The RICS's governing council ants to put up subscriptions in order to pay for the enhanced value it claims has resulted from the Agenda for Change. But has the standing of the institution and its members and Fellows been improved, or do other professionals get a better deal from their institutions? Lucy Barnard and Helen Osbourne examine both sides of the argument. But five years after the changes started, EG found that members had mixed feelings when it came to putting their hands in their pockets to pay for the changes. Many members complain that the surveyors seem to be getting a raw deal in comparison to other professionals, which have a better public image.

Keith Wise, partner at Campbell Gordon in Reading asks:

"Is the RICS a professional body or a trade association? We read in the press about doctors being struck off by the British Medical Association and lawyers reprimanded by the law association. Happily we hear less often about chartered surveyors in the same predicament, but the RICS journal identifies members who have gone astray."

"We seem to be a schizophrenic bunch of people. Most members want to be treated as a member of an association, but many want to avoid the responsibilities that go with this status. My instinct is that we can't have it both ways"

Fiona O'Callaghan, head of research and marketing at Gerald eve adds that the organisation:

"doesn't have the credibility of other large organisations. The RICS has the power to penalise cowboys but it isn't doing it".

"The RICS has a long way to go in educating the public about its work. If you stopped someone in the street and asked them what they thought of surveyors, as opposed to lawyers and accountants, they wouldn't necessarily know. The RICS has failed to get this message across"

She also criticises the RICS for it's over complicated structure and numerous faculties:

"It seems that each president on his appointment, reinvents the wheel, and takes a long time to get things going because of his annual cycle."

But in recent years, it is criticism for spending too much time and money on its overseas operations rather than on the UK members - who pay the lion's share of its fees - which has annoyed most of the industry.