Letter to Mr Pringle, October 2005

Letter to Mr Pringle, October 2005 (02/11/2005)

Click here for the RIBA Council’s proposals for an RRO

Dear Jack,

It was useful to have met you and your colleagues on 21 September and to have been given some clarification about some of the RIBA Council’s proposals for a Regulatory Reform Order (RRO). You asked for comments from the ARB before you sought the views of members of the RIBA and other bodies representing architects or architectural interests. Here are some preliminary views.

The proposals affect all registered architects and would add to the cost of regulation (and thus increase the retention fee). We assume that the consultation that you intend now to carry out will include those architects who are not members of the RIBA and that all those consulted will be provided with this letter so that they can take account of the points made in it. Please would you confirm this.

Issue 1: New Duty to be Prudent and Economical

A public body like the ARB is naturally obliged to be prudent and economical and the Board considers that it is both. The Retention Fee for architects is much less than for most other professions.

We asked for examples of cases where the ARB had been profligate. You were not able to give us any examples, nor have any been provided since we met. Every year the Board’s business plan, budget and accounts are presented and discussed by the Board in open session. They are subject to approval by Board members who comprise architects elected by the registrants and by members appointed by the Privy Council to represent the many interests of the public. On every occasion the proposals have been approved by elected members. Whenever the Board is asked to approve new expenditure the papers have to state what the financial and other regulatory impact might be. The RIBA’s proposal that the Board should be under an explicit obligation to be prudent and economical would not in practice change anything as that is already the Board’s duty.

If in reality the RIBA Council thinks that the Board should not be spending money on performing the functions given to it by the Architects Act (which are more extensive than those given to ARCUK) then in its consultation it ought to say, openly and clearly, which functions it considers are not necessary to protect the title of architect and the interests of users of architects’ services.

Issue 2: Ombudsman

We did not obtain a clear picture of the role of the proposed Ombudsman envisaged by the RIBA Council. Which decisions of the Board would be open to review by an Ombudsman, and by whom? What would be the Ombudsman’s powers? The Board has existing appeal mechanisms, both internal and external. We understood that they would be unaffected. Is that right?

Every decision that the Board has ever taken has been supported by members in both categories - those elected by registrants and those appointed by the Privy Council. No justification has been provided for an Ombudsman being entitled to overrule its democratic decisions and to replace them with others. What are the decisions that the Board has taken which justify this proposal?

We pointed out that having an Ombudsman would inevitably cost money, yet you could not provide any indication of what the costs might be and how they would be met. It seems that the cost of the post and its supporting office would have to be borne by registrants. An RRO is supposed only to be used to reduce burdens. To promote an RRO which would add to the retention fee would have to be justified as both necessary and proportionate, taking account of the interest of the public and architects.

It seemed from our discussions that the Council of the RIBA was mainly concerned about providing a cheaper method of appeal for architects (only, not their clients and other complainants) from decisions of the Professional Conduct Committee. Only a small number of complaints against architects reach the PCC annually. If the RIBA’s proposal would increase the retention fee it should be made clear to registrants that the RIBA wishes to increase the retention fee to help a few who have been found by the PCC to be guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence. The Board can see some value in a form of independent scrutiny of the handling of complaints up to their reference to the PCC. In fairness to those affected this could not of course be limited to architects. A client should also be entitled to a review of a decision not to take the complaint to the PCC. The cost would presumably have to be borne by registrants as there is no other way of funding such a post and office.

Issue 3: Recognition of Overseas Members of the RIBA

You made it clear that the purpose of this proposal is to allow people outside the EU to be permitted to register without having to satisfy the Registrar that they have attained the criteria and requirements which those from the UK and the rest of EU have to meet. We cannot see that the public interest requires an RRO to give such people special consideration and to by-pass the normal procedures. You were unable to give us the numbers that might be involved. People from the UK have to meet the Board’s criteria, which have also been adopted by the RIBA.

Issue 4: Return to Register

Contrary to the RIBA’s suggestion, the ARB has no plans to test the competence of all registrants frequently or annually.

The Act makes it clear that a person’s practical competence has to be established before entry (or re-entry to the Register). At present the ARB requires those who have been off the register for more than two years to re-establish competence. Its length is a question of judgment and it is kept under review. No evidence was provided by you to justify the benefit of a five year period nor, given the pace of change affecting architectural practice, as to how the public would be protected if a period as long as five years was used.

Re-establishing competence can be avoided by continuing to pay the retention fee. The numbers affected are small.

Issue 5: Honorary Architects, Student Architects and Graduate Architects

The RIBA’s proposal would have the effect of allowing people to describe themselves as an “Honorary Architect”, “Student Architect” or “Graduate Architect”. It is difficult to see that it is in the interests of the public or of registered architects that people should think that they could be served as well by anybody calling themselves “Honorary Architect”, “Student Architect” or “Graduate Architect”. This seems to be contrary to the aim of protecting the title of “architect”.

You indicated that the RIBA Council was also concerned about the risk of your Honorary Fellows being prosecuted for using the suffix “Hon. Fellow RIBA”. It was made clear that such a person would only be prosecuted if the suffix was used in circumstances which conveyed the impression of practice as an architect. To use an RRO to endorse that approach does not appear to be reasonable nor is it proportionate. To date no one has complained about being misled into thinking that an Honorary Fellow of the RIBA was an architect.

Issue 6: Architectural Consultants

You agreed that the RIBA was wrong to have said that the ARB has been “singularly ineffective” in preventing the use of “architectural consultant” and you accepted that the ARB has no power to prevent people describing themselves in that way.

It is for others to decide if the ARB’s powers are to be extended, apparently to protect function, and not just title. If implemented, such extension will add to the costs of the ARB. Although you said that it was not your intention to protect function, this is not consistent with your proposal to follow a Canadian model.

Conclusion

The Board therefore invites the RIBA Council to reconsider its position. The promotion and consideration of an RRO will cost both the RIBA and the ARB much time and money. The Council will no doubt consider the replies given recently by Yvette Cooper, the Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to questions asked by the Rt. Hon John Gummer MP. They make it clear that the Government has itself no reason to alter the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Humphrey LLoyd

Chairman, ARB