Letter to Jack Pringle, 4 November 2005 (09/11/2005)
Click here to read Jack Pringle’s letter of 2 November
Mr Jack Pringle,
President,
Royal Institute of British Architects
66 Portland Place
London
W1B 1AD
Dear Jack
Thank you for your letter of 2 November 2005.
You say that your proposals will mean that ARB may make considerable savings in its education activities. However the proposals do not affect the Board’s duty to prescribe qualifications, nor could they. The Act entitles anybody with the prescribed qualifications and experience to be registered. It does not require them first to become members of a professional body, such as the RIBA.
Issue 1: New Duty to be Prudent and Economical
The retention fee is naturally higher than ARCUK charged. The 1997 Act gives ARB wider responsibilities than ARCUK had. The retention fee is amongst the lowest of all the Registration Boards. Architects and the Privy Council are not likely to elect or to appoint people to the Board who will not observe the duty (which is not a “new” one as you now accept). For these reasons, taking up Parliament’s time on a Regulatory Reform Order would not be reasonable.
Issue 2: Ombudsman
You will recall when we met that you told us that the Ombudsman would only be available to architects. You now mention consumers, contractors, would-be registrants and others who may have cause for appeal. There is no evidence that more than a few such individuals exist. There are certainly insufficient to justify an RRO. Your proposal will impose additional costs on registrants for the sake of a very small number of people. You refer to a case on which we are in correspondence. It relates to someone who does not have a prescribed qualification. You say that the RIBA supports this person. Courts are not so expensive that a body like the RIBA could not help the person to ask a court to decide if the Board was legally wrong in its view - if the RIBA really believes that it was. The costs of a few such cases will certainly be less than the annual recurring costs of an Ombudsman and office. I would also remind you of what we said to you when we met, namely that experience elsewhere shows that having an Ombudsman leads to a steep increase in complaints about the profession involved and that there are at present relatively few complaints about architects.
Issue 3: Qualification and Registration
If RIBA wished to make its membership a prescribed qualification for registration, then it can apply in the same way as others, but what ‘qualification’ is it that would be prescribed? And what is the point? The criteria for membership and for registration are the same. All UK qualifications which lead to RIBA membership are currently prescribed by ARB, allowing those who gain them to register with ARB and join RIBA if they so choose. Why therefore is an RRO necessary in the public interest? The Board would still have to continue to carry out its statutory duty to prescribe qualifications.
The Register assures, from an independent public standpoint, the qualifications and competence of those that are registered. The case for independent registration was made by a previous Chief Executive of the RIBA, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who said in Parliament during the passage of the Act: “Since 1834, the RIBA has represented the profession itself, but the role of this new registration body… is to represent the public interest. Those are distinct and separate roles”.
In the consultation document, you make clear that the RIBA admits as members persons who are, in fact, not qualified for admission to the register. I refer to paragraph 3.03 of the Commentary. The last time we compared data the RIBA had around 3,000 members who were not registered. If they are to be entitled to be on the Register on par with architects who are qualified, how will the public know that they are not qualified?
Issue 4: Return to the Register
There is a misunderstanding on the part of the Council. The Board already allows a person a period of absence from the Register and keeps that period under review. The proposal for an RRO is unnecessary and is not accepted. What we said was that you have provided no evidence that would justify an RRO to compel the Board to adopt a five year period. It may be that your consultation will provide information which the Board can consider in its reviews. If the Council had any facts before it reached its decision it should provide them to the Board.
Issue 5: Honorary Architects
I am puzzled by what you say. Surely the RIBA is not awarding Honorary Fellowships to people who are likely to use the title “Hon. FRIBA” to pass themselves off improperly as architects? You must decide what warnings you give them, but this proposal seems quite unnecessary, and thus an RRO is not justifiable.
Issue 6: Architectural Consultants
If the Council’s reason for the proposal is that people are misled into believing that an “architectural consultant” is a fully qualified architect when that is not so, then this surely applies also to those who call themselves “Honorary Architect”.
Conclusion
I am grateful that the Council will give the comments further consideration. I am glad also that you have noted the statement of the Minister responsible in the House of Commons to the questions by Mr Gummer. As you might know, I have met Mr Gummer. He wished to make it clear that he had only been “tangentially” responsible within his Department for the legislation. There can be no doubt that the Act was written as intended.
Finally, you refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s wish to remove regulatory burdens throughout UK business. All that registrants have to do annually is to return a retention fee and to complete a statement to say that they currently are covered by Professional Indemnity Insurance. By comparison to others with similar responsibilities to ARB, this is probably the most lightweight and limited professional regulatory regime existing in the country. It is certainly in the public interest which the Act was passed to safeguard.
As you have now started to consult the profession on the Council’s proposals I shall not pursue this correspondence further.
Yours sincerely,
Humphrey LLoyd
Chairman ARB
Print this page
Back
