Response to Jack Pringle’s article in Building Design (12.03.04)

Response to Jack Pringle’s article in Building Design (12.03.04) (24/03/2004)

An extract of this response formed a letter that was sent Building Design for publication

Last week’s Building Design of 12 March, carried both an article and a statement on ARB made by Jack Pringle.

His comment about an RIBA-administered register is not new. It was mooted previously when the current Architects Act was being debated, and the Government refused to countenance it. Current thinking in government and consumer circles is that professional bodies and those charged with regulatory activities ought to be separate to avoid conflicts of interest. Interestingly, the Competition Authority in Eire recognised the danger of conflicts of interest in a consultation document published in November 2003. It noted that:

“An example of a regulatory body that eliminates conflicts of interest and is run with a clear consumer protection mandate is the Architects Registration Board in the UK. This Board has the responsibility for regulating the title of architect in the UK and was given its current form in 1997. This board balances the requirement of protecting consumers and ensuring standards of architecture are maintained by having a majority of lay individuals along with a number of practising architects, who are able to provide expert technical input. It is run independently of the main representative body, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and functions well.”

Members look to their professional bodies to support them. Curiously, there are some who believe that ARB is seeking to become a professional body. Although ARB and RIBA naturally have areas of common interest, ARB’s activities do not duplicate those of the RIBA’s. For example, ARB does not act as a learned society, nor does it sponsor award schemes or provide membership services. These types of activity fall squarely within the remit of a professional body.

Moreover, consumers can distinguish the difference between professional and regulatory bodies. They both recognise and respect the fact that professional bodies have a duty to their members. However, that respect does not extend to a belief that a professional body can be impartial in administering a register or regulating in the public interest. Protection of title was won because it was predicated on terms acceptable to the public. To believe that that very same public would now find an RIBA-administered register acceptable demonstrates a lack of regard for consumer thinking. The problem is that some individuals – like Mr Pringle – disagree with the legislation and either consciously or unconsciously seek to abolish it, which is in direct opposition to the vast majority of those they purport to represent.

In the article, Mr Pringle further commented that ARB had “usurped the RIBA’s position in shamelessly taking ... its systems”. This is a very partial version of the position. The truth of the matter is that ARCUK and RIBA ran a joint validation system. ARB inherited that system, which was not lawful under the current Act of Parliament. Negotiations opened with the RIBA under Paul Hyett’s vice chairmanship of education. Both the RIBA’s and ARB’s lawyers were agreed that, legally, ARB had to own the process if it was to be used for prescribing qualifications. ARB and RIBA both voluntarily entered into an agreement in August 2000 in which the role of both parties and the legal ownership of the system by ARB was spelled out. Those procedures were endorsed by the RIBA’s relevant committees and by ARB prior to August 2000. Indeed, a joint press release, issued in June 2000, announced what ARB imagined to be the agreed platform on which it should operate. And yet, in early 2001, before the agreement had lasted six months, the RIBA, through Mr Pringle, contacted ARB and asked for the system to be disbanded. Although disconcerted, ARB responded positively, and a group of architect members from ARB and RIBA sat down and over a period of many months, negotiated the new prescription procedures which were introduced in September 2003.

To suggest, therefore, that a system agreed to by the RIBA is an act of misbehaviour by ARB is quite extraordinary. Further, to characterise this by saying that ARB “usurped” the RIBA’s position is both insulting and offensive. Equally so is Mr Pringle’s assertion that ARB is a “compulsively secretive, prescriptive, intensely bureaucratic and ossifying” organisation. A less secretive organisation is difficult to imagine. The majority of ARB’s decisions are discussed in public, with few exceptions. Working on the presumption of openness, the Board has recently developed a policy which identifies those exclusions. Again, the Eire Competition Authority’s consultation document describes ARB as “an example of an independent and transparent regulatory body”.

ARB has always preferred, and continues to prefer, a rational and collaborative dialogue to sort matters out. However, it has become alarmed by the mistruths and misconceptions that are continually bandied about. Ever mindful that the retention fee is drawn from hard-working professionals, ARB would be the first to admit it has not put sufficient resources in refuting the frequently unwarranted and unjustified attacks that come its way. It now recognises that it has to look for ways to counter this unfounded criticism, rather than simply allowing it to continue unabated.