ICAEW changes to CPD for part time workers

Are part time workers aware that ICAEW will not allow part time workers to pro-rate the new CPD?

Didn't find your answer?

I have been in discussion with the ICAEW about why part time workers are not allowed to pro-rate the new CPD requirements yet those working only part of the CPD year are entitled to pro-rate the requirement? I find this discriminatory to the largely female part time work force and would be I interested to find out if others also object to this inconsistent policy? 

Replies (60)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Oct 2023 13:11

Do you need to know less because you work part time?

Thanks (13)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Parttimer
30th Oct 2023 13:55

Do you work part time?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Oct 2023 14:08

I don't work at all.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Truthsayer
01st Nov 2023 10:32

Why do you imagine that's relevant to Lion's point, Parttimer? Do you think surgeons and pilots should be allowed to do less CPD if they are part-timers?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Truthsayer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
01st Nov 2023 10:49

To be fair, she didn't. She just wanted the view of part timers.

Unfortunately, the part timers didn't agree with her either.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Merseyside Mike
30th Oct 2023 13:43

Staff working part-time still need the same knowledge and training as full time staff, so that's perfectly understandable.

I'm not sure however whether the pro-rata reduction for part-years is correct. Again, all staff need the requisite amount of training irrespective of when they work. Ordinarily, I would expect the CPD requirement to be based on a rolling 12 month period rather than a calendar year.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Merseyside Mike:
avatar
By Parttimer
30th Oct 2023 13:55

That’s what ICAEW are saying. Do you work part time?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Oct 2023 14:10

Parttimer wrote:

Do you work part time?

Does it matter? Or do you only seek to canvas support from fellow part-timers in the hope that they will support your view?

Thanks (10)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Parttimer
30th Oct 2023 15:00

It is relevant yes as I would like to understand if other people who work part time find the policy inconsistent and discriminatory. That is why I asked.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Leywood
30th Oct 2023 15:31

It’s not relevant.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Oct 2023 19:43

What about people (like me) who employ part timers? Or full timers who might feel equally ‘discriminated’ against if part timers got to keep the same qualification with half the CPD?

So you don’t want a balanced opinion, just that if the self-interested that might jump on your bandwagon?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Parttimer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Oct 2023 14:17

Parttimer wrote:

That’s what ICAEW are saying. Do you work part time?

Can you justify a reduced need for CPD or not ?

Or is this just an informal survey on how many folk work part time ?

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Parttimer
30th Oct 2023 15:02

I do not feel that I need to do 40 hours of cpd a year to be competent in my role. I do believe that it should be pro-rated yes. I am interested to find out if other agree with me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Oct 2023 15:16

Parttimer wrote:

I do not feel that I need to do 40 hours of cpd a year to be competent in my role. I do believe that it should be pro-rated yes. I am interested to find out if other agree with me.

You've not had much luck so far. "I disagree with ICAEW" isn't much of a case.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By nazman
05th Nov 2023 00:58

I had written to object and record my strongest protest against the CPD as required by the Institute especially in relation to the senior members who have reached the retirement age.

Instead of being concerned about complying with the new CPD requirements, most senior members worry and struggle with health issues. The new requirements will add to their unnecessary stress and many would be forced to leave the profession rather than contributing to the Institute’s activities and upholding it’s high standards by using their experience and wisdom.

I would rather spend 40 hours in a gym to maintain my health and keep myself fit than trying to comply with the burdensome CPD requirements. I would prefer to resign my membership rather than getting a reprimand from the Institute and thus ruining and tarnishing my impeccable professional reputation.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Merseyside Mike
30th Oct 2023 19:29

I work full time but have lots of part time staff - all of whom are prepared to met the minimum CPD required.

If, for example, new rules were brought in and the suggested level of training to become competent was 40 hours, would you really be happy with somebody who works one day a week only doing 20% of the training and then just winging it and hoping the 80% they didn't learn will not be important?

Thanks (5)
avatar
By paul.benny
30th Oct 2023 14:02

Do other professions that require it reduce the CPD requirement for members who work part time?

