RICS self-regulation: time to embrace external oversight?

COMMENT I have posted extensively on social media about the resignations of Dame Janet Paraskeva, ex-chair of the RICS standards and regulation board, and all SRB members, the news of which members first became aware of in an email in June from RICS president and governing council chair Ann Gray. In my view, the email lacked any detail of what had happened to cause the mass walkout. The only thing clear in the message was that the “RICS passionately believes in robust self-regulation in the public interest”, although there was no explanation of why it believes this. The detail came in the following days in the press, in particular letters published in EG, which laid bare the events that led to the resignations. Many members were uncomfortable about how the issue had been handled by the RICS and, in particular, Gray. Lots of questions have arisen, and the one I will focus on here is whether the RICS should continue to self-regulate, or if it is time for external oversight. Self-regulation – is it still appropriate? In today’s rapidly evolving world, the appropriateness of self-regulation requires careful consideration to ensure that accountability and public trust are maintained. While the RICS states publicly that it passionately believes in robust self-regulation in the public interest, this is hardly a surprise given their vested interest in and, some may say, focus on self-preservation. In all the years I have been a member, I have never had a convincing case put to me on why we have self-regulation, and given events in recent years and ongoing concerns around cultural and structural issues at the RICS, I am reluctant to just accept the RICS’s view. The more I have considered the subject, the less convinced I am that it should still self-regulate. However, I don’t think that closer government involvement is the solution. I strongly believe all professional bodies should be free from the risk of political interference, especially given that the Grenfell inquiry has highlighted that “faulty and ambiguous” government guidance was partly responsible for the tragedy, which the government has acknowledged. It is worth emphasising that I have no negative experience with RICS regulation. Limited engagement with staff has always been positive, so I am approaching this matter subjectively. I fully accept that others will have different views to me, hence why I think we need an open debate across the membership to gauge the feeling. Government interference At the time of writing, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is progressing through parliament. Within it is clause 221, specifically relating to the RICS and seeking explicit powers for the secretary of state to appoint an independent person to review the organisation and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. In a House of Lords debate in May, a number of members supported the RICS’s remit and its work. My guess is, given the recent mass resignation of the SRB – the negative press coverage of which was closely watched by the government – the same members are less likely to be as supportive now, and we face an outcome of the clause remaining as drafted in the final bill. I completely agree with a statement made by the RICS, which said the clause “has potential to undermine confidence in the independence of the Institution’s work for the benefit of the market, the public, businesses and members”. It added: “As a non-statutory, member-funded professional body with a critical public interest role, RICS must be demonstrably independent from commercial or political interests in its work. These matters are of concern not just to RICS but all similar chartered bodies.” However, the sad fact is the RICS continues to struggle to convince many of its members, as well as the government, that it is now better placed to manage its affairs than it was before the Levitt report. It seems we have a different message, but the structural challenges remain. Challenges and benefits Having considered the issues linked to self-regulation, I have distilled the following key points. The challenges of self-regulation include: Inherent conflicts of interest: Self-regulation could lead to conflicts of interest that can erode trust and compromise the integrity of the regulatory process. Lack of independence: Self-regulation can make it difficult to identify and address issues objectively. External oversight can bring fresh perspectives and ensure impartiality. Limited accountability: Without external checks and balances, self-regulation lacks sufficient accountability. This can undermine public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the regulatory framework. Slow adaptation to change: Self-regulation can sometimes hinder the adoption of new practices, owing to a resistance to change from established norms. The advantages of external oversight are: Objective evaluation: External oversight ensures a more objective evaluation of actions. This reduces the potential for bias and promotes fairness in decision-making. Enhanced transparency: External oversight fosters greater transparency by subjecting regulatory processes to scrutiny. This transparency reassures the public and stakeholders that regulations are established and enforced impartially. Consistent enforcement: External oversight leads to consistent enforcement of regulations across different professional bodies. This consistency helps prevent regulatory disparities and ensures a level playing field. Responsive to public interest: External oversight agencies are often better equipped to gauge and address the needs and concerns of the broader public. This responsiveness aligns regulations more closely with societal expectations. Adaptation to changing landscapes: External oversight can expedite the adoption of new technologies and practices by preventing regulatory inertia and encouraging forward-looking approaches. Exploring alternative regulatory models In the UK, there are a number of professions with external oversight in place. These include: Architecture: The Architects Registration Board has an independent role in overseeing architectural standards, underscoring the importance of uniform guidelines and public safety. The RIBA, in effect, is a membership body. Medicine: The General Medical Council has external oversight for the medical field. Its impartial evaluations and emphasis on ethical standards reflect the significance of external accountability in preserving public trust. Finance: The Financial Conduct Authority has external oversight of the UK’s financial sector. Focused on market integrity and consumer protection, the FCA mirrors the importance of safeguarding public interests. Law: The legal profession is overseen by external bodies including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board. These entities maintain ethical conduct, competence and the delivery of high-quality legal services, upholding the rule of law through external oversight. What now for the RICS? Learning from the practices of various professional bodies that have embraced external oversight provides valuable insights into modern regulatory paradigms. While self-regulation has its merits, it is increasingly evident that external oversight enhances accountability, transparency and public trust. Striking a harmonious balance between industry expertise and external accountability can lead to more adaptable, effective and trustworthy regulatory frameworks that cater to the complex demands of our evolving society. I do not feel that any professional body should be subject to political interference, but I do question, given everything that has happened at the RICS, whether self-regulation is still appropriate. Many members I engage with feel that the time is right for the RICS to engage with them on the future options for regulation, the pros and cons of continued self-regulation or external oversight where the RICS becomes a membership body and there is an equivalent ARB for surveyors. As a passionate member who has dedicated countless hours to supporting the organisation over the years, I am firmly of the view that we need a strong and effective RICS, one that truly embodies being member-led. I really hope the RICS demonstrates this by engaging on important membership issues, one of which is the question of self-regulation. Anthony Walker is a director at Sircle, a former RICS UK and Ireland world regional board member and a fellow of the RICS. He has also held various RICS advisory and professional group board roles