RICS internal purpose review ‘ridiculous’, says industry
Industry figures have criticised the decision by RICS to run a review into its purpose and relevance internally, with one saying the initiative risks being seen as “a whitewash”.
RICS formally kicked off the consultation process this week, after an industry backlash over a governance scandal. Its leadership team has come under fire in recent months for the way it purportedly handled the dismissal of four non-executive directors in 2019.
After resistance earlier this year, RICS’ governing council caved to industry pressure and set up two reviews. One will be carried out independently by barrister Peter Oldham QC, focusing on the events of 2018 and 2019, in which the non-execs were allegedly ousted after questioning why a financial report into treasury controls was not shared.
Industry figures have criticised the decision by RICS to run a review into its purpose and relevance internally, with one saying the initiative risks being seen as “a whitewash”.
RICS formally kicked off the consultation process this week, after an industry backlash over a governance scandal. Its leadership team has come under fire in recent months for the way it purportedly handled the dismissal of four non-executive directors in 2019.
After resistance earlier this year, RICS’ governing council caved to industry pressure and set up two reviews. One will be carried out independently by barrister Peter Oldham QC, focusing on the events of 2018 and 2019, in which the non-execs were allegedly ousted after questioning why a financial report into treasury controls was not shared.
The second review, evidence-gathering for which will run until 9 April, will examine RICS’ relevance to the industry, and cover eight areas, including its purpose as a professional body, governance and transparency, member engagement and involvement, and membership value proposition.
Feedback will be relayed to RICS’ governing council, which will vote on final strategic outcomes in November.
‘Help define our future’
Chief executive Sean Tompkins said it is “essential we hear all member voices across the 100-plus specialisms and geographies”. He added: “I hope that the profession takes this opportunity to engage wholeheartedly and help its governing council ‘define our future’.”
However, the fact that the review is being run internally and chaired by Tompkins and president Kathleen Fontana has prompted criticism.
Neil Sinclair, chief executive of Palace Capital, said: “This review should be external. It is being done by the president and the chief executive, which is ridiculous. Instead of them, bring two outsiders in, bring in two past presidents – people with different perspectives.
“I don’t want to prejudge anything and say this [review] will be a whitewash, but the fear is that it could be.”
Sinclair added that the purpose review ought to provide “a golden opportunity” for RICS to encourage greater engagement from its 133,000-strong membership.
“They have fallen out of touch with their members,” he said. “They could e-mail monthly or quarterly updates from the chief executive. We have never had anything, and that’s really what has gone wrong.”
Stephen Hill, director of C20 futureplanners, said it was “a bit naïve” of RICS to conduct the review “without an external aspect giving it a bit of direction”. “You’d have thought it would be an obvious thing to do, given the way they have had to respond to member and public pressure,” he said.
“In a sense it’s a classic response – ‘we’ve always managed ourselves internally’. I don’t think it’s malevolent or conspiratorial, but I don’t think they have thought about this enough.”
Positive opportunity for reform
Despite this, Hill underlined the review as a “positive opportunity” for reform. He is among eight RICS members calling for a new independent, public interest “sounding board”.
Hill believes events leading up to this review are a “warning” that the “inward-looking, self-regulating mindset” of most professional bodies is no longer fit-for-purpose.
“The sounding board is really shorthand for being more open and receptive to engaging with civil society about what surveyors do,” he added. “It can’t replace the proper regulatory processes that the profession must have, but I think it can help shape how those processes work, with [a sense] of where public feeling is and what the expectations are on us as a public interest body.”
Rob Bower, managing partner at Montagu Evans, urged “a bit less backslapping” from RICS in favour of “more reflection on whether there are areas to improve on”.
“There needs to be some pretty serious self-reflection on the part of RICS, and the valuation industry, about the role valuation plays,” he said.
Bower underlined that RICS, which is carrying out a separate independent review into valuations, should re-evaluate whether it can best serve the investing public’s interests by operating as a subscription-funded, self-regulating organisation.
“When we look at what has happened in the world of audit recently and the challenges it has faced, I think it’s right the valuation profession undergoes a similar exercise and asks some searching questions,” said Bower.
“On the one hand, RICS is the promoter and custodian of surveyors and what we contribute to society. On the other, it’s our regulator. Is it fit… to do both of those things in a way that is excellent?
“Hopefully this review will address these issues, but self-regulating professions aren’t notable for the speed at which they embrace change. Frankly, that’s not good enough. We need to be prepared to move more swiftly and ensure we stay at the forefront of good regulatory and market practice, and maintain confidence in what surveyors and valuers bring to the market.”
To send feedback, e-mail pui-guan.man@egi.co.uk or tweet @PuiGuanM or @estatesgazette
Photo by Jeff Blackler/Shutterstock