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By Bobbo
30th Oct 2023 14:22

To be fair to OP, looks like ACCA do have a relaxed CPD requirement for part-time

https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/member/cpd/help-with-your-cpd-declarati...

Though worth noting that the 770 hours threshold equates to about 15/16 hours per week so we're talking 'very' part time.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Bobbo:
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Oct 2023 14:46

To be fair, they have a relaxed practicing certificate requirement for people 'only' providing accountancy services to TB level. As such they aren't exactly a shining example of stringent requirements at the best of times.

Thanks (1)
Danny Kent
By Viciuno
30th Oct 2023 14:23

If you and your partner decide to have a child there is nothing forcing the female to work part time. That you your decision as a couple. Any actual discrimination is between you and your partner if the female is forced to take time off work to look after the child (because of their sex). Stop blaming your personal choices on society and your employers.

If anything it "may" be construed as discriminatory against working parents - but then again I agree with the previous posters, just because you work part time doesn't mean you need to know 3/5th of the stuff. There is zero basis for a "part timer" to know less than their full time counterparts, unless they don't want to do the work and have no interest in progressing in their career (which I'm sure would undoubtedly result if further spurious discrimination claims against the female sex).

Can you post a link RE the other policy you are referring to? I'd wager that the other policy you are looking at is to do with people who are retiring or leaving the profession altogether, rather than people who are "out of work" for a couple of months in the year.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Viciuno:
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Oct 2023 14:53

I've assumed it's more sickness, maternity, career break, etc than retirement. Unless the OP is saying term-time only workers or others with a seasonal working patters also get the exemption (i doubt it).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
30th Oct 2023 14:43

Calling this discrimination even more ridiculous than the claim from the WASPI women.........

You suggest that the part-time work force is "largely female" and whilst that may well be true (i have no idea but if i had to guess I'd say it probably was) that doesnt mean that any requirements which simply happen to be more inconvenient to part-timers are 'discriminatory' to part timers (and even less so to women just because they happen to fill more part-time roles).

Quite obviously, a part-timer needs to do just as much CPE as a full timer, to retain the relevance of their qualification. In fact, there could be an argument that part-timers get less practical experience so the requirement for training is even greater.

Equally obvious is that it would be unfair not to allow persons only working a part-year to pro-rate the requirements. If someone has time off and comes back in October, then naturally they cant squeeze a full year's CPE in before the new year starts (in fact, using your method of wild assumptions that are 'probably' true, and assuming the reason for women being disproportionately affected by both part-time and part-year working is childbirth/childcare, women might be more likely to benefit from this than men).

Oh and before you ask (since you were asking everyone at the beginning) no i dont work part-time, but several of the staff do, and they all get the same (paid) time to attend (paid) courses as their full-time counterparts, so on a pro-rated basis they produce significantly fewer chargeable hours than their full-time counterparts..... and yet they get paid as much (pro-rata). Now tell me again how hard done by they are?

Thanks (3)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
30th Oct 2023 14:50

One of the considerations I have about reducing my hours is I will still need the same level of knowledge and overheads as I do working full time.

Nothing to do with the ICAEW, its to do with being competent to act.

I have to do the top level of CPD (same as audit) due to 2 HNW clients who have very simple affairs. Much simpler than many other clients. Them's the breaks. i i actually measure my CPD properly (I dont bother right now as its not time based) I am hoping I will have plenty anyhow, especially given the quite wide scope, such as "discussions with peers". I do a lot of that!

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Oct 2023 15:01

The P/T accountancy firm does spend a disproportionate amount of time on admin , MLR, compliance, CPD etc, one of the reasons I decided to pack in back in 2019 was the ratio of compliance hours to billing hours.

I would be lucky if I billed 10 hours a week yet had to spend vast numbers of hours supporting this, making my effective hourly charge out rates pretty low and I did not even have a body insisting on CPD , but notwithstanding one still needs to try to keep up to date to continue- why I am counting down my employment, April 2026 and I will be out.( I will be reading A Web a lot less after that)

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
30th Oct 2023 15:18

@DJKL, this is where I got to, if I went down to 2 days a week say from 65-70 to keep my business ticking over with some staff doing most of the doing, I would spend half a day plus just doing CPD. Probably need to do more than now, as would be doing less work, so less would be coming up organically.

