Contrary to the suggestion from Senator Joe O'Toole in these columns (Comment, April 18th), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) has warmly welcomed the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Bill.

In fact, the Bill's key provision - movement towards supervised regulation of our profession - is a suggestion the ICAI made to the review group on auditing chaired by Mr O'Toole himself. We believe this new regulatory model, which is already attracting international interest, combines the best features of self and State regulation.

The ICAI wants the new authority to work. We are aware of our public interest obligations. We know confidence in accounting and auditing is a critical part of rebuilding confidence in the economy and in financial services in particular.

That is why we responded to difficulties that emerged in our profession by overhauling our training and disciplinary procedures.

And as the public is aware from reports on the progress of the Blayney Committee of Inquiry into the McCracken report, we are pursuing our public concern functions with vigour and at great expense.

So it is in this spirit that we are seeking amendments to the Bill as drafted - not to stymie it or turn the clock back as Mr O'Toole implies.

In some areas for example, the Bill departs significantly from the recommendations of the review group on auditing.

One such example is the obligation imposed on directors and auditors in respect to compliance statements.

It is important to note that we are not arguing with "compliance". Every citizen has a duty to uphold the law and we recognise that that obligation falls equally on auditors, accountants and directors.

Accountants are already subject to a whole series of "whistleblowing" obligations under various companies, finance and criminal justice acts.

These are obligations we take very seriously - for example, we are currently organising a nationwide tour to inform our members of their duties under money-laundering legislation. Indeed, the obligations on auditors are so varied that co-ordination and simplification of existing obligations is an urgent necessity.

It is important to remember that too much red tape is not just an enemy of successful business practice, it is an enemy of effective regulation as well.

Our difficulty with the compliance statement as drafted is that it requires public disclosure of any possible legal breach even if it has been reported to the authorities as required under existing law. The review group on auditing recommended a compliance statement which obliged company directors to state that possible breaches had been brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.

There is a world of difference between these two obligations.

The review group recommendation recognises that the rightful investigators of possible legal breaches are those established by law. The Bill as drafted asks directors and auditors to go public on possible problems before due process or proper investigation being completed.

It is not a mere whistleblowing provision - it turns us into judge and jury. We are concerned too at the scope of the statement required, particularly the extent to which accountants and auditors will be asked to stand over directors' statements in areas like health, safety and environmental law for which we have not sufficient expertise.

Due process is at the heart of another of our concerns about the Bill. We are concerned that affording the supervisory authority the power to annul decisions of our disciplinary bodies will undermine the progress we have made in strengthening our internal disciplinary process.

Equally, the Bill's stipulation that disciplinary findings have to be confirmed in the High Court will make it more difficult to reach conclusions than is presently the case.

This is an area that needs to be revisited. The issue that has perhaps received most attention has been our campaign for greater professional representation on the new supervisory authority.

We do not believe that establishing a ceiling of just two (of 12) accountants/auditors on the authority will allow us make an effective contribution to the new supervisory model.

But we do accept entirely that the majority membership of the authority should be of non-accountants. That is why we have sought to have the ceiling on accountant and auditor representation increased to 40 per cent which is more in line with other jurisdictions.

Obviously we are pleased that the Tánaiste has said publicly that this is an area she is prepared to look at again.

The Bill is currently before Seanad Éireann so it has some way to travel before it is finally enacted. For our part, the ICAI is committed to participating actively in this important debate. This is an important piece of legislation which will establish a statutory backing for changes in our profession. It is in the interest of both accountants and the public to get it right.

Brian Walsh is chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland