More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that the BBC has embarked on a five year process to establish a full risk management strategy. I suspect, though I don't know, dodgy phone ins were not fully documented within tha strategy.

According to a National Audit Office review presented to the BBC's governors' audit committee last year, he or she drafts the annual risk baseline and reports to the audit committee on the risk management process twice a year.

What will next year's contain in light of recent scandals?

Geoff Jones said afterwards: 'Diana and I are delighted that the Law Lords have vindicated our position, and confirmed that we have done nothing wrong. This has been a terrible ordeal for us, which looked like it could cost us our home at one point. We’re relieved it’s all over, but I am still extremely angry that the Government tried to pull this stunt in the first place.'

But will it really be the end of the saga? The Professional Contractors Group will now be seeking assurances from the Government that the judgment marks the end of the matter and that small businesses’ tax treatments will not be altered in this respect.

HMRC says it doesn't see the Jones' case as a test case and may well use the judgment to clarify future guidance. Equally, will legislation change.

The Jones' may well get their reward for sticking with the case for so long – but will others see the benefit.

Equally the content of the Walker report was credible. It may not be perfect but it suggested a willingness to deal with some of the criticisms made of the industry, principally around transparency.

Chancellor of the exchequer Alistair Darling may have told Accountancy Age this week (check our home page later today) that he won't rush to judgment but the industry's recognition that it needs to change makes it easier for him to impose further change upon it when it comes to tax. As my colleague Alex Hawkes predicts in his Taxhack blog, Darling may well look at hybrid capital structures and what constitutes risk capital.

Of course, reports have circulated for some time that the Treasury has been concerned about aspects of the private equity industry. But I hear that some of the conversations about beneficial tax arrangements go back 20 years.

In the mid-1980s, I'm told, Treasury officials decided to turn a blind eye to what they recognized as inequitable tax benefits because what was then the venture capital industry was involved primarily in activities that Whitehall saw as beneficial: stimulating new industries and backing fledgling companies. In short, it believed the industry was doing government's job more effectively than it could do so itself.

These days, of course, it's very different: venture capital is now private equity and is more concerned with established, under-exploited businesses than taking a punt on something new. Interesting stuff.

In light of that, one idea that wasn't in the Walker report that the industry might like to consider is dedicating a portion of its funds to 'ventures' – that might help deal with some of its critics.

Will the industry's trade body be keen to do so? Recent evidence suggests not. I see the BVCA has rebranded itself on its website. What was once the British Venture Capital Association is now the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association.

Note the order of those words.

In a poll of IBC listeners, 25% said opponents of private equity were simply attacking the sector to gain political mileage though the same proportion said there were genuine concerns that industry needs to be regulated and monitored more closely.'

Some 57% said they believed the approach of private equity was too short-termistwhile 78% said existing tax policies unfairly favoured private equity.'

However, 100% said they beliveed the private equity model was better at extracting value than the publically listed model.

There were some telling comments by panellists too - most interestingly around the transparency issue.

'One accusation which can be fairly be laid at the door of the private equity community is its abject failure to play the PR game. Now they are on the back foot and that's a very difficult place to be,' said Ian Leaman, founder director of Buckingham Corporate Finance and vice-chairman of the ICAEW corporate finance faculty.

Ernst & Young partner John Cole added: 'Certainly they have been surprised by the debate, and so when they started investing in the high street, which then gets the media attention, had the debate been set because some years ago, had been articulating the case of private equity more visibly and more coherently rather than being pretty much invisible, had they perhaps been more proactive in extolling why it is a force for good, the debate would have started from somewhere else.'

Mazars partner Richard Metcalfe said: 'It is absolutely clear that private equity firms have not been as transparent as they could have been.'

All eyes will be on Sir David Walker later today. Appointed by the private equity industry to propose a new code of conduct, he is expected to say buyout firms should appoint external, non-executive directors to the boards of some companies bought by private equity and disclose more about debt structures.

Whether that is enough to end the row is unlikely. (The Tax Justice Network told the Treasury select committee yesterday that the industry benefitted from three tax breaks).