You really have to quit, and then do something else to keep your hand in and the brian going round.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By mumpin
30th Oct 2023 21:15

Brian the snail?

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Nov 2023 11:32

Life of....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Postingcomments
30th Oct 2023 15:13

Maybe campaign for the number of hours rule to be dropped for everyone rather than seek senseless woke carve outs.

eg ICAS ask you to reflect on your work and your training needs, then make sure they get met.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Leywood
30th Oct 2023 15:31

I might counter and suggest part timers should do more CPD as they are getting less exposure to work by working less.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By neiltonks
30th Oct 2023 15:42

I agree with the various other posters, it's perfectly sensible to require the same level of CPD regardless of working pattern. You're doing the same job and need the same level of knowledge to do it properly. Otherwise you're a liability to your employer.

I work in payroll not accounting so I'm a member of the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals rather than an accounting professional body. However my CPD requirement is not reduced because I work part time and I could not maintain my current membership level without doing the requisite amount of CPD.

Thanks (5)
By Ruddles
30th Oct 2023 19:36

Which areas of tax legislation would you consider to be not relevant to part-time workers?

Or do you suggest that you attend the same training courses as full-timers but leave 3/4 of the way through?

Thanks (3)
David Winch
By David Winch
30th Oct 2023 19:58

You mention 40 hours CPD per annum. That puts you in Category 1, for example a person who spends 30% or more of their professional time on audit engagements for Public Interest Entities. I know I fall in Category 2, and I expect many people in practice will fall in Category 3 (requiring 20 hours CPD per annum of which 10 hours is verifiable).

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Calculatorboy
30th Oct 2023 20:24

The new CPD regs will do nothing to improve competence , the icaew fundamentally fail to understand that every working day for small practitioners is valuable cpd , but who has the time to record it. The proof of the pudding is that strata of icaew firms which are seen publicly to be the most incompetent. ( ps its not bloggs & co with a first floor 2 room office on the provincial hight Street)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Parttimer
30th Oct 2023 21:28

I thought it might be worth setting out some facts and background in response to some of the comments to my question.

ICAEW’s previous CPD requirements:

Based upon personal responsibility. No minimum hours requirement.

From 1 November 2023 for the ICAEW CPD year which runs 1 November to 31 October:

Min total hours, minimum ‘verifiable’ hours.
One hour mandatory ethics.

Based on tiers:
Category 1 – In practice – 40 hours of which 30 ‘verifiable’
Category 2 – In practice - 30 hours of which 20 ‘verifiable’
Category 3 – In practice - 20 hours of which 10 hours ‘ verifiable’.
Category 3(a) – Not in practice – 30 hours of which 10 ‘verifiable’.
Category 3 (b) – Not in practice or in Category 3 or 3(a) 20 hours of which 5 ‘verifiable’.

To me the verifiable/non-verifiable distinction is irrelevant it is the overall hours that are the new requirement.

For someone working one day a week, let’s assume they work all year round with 4 days holiday, a 7 hour day. Total working hours 336. Do to health issues that person only works 1 day per week. Lets assume that person works as the Financial Reporting Manager of a small charity with 2 employees and an annual income of £250,000. That person is not responsible for accounts preparation nor do they undertake any form of audit or Independent review. They do not work in practice. That person would be required to complete 30 hours of CPD per annum. This equates to more than 3 working days, at the expense of the charity, or 9 percent of their total working hours for the year. Someone working full time would only be required to commit less than 2 percent of their working hours to CPD.

Let’s assume that same person works full time for one week from 24 – 31 October 2024. Prior to that they suffered from ill health and did not work at all. That person would be entitled to pro-rate their CPD requirement for the part of the year that they worked. The 30 hour entitlement is reduced to 35 minutes. I believe that those who work term time only for example would fall into this category but have not clarified this with ICAEW.

