by Frances Plimmer and Stuart Gronow
The European Council Directive on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas could result in dual standards of entry to the RICS and enforced changes to the entry requirements of the institution, in particular to the Test of Professional Competence (TPC). In outlining what the directive imposes, the authors consider some of the implications for the institution, including the challenge of a pan-European responsibility for the RICS.
Property professionals from other European Community member states may have a far easier route to an RICS qualification both by way of examination and in any comparable TPC, as a result of proposals for the implementation of the single market. This stems from the European Council’s legislation which is aimed at facilitating the free movement of professionals — the Directive on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration(1), which will come into effect on January 4 1991.
The Directive
The Directive requires that all member states recognise the qualifications of other European(2) nationals, provided that such qualifications are the basis for professional practice and include an academic diploma which resulted from three years’ full-time (or the equivalent part-time) higher education.
Because of the peculiarly British method of professional education which is often by way of institutional examinations, culminating in a certificate from such chartered bodies as the RICS, the institution’s diploma is included in the Directive’s definition of “diploma”.
As much of the publicity relating to 1992 has shown, this means that UK chartered surveyors can go to any other European member state and be considered as well qualified as their counterparts who undertake similar professional work. In addition, they can claim the same right as a professionally qualified national to join that European country’s professional organisation, gain any licences necessary to practise, and effectively be treated as a professionally qualified national of that European country.
It does, of course, mean that the same facilities must be made available to other European nationals (described in the Directive as “migrants”) who are as professionally qualified as British chartered surveyors. In this way, any practitioner from another European country, who holds a “diploma” (as defined) similar to that awarded by the RICS and who has undergone a period of professional experience, is entitled to pursue the profession of chartered surveying in the UK and is eligible to apply for corporate membership of the RICS.
Earlier directives have operated on the basis of “harmonisation” in that they have required the same rules to exist in each member state. For some professions, such as architects and veterinary surgeons, a level of harmonisation has been achieved by means of “sectoral directives” which relate specifically to each profession. However, “sectoral directives” take time to agree (18 years in the case of architects!) and in order to speed up the implementation of the Single Market, the European Council produced the general Directive which covers all professions for which a sectoral directive does not exist. It therefore includes the profession of chartered surveying, because no “sectoral directive” for chartered surveying exists.
Mutual recognition
The general Directive operates not on the basis of harmonisation but on the basis of mutual recognition. It assumes that the professional education and training throughout the European Community is of a high standard and therefore expects member states to observe mutual recognition, based on mutual trust, and thus to provide an accelerated method of ensuring the free movement of professionals within the Community.
In general terms the Directive states that if a “migrant” possesses a “diploma” (as defined) which allows him to pursue a profession in another member state, or he possesses a “diploma” which has prepared him for a profession in which he has practised for at least two years, then such an individual cannot be prevented “on the grounds of inadequate qualifications” ((1) art 3) from pursuing that profession on the same conditions as, for example, UK nationals.
A French example
If, for example, a French woman who held a law “diploma”, awarded after three years’ full-time study at the University of Paris, and who had practised as a property manager in Paris for five years, decided to relocate her business in the UK, there would be no legal restriction to prevent her from doing this now. Under the terms of the Directive, however, she could also use her “diploma” and professional experience to gain access to corporate membership of the RICS.
Of course, she would not be permitted to join the institution immediately. The Directive recognises that there may be situations when the nature or duration of the professional education and training received by the “migrant” will not correspond to those required by the RICS.
Where the profession in the member state which awarded the “diploma” — in this example France — does not include all the professional skills which are required in the UK chartered surveyor, then the “migrant” must be offered either an “aptitude test” or an “adaptation period” in which to make good the deficiencies in the matters omitted by the education and training she received in France.
The “aptitude test” is “a test limited to the professional knowledge” in which the “migrant” appears deficient when comparing the education and training required by the host member state, and which is essential in exercising the profession in the UK. The test must take account of the fact that the “migrant” is a qualified professional in the member state from which she comes.
It sounds deceptively simple to state that the RICS needs only identify the subject areas which are lacking and requires the “migrant” to pass those same subjects at the current Direct Membership Examination which is available now to mature practitioners.
However, it is unlikely that mature practitioners would willingly undertake examinations in order to gain a qualification in other member states when there is a much more attractive alternative — that of an “adaptation period”.
