get these things? You will never get them by throwing out the Bill and going back and trying to get those bodies who now govern the profession, and outsiders, to agree. The only way that you will get the evidence necessary to produce a good Bill is to let it go before a Committee of this House and allow people in different positions to come before that Committee. If you do that you will get, as we did in the case of the Coroners Bill, a thoroughly workable and sound measure which will do great good not only to the profession but also to the public. After forty years' experience in my profession I say there is no country where more strict, honest and sound accountancy is wanted.

Mr. DOUGLAS

There are one or two matters I would like to refer to before the debate concludes. I do not propose to follow the course of the discussion, with a certain amount of which I agree and a certain amount of which I think is not quite accurate. I would urge the House that if it feels that there should be registration, to send this Bill to Committee. I, for my part, do not feel equal to attempting to bring in a new Bill myself, even with the assistance of one or two other Senators. Let me explain that an attempt was made to draft this Bill after consultation with some of the leading accountants. It was even sent to the Minister but he quite properly said that although he was prepared to assist in the debate here, he thought it wise that it should be introduced as a Private Bill. I mention that to show that there was a good deal of care taken before the Bill was introduced and even on the First Reading stage had I been allowed, I would have pointed out that there were certain matters that needed careful consideration. I do not think you are going to get any other evidence from those who would be interested in this Bill or from others who may be waiting to introduce a Bill. I do not think you will get any evidence unless you send the Bill to a committee where you will get order, a clerk to assist, and where you will get evidence from all the parties concerned. Secondly, I desire to say that I hold no brief for any of those bodies.

I am not interested in any of them, but I doubt if they are going to come together. Thirdly, I would like to point out that the two bodies who, as the Bill stands, have a fairly large representation on the Council, are in a priviledged position at the present moment. I do not know whether their members will approve of what I am going to say now or not. Let me say, quite frankly, that the leading members of the biggest bodies did not want this Bill for themselves in any sense of the word. As Senator Kenny stated, the leading experienced men, who are chartered accountants, have got positions, and registration will not add one single penny or any gain to their position at the moment.

Mr. KENNY

I did not say that the leading men were chartered accountants. I said that the leading men were men who are not in any way connected or associated with these bodies.

Mr. DOUGLAS

That is not my point.

Mr. KENNY

You quoted me as saying that the leading men were chartered accountants.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I thought Senator Kenny said chartered accountants were known to be leading men in their profession. As to who are leading men, I am not going to commit myself at all. I do not want to make any distinction between one association or the other. I do not want to make any attack on anybody. I agree that the integrity of our accountant here is beyond reproach. At the same time there are certain cases in which it would be just as well if certain practising accountants were members of one of the associations and under a certain amount of control. I make that without any reflection at all on Irish accountants, but anyone who has anything to do with banking at all will agree with my statement.

As to the details of the Bill, I do not want to go into them except to refer to the point raised by Senator Farren. That is as to the articles of an apprentice. I honestly believe that the position in England to which he referred does not help the poor man's son. They can get on in England, but they have large associations. They have very wealthy men at the head of the profession, but I would venture to say that if Senator Farren went across to the other side and made inquiries amongst the members of his own party he would find that they are not quite satisfied with the position of the poor man's son. What I do suggest is that a satisfactory system of registration with a proper measure of necessary control is the best way to get fair play from the point of view of the poor man's son, as well as from the point of view of every other person. I would not have introduced this Bill at all if I believed it was going to give a monopoly to the rich or to any particular section.

Senator Sir John Keane referred to another point. I think it would be probably necessary to have some definition of accountancy in the Bill. If my information is right, the words "practising accountant" in the profession conveys something definite, mainly dealing with audit and certification; you do not have to have an accountant to do ordinary book-keeping. Much of Senator O'Farrell's point about these bodies wishing to do the work done by charwomen is absolutely beside the point. I do think there should be a definition in order to prevent any possible difficulty. There is a very great difference between the book-keeping which I and some others learned at school and the work which is essential, if there is to be a thorough investigation of the accounts of public companies in the interests of the public. I hope the House will see their way to send the Bill to Committee. It is a matter entirely for them. The Committee I intended to propose would be representative, and of those I have asked to serve on my nomination there is a majority of those who have spoken against the Bill.

Mr. FARREN

Before the debate concludes I want to get a declaration from Senator Douglas as to whether or not Section 7 of the Bill, dealing with the question of articles, is a principle of the Bill. If he insists on that, I will have to vote against it. In his opening statement he said that the question of the controlling body and the question of the articles were principles he would insist on. If he insists on the arrangement as to articles as a principle of the Bill, I will have to vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I owe an apology for not mentioning that. My view is that some form of experience is essential. I do not stand for articles with a particular accountant, but I do think that some form of experience, as well as an examination, is desirable. I am not disputing the right of the House to alter this Bill if it thinks fit, but I think that it will lose much of its value if the qualified accountant has not some experience. I think that at the present time the Incorporated Law Society, which is a fairly close body, allow clerks of a certain experience to pass an examination which is not of as severe a type as that which those who have no experience have to pass. I think that even within a closed body you can get experience as well as an examination without providing exactly for it, as the provisions laid down in Section 7 provide for.

Mr. BRADY

It is a fact that some of the most eminent solicitors in the country never paid a fee or underwent the usual examination. A clerk, say, who has had experience in conducting a solicitor's office is granted certain exemptions—he is not required to pass a test in Latin, French or other languages—before he gets through his final examination in law.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Sir E. Coey Bigger.
• P. J. Brady.
• S. L. Brown.
• J. C. Counihan.
• James Douglas.
• J. C. Dowdall.
• Sir Nugent Everard.
• Thos. Foran.
• Mrs. A. Stopford Green.
• Sir John Griffith.
• Henry S. Guinness.
• Benjamin Haughton.
• Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
• Earl of Kerry.
• Mrs. J. Wyse Power.

Níl

• Thos. W. Bennett.
• John Bagwell.
• W. Barrington.
• Wm. Cummins.
• Michael Duffy.
• Sir Thos. Esmonde.
• Michael Fanning.
• Thos. Farren.
• Sir John Keane.
• P. W. Kenny.
• Thos. Linehan.
• F. MacGuinness.
• James McKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• J. W. Molloy.
• Colonel Moore.
• J. T. O'Farrell.
• M. F. O'Hanlon.

Motion declared negatived.