 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Key Activities
Joint Insolvency Committee Regulatory Forum
The JIC organised a first Regulatory Forum in May, which brought together representatives
of all the RPBs and of the IS as well as numerous IPs and other interested stakeholders,
including the IPC. The Forum debated a number of current topics of interest,
including industry intelligence, methods and frequency of monitoring and consistency
in disciplinary procedures, which are discussed below. The IPC considers this
was a useful initiative by the JIC and would encourage the JIC to turn the Forum
into a regular event.
Industry Intelligence
The Regulatory Forum discussed the case for setting up a dedicated and independent
telephone “hot-line” which potential “whistleblowers” working
within the IP sector could call on a confidential basis. Following subsequent
discussion in the JIC, the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) has initiated
a research project, the results of which will be shared with all the licensing
bodies, to investigate how such a system could be established. The IPC welcomes
this initiative. Although we share the view of the RPBs that the vast majority
of IPs do an often difficult job conscientiously and well, a protected “whistleblowers” system
could help the regulators in identifying the relatively rare cases of misconduct.
Monitoring
Following the closure of the Joint Insolvency Monitoring Unit at the end of 2004,
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) and the IPA
has established their own separate monitoring systems. All the RPBs’ monitors
continue to exchange ideas and information directly through the regular reports
to the JIC by the “Meeting of Monitors”. Two members of the IPC were
invited to the July “Meeting of Monitors” and were pleased to observe
that the monitors appear to work well together and that the meeting produced
valuable exchanges of experiences.
Informal co-operation of this kind is welcome and will hopefully continue. We
nevertheless believe that a more systematic harmonisation of monitoring methods
and benchmarks is desirable. We are concerned at the discrepancies between the
RPBs in the frequency of their monitoring visits. We also believe that a gap
of 6 years between visits is too long.
Consistency in Disciplinary Procedures
IPs from time to time express concerns about differences in the procedures and
outcomes of RPBs’ disciplinary and complaints handling systems. Following
discussions at the Regulatory Forum, the IS has asked the RPBs and other interested
parties to supply any evidence of differences in the standards applied by the
RPBs. The IPC’s view is that, since increasing numbers of members of the
public come into contact with IPs, it would benefit the profession and the public
if all the RPBs were to adopt common standards and procedures in the handling
of complaints and disciplinary cases and preferably move to a single system with
a common pool of tribunal members, including wholly independent lay members.
Home I News I Contact IPC I Useful Links I About IPC