The ARB Professional Conduct Committee

The ARB Professional Conduct Committee (21/06/2004)

Some time ago, the ARB requested that membership of its Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) be expanded to ease delays in bringing together a panel of PCC members to hear cases. The Government agreed to this proposal and consulted on it. As a result of that consultation, in March this year the Government introduced a Statutory Instrument to expand the PCC by the addition of three architects, three lay persons, and one Law Society nominee to act as Chair.

The Statutory Instrument was opposed by Dr Harris, the Member of Parliament for Oxford West and Abingdon. His motion was considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation when it met on Wednesday 16 June 2004. The reasons for annulling the Order were presented by Mr Richard Younger-Ross, the MP for Teignbridge, as Dr Harris was unable to be present. Amongst other matters, Mr Younger-Ross set before the Committee the criticisms that Ian Salisbury, a member of the Board, had made. Mr Phil Hope MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, replied to set out the Government’s reasons for making the Order. Mr Younger-Ross did not ask the Committee to vote, so the Order stands. It came into force on 1 April 2004.

In the course of the debate, the Minister said (amongst other things) that:

• He did not believe that there was sufficient merit in any of the points raised in the debate and during the consultation to cause the Government to reconsider its proposals.

• Moves by some to have a Parliamentary Committee investigate the ARB merely serve to reopen debates that went on many years ago.

• The Statutory Instrument will allow the PCC to be independent of the Board in an individual case, that is to say, the PCC could be convened without a Board member present.

• In the six years of ARB’s existence, there had been no complaint or challenge alleging that the composition of the PCC had resulted in a lack of independence or bias. Furthermore, he noted that the PCC had no hesitation in dismissing charges brought before it if it was satisfied that there was no case to answer. In his view, that illustrated the PCC’s ability in practice to act independently and without bias.

• Individual members of the profession have indicated that they are supportive of the involvement of Board members in the PCC. There is a view that that makes the PCC more accountable, in the sense that the flavour of cases informs consideration of the profession’s view around the Board table.

• He confirmed his support for the Board and the way in which it operates under the powers given in the 1997 Act. In addition, he recorded his recognition that any criticisms of the Board were being dealt with seriously.

The ARB has advertised for the additional lay and architect members permitted by the Statutory Instrument, and has had an excellent response of more than 200 high-quality applications. These are now being shortlisted under the guidance of an independent scrutineer who carried out a similar function for the General Dental Council. The Board is likely to appoint the new members to the PCC when it meets on 16 September 2004.

---Ends---