RegulationAccounting StandardsSmall institutes ‘trade off’ student uncertainty

Small institutes 'trade off' student uncertainty

Smaller institutes opposing plans to ‘rank’ accounting qualifications are trading off students’ uncertainty about different degrees, former ICAEW chief executive Eric Anstee has said

Eric Anstee, former ICAEW chief executive

Eric Anstee, former ICAEW chief executive

‘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.

Related Articles

Demystifying GDPR for accountants

Accounting Standards Demystifying GDPR for accountants

1w Ellen Temperton, Lewis Silkin
EY fined £1.8m over Tech Data audit

Accounting Standards EY fined £1.8m over Tech Data audit

2m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
The great professional services shake-up

Accounting Standards The great professional services shake-up

3m Fergus Payne, Lewis Silkin
What do clients actually want from an accountant?

Accounting Standards What do clients actually want from an accountant?

4m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
Accountants shouldn’t neglect hybrid mismatch anti-avoidance rules

Accounting Standards Accountants shouldn’t neglect hybrid mismatch anti-avoidance rules

4m Alison Conley
Membership of the accountancy profession on the rise

Accounting Standards Membership of the accountancy profession on the rise

5m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
The real price of mates' rates in the provision of professional services

Accounting Standards The real price of mates' rates in the provision of professional services

5m DAC Beachcroft
IASB overhauls insurance accounting with issuance of IFRS 17

Accounting Standards IASB overhauls insurance accounting with issuance of IFRS 17

7m Alia Shoaib, Reporter