All eyes will be on the Treasury for a response next.

There was much squirming in chairs, some poker faces and an agreeable level of discomfort in the room as Stuttard advocated a merger - and also when he went out of his way to congratulate ACCA on  its global achievments.
Current ICAS present Isobel Sharp sat with her back to me on a neighbouring table. She appeared to be playing musical statues while the rest of her dinner companions threw her goading looks (the winner by a distance: POB chief Paul George).
But she wasn't alone. The room was chock full of institute chief executives and presidents. Sharp's colleagues - chief exec Anton Colella and past president Ian Robertson; CIMA's Charles Tilley and his past president John Coghlan; CIPFA's Steve Freer and president John Butler. Former ICAEW presidents Graham Ward, Peter Wyman, Michael Groom, Roger Lawson and Baroness Noakes. I'm sure there were more.
There was much muttering in the bar afterwards how this was a strange time to bring uup talk of a merger when the institutes were finally working together effecitvely again through the CCAB. (For that read finally talking once more). 
But as someone who has been forced to squirm a little in my own chair at these sorts of events recently, I thoroughly enjoyed. And, I have to say, I still agree with the Lord Mayor.

He continues: 'In my experience Accountants drive flashy cars into work (on their own), invest large pensions in arms / Oil companies , spend piles of cash on lavish offices , fly to New York for the weekend , avoid paying tax and help others avoid paying tax -  and generally fill their boots greasing the wheels of greedy capitalism.

'There is no ‘Green Consumerism’ Marks and Spencer cannot become Green because buying loads of stuff you don’t need from shops is not sustainable. Individuals need to stop doing the unsustainable things. The profits skimmed off transactions on which accountants rely - are the earth’s resources stolen and flogged off by business. I suggest your readers consider retraining with some practical skills because inevitably the house of cards will fall.

'This magazine is a public relations exercise – self gratifying drivel ….I expect Audits & Accountants will have the same effect on corporate environmental behaviour as they do on corporate financial, legal & human rights behaviour – nothing….. just covering arses. I guess the bottom is made compliant with  the trouser – Hurrah -> excuse me whilst I become sarcastic. Planet Earth is saved, a phalanx of lawyers and accountants have arrived.'
There's more, much more:
'Perhaps I can suggest some more accurate first lines for special editions
"Accountants are at the heart of invading Iraq"
"Accountants are at the heart of Failed NHS IT projects"
"Accountants are at the heart of destroying Britain’s railways"
"Accountants are at the heart of the UK’s record national debt"
"Accountants are at the heart of declining health and education"

Neither man will have gone into this relationship with their eyes closed and both parties will have imposed conditions. So Sir Digby takes the Labour whip but retains the right to speak out. It seems a fair trade.

What interests me more though is how this will pan out. I feel sure that given his many talents and his availability Sir Digby would have been approached for previous jobs close to government and chosen not to accept them. Yet he has chosen to take on this one.

Obviously the rewards are there - improving the performance of British businesses on the global stage is an issue close to the Union Jack cufflink wearer's heart. But will their come a point where the downsides (accepting the whip, enduring the often glacial pace of change within Whitehall etc.) outweigh those considerable benefits?

Hutton also seeks to tread an interesting line on private equity. On the one hand he says: 'The public’s got a legitimate interest in all of this, particularly around the tax issues ... The climate changes [for business sectors] and you’ve got to keep ahead of the public debate or at least try to match it.'

On the other, he argues: 'It’s incredibly important for the British economy that private equity houses add value ... and they’ve been doing that, been very successful.'

It's hard to argue with either of those statements. What will be far more difficult will be carving out a tax policy that does justice to both. Not doing anything after the Treasury review is completed will reveal Hutton's first statement to be no more than hot air. Going too far will undermine the latter.

Of his new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (basically an unscientific DTI) Hutton says: 'This is not a rebranding. It’s a serious attempt to redesign across government how we work with business.'

Apropos of very little I remember an Accountancy Age headline some years back branding the DTI the Department of Timidity and Inaction so let's hope the ungainly sounding DBERR is more effective.