Text of a letter dated 18 February 2004 from the Chairman to all architects

Text of a letter dated 18 February 2004 from the Chairman to all architects (20/02/2004)

ARB Board Meeting: 12 February 2004

At the suggestion of a number of Board Members I am writing to you and your colleagues on the Register to give you a report on decisions made at the last Board meeting. The architectural press may not provide adequate coverage of all that we decided.

Women and Minority Groups

There are about 30,000 on the Register. However some on the Board have been concerned about whether the Board’s rules or procedures deter women and persons from minority groups from becoming or remaining architects. Nirmala Rao (who is a Board Member and a Professor at Goldsmiths College) has agreed to conduct a study for us and to report back on what is a matter of concern to the public and to the profession as the proportion of women, for example, is said to be lower than in other professions.

Freedom of Information Act

Some time ago the Board committed itself to the Freedom of Information Act, even though it is not required to do so under the legislation. The Board approved a publication scheme. It will be on our website, but as with all documents hard copies are also available from ARB. The vast majority of documentation will be freely accessible. The Board also agreed to consider at its next meeting what further documents should be available on request (although there may be a charge as permitted towards the costs).

Rule Changes

The Board considered proposed changes to its Investigations Committee, Professional Conduct Committee and General Rules. These changes had been posted on the Board’s website and were sent to other bodies for formal consultation. The Board had helpful feedback from the RIBA, the RIAS, ACA and the Law Society of Scotland. The new rules will be published in full on the Board’s website and on paper. Apart from making some general improvements, the changes help architects about whom complaints are made in strengthening the provisions so that they have defined adequate notice of hearings, and that hearings do not take place without architects being given adequate opportunity to be present. Further, a new rule will allow the referral of a case to the PCC to be reviewed if new evidence or facts come to light. This would enable , if necessary, for a case to be withdrawn. The Rules therefore better reflect the Human Rights Act (which came in after the current rules were drawn up). In addition where a complaint does not justify referral to the PCC the architect may be given advice. The current procedures for entry to the Register by way of assessment (in lieu of having a prescribed qualification) have been redefined as an examination.

Professional Indemnity Insurance

The Board approved guidance to assist architects whose policies have been affected by the apparent withdrawal of cover for asbestos, and about the liability to insure where architects work on their own properties. This information will shortly be posted on the website. There is no doubt about the profession’s commitment to having adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance. The Board is again looking at evidence for what is occurring in order to decide at its meeting in May whether its guidelines for PII cover remain appropriate. The Board would welcome evidence of proven hardship or difficulties (and also any other evidence that the guidelines may need revision).

Closed Session Policy

The Board’s normal practice is to conduct as much as possible of its business openly. Some matters have of necessity to be discussed and decided in private, for example because they relate to confidential information provided by or concerning third parties. Hitherto the Board has had no difficulty in deciding where to draw the line, but in response to requests that its policy should be clear and public, Sir William Morris introduced a policy paper. It was approved. It sets out clearly what matters will not normally be debated in public and it reiterates the ordinary principles by which decisions, once taken, are to be accepted by all Board members, whatever their previous views. It will be published on the Board’s website and will be publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. Any outside body affected by such a decision is of course informed of it. Thus, for example, the procedure by which the Board arrives at its decisions whether or not to prescribe a qualification is confidential and only the final outcome is publicised. The heads of schools of architecture (SCHOSA) requested that the need for confidentiality should be formally recorded. The Board’s procedures therefore state that the Board Members’ Handbook has a Code of Best Practice which includes provisions relating to confidentiality.

I hope the above is helpful to you and that you have a better understanding of the ways in which the Board tries to see that the profession remains one in which its clients and other consumers of its services continue to have confidence. I hope that if you see different accounts of what occurred at the Board meeting and the implications you will consider what I have set out in this letter. I would welcome any points that registrants might have on this letter, and in particular whether this (or some other) method should be used by the Board to make its position clear.

Yours sincerely,

Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC

Chairman