The radical academic Ivan Illich once categorised professions as cartels which dominate modern society. As Spada’s White Paper, British Professions Today: the State of the Sector, notes, his modern-day disciples might include the likes of Prem Sikka, who, opining in The Guardian of August 2007, said “the aim of the International Accounting Standards Board is nothing less than global domination and to make the rest in the image of the West, fit for major corporations”.
But the counter to this is that governments often underestimate the value of the professions. The classic case in point is the recent fiasco over Home Information Packs (HIPs). The RICS especially objected to HIPs, both because of the effect they were likely to have and because of the government’s refusal to consult relevant professional bodies. The Law Society, too, argued that HIPs would be damaging to the property market and costly to the consumer. Their protestations were to no avail, and ultimately the RICS brought judicial review proceedings against the government’s Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for failure to consult. Inevitably, the DCLG compromised and took on board some of the RICS’ points.
Interestingly, despite the appearance of HIPs and their predicted negative impact on the property market, the RICS views the HIPs experience in a positive light. Why? Because, as Spada’s White Paper has it, “the process of judicial review raised the influence of the body amongst peer professions and other government bodies.” There was a lesson, too, for those who would listen: “This example, in which multiple professional bodies met with stone walls when attempting to advise government on a technical policy issue, suggests that professional expertise may be undervalued in the political sphere – to the detriment of consumers and the public.”
Anxiety over the extent of professional influence is not, however, an “us and them” issue, pitting the government against its representative professional bodies. The Labour government itself signalled its belief in social mobility being enhanced by access to the professions in its Gateways to the Professions initiative, which arose from Sir Alan Langlands’ report of 2005. In response to barriers to access identified by Sir Alan, the government allocated £6m over three years (up to March 2008) to support projects that tackle the full range of issues faced by people seeking to enter the professions through higher education.
There might, to observers, appear to be a contradiction between government’s avowed belief in access to the professions, and its disinclination to consult with professional bodies in a matter such as HIPs. The professions would do well to take the lead in resolving this.
Image, with its own intriguing contradictions, courtesy of Spud on Flickr.
