Derek McDowell (Labour)

We have a genuine problem in this respect. The accountancy bodies currently impose fines on errant members. I understand such fines are not high and are imposed in most cases following an internal disciplinary procedure. In many cases, these fines or monetary sanctions are imposed following a consensual procedure in which, I understand, the complaint is admitted and the fine paid. The risk in insisting that this be backed up by a court order is that one will destroy any possibility of addressing the matter in a simple, straightforward fashion.

On the one hand, there is an argument that if somebody does wrong, the courts are the appropriate forum for imposing penalties, if necessary, in the full glare of publicity. This ignores the fact that there are venial and mortal sins and that the former are best dealt with efficiently. The use of internal disciplinary procedures should not be discouraged. I suspect that the legal argument will be made that if one sets out the disciplinary procedures in statute and gives them statutory backing, one must inevitably insist that the courts back up by court order any penalty imposed, whether it be the removal of the capacity to practice or simply a small monetary fine.

The argument is about balance. If somebody is about to be effectively expelled from a professional body, such a step should be backed up by a court order. However, in the event that a €500 fine is imposed, it is hardly necessary to require the accountancy bodies to seek sanction for it in the High Court. Perhaps the most sensible way to deal with the matter would be to set a level of fine above which fines would have to be confirmed and below which, by implication, they would not have to be confirmed.