I may be alone in finding the above discriminatory against part time workers versus full time workers working part of a year. I may also be alone in finding this an inconsistent policy application.

Whilst I hear those who say that the level of competence required should be the same for those working part time or full time, how do those people justify the policy which allows someone working for only part of the year to pro-rate their entitlement. What makes the level of competence required different for them?

I came here asking for views from those also working part time to find out if they or indeed their employers felt the cpd requirement unduly onerous on someone working part time hours. I wasn’t prepared for the level of vitriol, misogony or frankly sexism I encountered.

To be clear, I happily and willingly undertake CPD activities, usually in my own time, and have always felt it is an important part of my job. This isn’t about shirking those responsibilities. This is about a policy that I find thoroughly inconsistent in its application, discriminatory against part time workers and unreasonably onerous upon those of us who work part-time for whatever reason, whether that be through ill health, through portfolio careers or due to caring responsibilities (not just for children but for elderly or disabled dependents).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
By Ruddles
30th Oct 2023 21:42

You need to stop trying to equate the number of hours worked with the number of hours CPD.

There is a presumption that knowledge accrues on a consistent and continuous basis. So that whether you work 1 hour per week or 8 days a week you need to undertake the appropriate amount of CPD to keep up. But if you only work for 6 months of the year you need only do 6 months CPD. Not an ideal explanation but you asked how I would justify it.

I have staff that work 3 days per week. I do not expect them to have 3/5ths of the technical knowledge of their full-time colleagues. It really is that simple.

Thanks (8)
Replying to Ruddles:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
01st Nov 2023 11:37

Agreed, there may be an argument for reduced hours if the range of work being done is very limited/narrow/restricted but that has little to do with number of hours worked and more to do with the role.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Leywood
30th Oct 2023 22:59

As a female full time worker, single parent who also cares for a parent with dementia, plus currently also two 90 year old relatives in different hospitals at opposite ends of the country, I totally object to many of your comments.

You choose to work part time.

I also object to you blaming those who merely disagree with you of making misogynistic and sexist comments, when they have not.

You seem to have completely ignored the fundamentals of the arguments made and despite being the only one who has your view, you seem to think you are hard done by.

Get over yourself.

In all my life I’ve done everything to be the best that I can be, rather than looking for loopholes, to shirk my responsibilities or for ways to get out of doing something.

Do you want a medal for doing CPD in your own time?

If you can’t take the heat, maybe the role isn’t for you.

Thanks (14)
Replying to Leywood:
avatar
By Parttimer
31st Oct 2023 10:39

Shame being the ‘best that you can be’ equates to slagging others off on the internet! Clearly this was the wrong forum for my question. Anyone who may share my views I imagine is so put off by the largely negative comments to post. You have absolutely no idea about my ‘choices’.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Parttimer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
31st Oct 2023 11:29

Parttimer wrote:
Anyone who may share my views I imagine is so put off by the largely negative comments to post.

Or maybe there aren't any.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Leywood
31st Oct 2023 11:43

Maybe you should try Mumsnet.

Thanks (7)
Replying to Leywood:
avatar
By Parttimer
31st Oct 2023 17:11

Wow!! And you say there are no sexist comments!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By FedupBookkeeper
31st Oct 2023 11:48

I was put off by your comment/question.

I think the kind of attitude you have shown gives part timers a bad name. & women.

You havent responded at all to any other peoples point of view.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Parttimer:
avatar
By Mr_awol
31st Oct 2023 12:21

Parttimer wrote:

I may be alone in finding the above discriminatory against part time workers versus full time workers working part of a year. I may also be alone in finding this an inconsistent policy application.

I came here asking for views from those also working part time to find out if they or indeed their employers felt the cpd requirement unduly onerous on someone working part time hours. I wasn’t prepared for the level of vitriol, misogony or frankly sexism I encountered.

I think you are indeed 'alone' in your findings. Or, to put it another way, i think you are just plain wrong.

I also dispute that you have encountered any misogyny, abuse, or sexism in this post. If i am wrong, please point to it. What you have actually encountered, is pretty much everyone disagreeing wholeheartedly with your complaint.

