OPINION - TOPP training idea hits rock bottom

Did you know you could become a member of the English ICA without even having to set foot in a practising office? I must confess that had I not taken a keen interest in education and training, I might have missed out on this startling fact. I say this with some diffidence because the Training Outside Public Practice (TOPP) route to membership was introduced no less than seven years ago.

Ignorance may be no excuse, but it must be pointed out that TOPP has not taken off. In 1996, there were 13 TOPP offices training 94 students, out of a total of 1,264 offices training 10,595 students.

The institute’s Education & Training Directorate has been addressing this issue. It has concluded that one barrier to institute training in industry and commerce is the requirement that the member responsible for training (MRT) must be a chartered accountant and a member of the English ICA. The directorate is considering removing this requirement.

Such a prospect horrifies me for two reasons. First, how can an MRT be someone who is not an institute member and, second, even if the terminology were revised, can it be right for the overall responsibility for training to be delegated to a non-member?

The route the directorate envisages taking would break the link between the current body of our membership and its future entrants, and destroy the ethos behind our institute.

Much of the day-to-day conduct and monitoring of training – whether inside or outside public practice – must be delegated, and can indeed be delegated, to non-members. This is clearly acknowledged in the work experience and training guidelines. But, until now, it has been a cardinal rule that delegation of work does not mean delegation of responsibility.

The institute must accept that TOPP has failed because it is a ‘bad thing’.

Removing barriers in the way suggested would make it an even ‘worse thing’.

This would not be to the advantage of members admitted either through the practice or industry route.

Our charter calls on us to recruit, educate and train a body of members skilled in accountancy in all its aspects, particularly in auditing, financial management and taxation, and at all times to preserve the professional independence of accountants in whatever capacity they are serving.

The appropriate way to continue with such a professional body is by qualification through a public practice firm. This is the only way public regard for accountancy’s bodies can be preserved and enhanced. TOPP should stop.

In 1996, members blocked the proposed introduction of a scheme for optional exams because they believed such an innovation would be incompatible with our objectives. Equally, I believe TOPP does not sit comfortably with our aims, although it was accepted by the membership in 1990 when it was envisaged that it might attract between 10% to 15% of institute trainees.

Bringing the TOPP experiment to an end does not mean that entrants already qualified through this route are anything other than worthy members. Rather than breaking down the MRT barrier, a more constructive route might be to look at enlarging the definition of public practice in relation to acceptable training workplaces.

One workplace where TOPP has made inroads is the National Audit Office.

The way TOPP functions at the NAO leads me to conclude that the ethos of the institute depends on training in an organisation whose work is directed towards preparing and/or scrutinising accounts at arm’s length.

This fits in well with NAO training.

What does not fit is training in an environment where accountancy is a support function – as it will be in industry and commerce – however sophisticated and forward-looking that organisation’s centralised finance function might be.

Nor do I undervalue the experience of working in industry on a secondment basis during training. Secondment, however, does mean ‘second’, not, as with TOPP, ‘only’.

John Cook is a lecturer and English ICA member in practice on Merseyside.