Those are questions being discussed by insolvency practitioners as regulators and senior figures grapple with the best way forward.

At its heart is the scope and capacity of the Insolvency Service (IS), the central government body at the heart of the regulation and licensing of practitioners.

Though senior figures say the service has improved markedly in recent years, there are still fears that it still has ‘some way to go’ to fully discharge the role it has.

‘It’s a big industry to try and please everyone,’ admits R3 president Nick O’Reilly.

One issue is whether there is a conflict between the service’s role as regulator and licensee. Several bodies license insolvency practitioners, and some say the Insolvency Service may be more critical of other bodies’ licensing work than its own.

Frances Coulson, a member of the R3 council, said: ‘The IS, being a regulator of and provider of licences, should be looked at. Should it regulate its competition?’

The issue emerged from a poll of practitioners commissioned by R3 and carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Stephen Speed, inspector general and agency chief executive, said he was keen to see the results of the research: ‘In reaching a view on the question relevant factors will be the effectiveness of the overall system of regulation, whether the interests of creditors and of debtors are well served and whether there are appropriate levels of competition in the insolvency practitioner market.’

R3 says it had not intended to come across as purely critical, and that the Cebr research covered the positive contribution of the insolvency industry to the UK economy.

Writing to Accountancy Age, O’Reilly said: ‘I am immensely proud of my time working in the Insolvency Service and indeed am the first person to come through the Insolvency Service to become R3’s President.’