Leywood wrote:

I also object to you blaming those who merely disagree with you of making misogynistic and sexist comments, when they have not.

You seem to have completely ignored the fundamentals of the arguments made and despite being the only one who has your view, you seem to think you are hard done by.

This (and your entire post in fact) makes a refreshing change from an increasingly frustrating tendency among society as a whole to look for reasons outside of themselves as to why they haven't achieved to the level they had hoped and/or to the level of their peers. Why i don't doubt for a second that ageism, sexism, racism and many other prejudices exist, the pure fact that an individual has an attribute which is sometimes discriminated against doesn't mean that every single thing that doesn't favour that attribute is automatically 'discriminatory'. The OP seems to have made a giant leap from 'this probably affects a lot of women' to 'this is a discriminatory wrong that needs to be righted'.

Parttimer wrote:

Shame being the ‘best that you can be’ equates to slagging others off on the internet! Clearly this was the wrong forum for my question. Anyone who may share my views I imagine is so put off by the largely negative comments to post. You have absolutely no idea about my ‘choices’.

I think Leywood is entitled, having overcome various obstacles herself, to feel aggrieved at your whining about sexism where it doesnt exist - because, to be frank, it does exist elsewhere and people 'playing the ism card' belittle the very real issues faced by people who genuinely want to be treated equally.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Matrix
30th Oct 2023 22:40

I recently attended a webinar on this, I don’t remember any reduced hours being mentioned, only that the hours are per membership year, maybe it applies if you are only a member for part of a year. Is this what you mean?

I don’t think the responses are sexist. Working part-time does not make you any less of a professional than a full time colleague.

I work part-time but charge (at least) as much as any larger full time practitioner and accept that I have to keep up to date during my reduced working hours to provide a professional service. At my own cost.

Although I expect the non-verifiable hours are met by reading this site, LinkedIn and X.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Matrix:
RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Oct 2023 23:31

Matrix wrote:

I recently attended a webinar on this.......

Wait - you attended a webinar?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paul.benny
31st Oct 2023 11:29

I’m sorry that you found responses to be vitriolic and sexist. I thought they are mostly polite, albeit almost entirely unsympathetic to your position.

No-one here speaks for ICAEW and has to justify the exemptions for those not working. I think it is wholly reasonable to (pro-rata) exempt those who are long term sick, on a career break, or the other circumstances given. And the guidance is explicit that you still need to assess whether the pro-rated amount is sufficient.

To address your point about the requirements being discriminatory against those working part time. It’s unlawful to discriminate on basis of protected characteristics; since part timers are (probably) majority female this might be considered prima facie indirect discrimination. But to succeed in such a claim, I think you would have to show that part-time workers as a group need less professional development than full-time workers. I think you would struggle with that.

Thanks (2)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By Parttimer
31st Oct 2023 17:23

Thank you for your polite and informed response.

Thanks (0)
Kitten
By Hazel Accounts
31st Oct 2023 11:59

I am ACCA member, and have been for many years all working in practice, and as far as I can remember they have always had a requirement for 40 hours CDP (21 verifiable) and I when I saw the news that ICAEW had increased their requirements I was totally surprised that the ICAEWs requirement was so low previously!

I know ACCA have a "part time" concession but it does state that "Practising members eligible to follow this route need to be able to show that they have technical support in carrying out their duties." and it's only the verifiable that is reduced - you still have to do the 19 hours of non-verifiable.

CPD isn't supposed to be a chore but an opportunity to learn (or refresh knowledge).

To answer the OP - I am female and have kids and still juggled in all my CPD except one year on maternity when I applied for a waiver as I wasn't really practicing anyway. When the kids were small and I worked part time I still did the full 40 hours and always felt it was a benefit to keep up to date etc. ACCA have it as a condition of the practising certificate and that's how it is. I never considered it discriminatory.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By mrshamilton
31st Oct 2023 16:32

I am ACCA and work part time, I have the same CPD requirements as any full time person, I can't see why it would be any different.

Thanks (0)

Pages