CIMA members could lose out by £45 if divergent fees were redistributed evenly, while ICAEW members could pay £11 less, and CIPFA members could save £35 (based on 2005 levels).

The issue emerged as a bone of contention when CIMA's council met last week to consider its requirements for a merger of the three bodies.

But despite the fears of some council members, a CIMA spokeswoman said fees were 'some way from the top of the list' of priorities.

The other institutes are understood to possess their own list of demands, but would only confirm subscription levels were 'one of a number of issues' being 'closely' examined.

The institutes were unwilling to comment on other details of the negotiating positions agreed by councils, which will be used by the leaderships to debate the details of any merger.

Councils will decide in December whether to put the merger blueprint that emerges from the talks to a membership ballot.

Meanwhile, the timetabling of the merger process has been questioned as roadshows are being held before the details of the plan are thrashed out.

One CIMA council member feared that members attending roadshows in such circumstances could only expect to receive an anodyne, 'motherhood and apple pie' picture.

The institutes reacted to the suggestion by distancing themselves from the original statement that the meetings were designed to 'present the benefits' of a merger.

CIPFA said the reason was to listen to members? views, CIMA to learn from members and the ICAEW emphasised the purpose was to publicise the results of its strategic review.

The ICAEW said the three bodies would undertake further meetings with members in the new year once a 'detailed proposition' was available.