‘There are institutes that trade off uncertainty about qualifications. This is especially a problem internationally, where there can be real misunderstandings. Students obtain a UK qualification only to find that it is not what they expected,’ Anstee said. He did not name specific institutes.

The row follows the release, by mistake, of ICAEW council papers, which revealed that the institute wanted to ‘codify’ the profession by introducing a hierarchy of institutes with the CCAB bodies at the top and bookkeepers at the bottom.

According to the papers, the ICAEW intended to put this structure forward to the Privy Council in the hope that it would see the term ‘accountant’ registered and prevent people without proper qualifications from claiming to be accountants.

‘The ICAEW proposal is not about saying one qualification is better than another. It is about being clear and transparent so that everyone knows what skills each qualification offers,’ Anstee said.

Philip Turnbull, chief executive of the Association of International Accountants, reacted angrily to the classification.

‘We offer a recognised qualification. It is not for the ICAEW to decide if the profession should be codified and how that should be done. It needs to be done through a public discussion, not in secret behind closed doors,’ Turnbull said.

The AIA has previously said the ICAEW hierarchy plans are simply a way of feeding new students into its organisation.

Financial Reporting Council chief executive Paul Boyle, meanwhile, said the profession needed to provide the FRC with a cost-benefit analysis if it wanted the regulator to police the use of the term accountant.

‘By definition they (the institutes) can’t have power over non-members, so who is going to do this, and who is going to pay for it?’ Boyle said.

Both Anstee and Turnbull agreed that the term ‘accountant’ needed to be protected and that the FRC could be the ideal organisation to manage the process.