The “adaptation period” is defined ((2) art 1 (f)) as:
the pursuit of a regulated profession … under the responsibility of a qualified member of that profession, such period of supervised practice possibly being accompanied by further training. This period of supervised practice shall be the subject of an assessment …
This may sound very like the institution’s own TPC and, if an individual, professionally qualified in her own country, were to undergo the TPC then the RICS would retain an element of control over the nature and quality of the training received. However, the “assessment” envisaged by the definition cannot take the form of either a formal written or an oral test(3).
It seems likely, therefore, that the assessment must be interpreted as taking the form of an employer’s report, but this has never proved sufficient in the past for the RICS, which has reserved the right to test, via the TPC, the required period of supervised professional practice.
An Irish example
Consider another example, the case of a graduate from the Republic of Ireland, who holds a degree in Environmental Economics from the Dublin College of Technology. Such an individual would, at present, be considered to hold a cognate, accredited degree and thus be exempt from the RICS’ own examination. Subject only to successful completion of the TPC, he would become eligible to apply for corporate membership of the institution.
However, once the Directive takes effect, this “migrant” holds a “diploma” (as defined) but lacks only professional experience. The Directive permits the RICS to require such experience to be obtained within the UK. However, because of the definition of “professional experience” which is stated as being “the actual and lawful pursuit of the profession concerned in a member state” ((1) art 1 (e)), no opportunity of assessing that experience exists for the institution.
The institution is prevented from imposing both (a) professional experience and (b) the choice of an adaptation period or an aptitude test by the terms of the Directive itself.
There is no choice if the “migrant” is deficient only in duration of professional experience: in such a case a period of “professional experience” may be required.
If the “matters covered by the education and training” received by the “migrant” differ from that required by the RICS then a choice between an adaptation period or an aptitude test exists. But it is the “migrant” who has the choice, not the institution.
This is likely to remain the case unless the institution can persuade the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that “the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning national law is an essential and constant aspect of the professional activity”, in which case it could stipulate either the “adaptation period” or the “aptitude test”. However, the institution has been unable to persuade the DTI of its right to this derogation, and this may not be surprising since the institution represents not just rating valuers and specialists in landlord and tenant but mortgage valuers and estate agents who, although undoubtedly professionally skilled, may not provide “advice and/or assistance concerning national law [as] an essential and constant aspect of [their] professional activity”.
One of the institution’s major concerns must be to ensure that, while observing the terms of the Directive, no discrimination is made against UK nationals who qualify to join through traditional routes. However, an overriding priority must be to maintain the high standards of professional competence which now exist and which provide the protection which the public has a right to expect.
An alternative TPC
With the imminent requirement for all corporate members of the institution to provide evidence of continuing professional development, many firms will be considering extending their “in-house” training programmes to include all their professional staff. Others will be giving serious thought to initiating such programmes, since the numbers of staff involved and therefore the cost of providing such training externally will increase. Many of these firms would automatically include probationers in their training programmes and may even have programmes specifically designed for such employees.
It is, therefore, a relatively small step to extend those training programmes so that suitable training and monitoring is available to appropriate probationers in substitution for the existing TPC. The institution would take a more positive role in vetting the employers’ programmes of supervised work experience, by approving not the range of experience gained by the candidate but the nature and quality of the training organised by the employer. It could involve candidates moving within an organisation or between organisations to gain the full range of experience, but this already occurs as a result of the variety of work experience required by the TPC.
Pan-European profession
Taking a longer term view of the implications of the Directive, there is an opportunity here for the RICS to set the standard in Europe(4), by offering its qualifications throughout the member states, adapted for other nation’s laws — just as they are now for Scottish and Irish candidates — eventually even in other languages. Ultimately, appropriate courses could be established to provide cognate degree holders from Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid — just as they are now from Dublin, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Conclusion
British chartered surveyors have established, promoted and are maintaining high professional standards throughout the world. There is no reason why the qualification which this represents should not be offered to Europeans within their own countries on the same basis that it is currently available overseas.
In the extended Common Market of 324m consumers, such a pan-European qualification would signify a common high level of professional expertise with no discrimination — unlike the situation which is currently being imposed.
References:
(1) 89/48/EEC, OJ No L 19/16 January 24 1989.
(2) Defined in this text to include only those nationals of European Community member states.
(3) DTI EC Professional Qualifications Directive. Guidance for Competent Authorities. 1989.
(4) Plimmer, F A S, and Gronow S A “European Unification?” Journal of Valuation (1989) 7JV3 pp 180-183.
