ARCHITECTS ACT REGULATORY REFORM ORDER: CONSULTATION DRAFT ON RIBA PROPOSALS

ARCHITECTS ACT REGULATORY REFORM ORDER: CONSULTATION DRAFT ON RIBA PROPOSALS (13/02/2006)

The following is the National Consumer Council's response to the RIBA's consultation on a Regulatory Reform Order.

ARCHITECTS ACT REGULATORY REFORM ORDER
CONSULTATION DRAFT ON RIBA PROPOSALS

Please find attached the National Consumer Council comment on these proposals. The views set out below also represent the Scottish Consumer Council perspective.

We are aware that unnecessary and inappropriate regulation damages the interests of consumers, by adding to costs, restricting choice and preventing market entry and innovation. Our general approach to regulation is that it should be supported only where it offers necessary consumer protection or helps make markets work. We support mechanisms, such as the Regulatory Reform Order process, that provide all interested parties a chance to highlight failing or redundant rules and restrictions, with a view to their removal.

However, our experience also tells us that individual businesses and entire industries and professions sometimes try to manipulate regulatory processes, in order to further their own interests.

In this instance, it is not clear to us what motivates the Institute’s proposals, particularly as some of them are not well argued and appear on the face of it to represent unnecessary increases in regulation, and so quite counter to the objectives of the Regulatory Reform Order process.

For example, we understand from the Architects Registration Board (ARB) that it does not in fact prevent use of the title of ‘Honorary Architect’, and so this proposal will achieve little or nothing; while it would seem that the arrangements for women returning from an extended maternity leave are in reality less onerous than the paper suggests.

The proposal to create an independent Ombudsman may or may not have some merit, but the paper does not set out a clear and compelling analysis on this point; indeed it confuses the issue, by talking about the creation of an appeal mechanism, which neither judicial review nor the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are. There appears to be no suggestion in the paper that any possible appeal mechanism might be for consumers; rather, it talks solely in terms of the interests of the profession. We therefore have some concerns about the Institute’s possible motives in advancing what currently feels like an unbalanced and ill thought through proposal.

We have similar concerns about the proposed duty to be prudent and economical. This is at first sight entirely unexceptional - no-one, least of all the National Consumer Council and Scottish Consumer Council, could be against prudence and economy. But the paper does not give any convincing reason why this needs to be regulated for, nor does it explain how the proposed duty would operate in such a way as to achieve the appropriate balance between economy and necessary consumer protection. At best it would appear to be unnecessary rhetoric, at worst it introduces confusion that might serve to hamper the Board’s ability to regulate the profession appropriately.

Our final area of concern relates to the proposal on education and professional standing. We have no objection in principle to self-regulation by industries and professions, but this is a privilege that must be earned rather than demanded as of right - and you will be aware that the National Consumer Council supported the creation of an adequate and open disciplinary system for architects, separate from RIBA. The paper makes no convincing attempt to explain why chartered membership of RIBA should per se be a qualification for registration, and why the ARB is no longer needed. Although it refers to unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication, the paper does not for example explain whether there are any significant practical differences between the standards applied by the two bodies, and whether the Institute’s proposal might lead to less or more consumer detriment. It does not explain and demonstrate how the Institute puts the consumer interest at the heart of its decision-making in this area, nor how it is transparent and accountable, beyond its professional membership, for such decisions. The paper proceeds by assertion rather than by setting out a clear, consumer-centred case; therefore we cannot presently support the proposal.

To sum up: we would not rule out supporting changes to the regulation of architects, but we would need to see a convincing case for why and how such changes would benefit consumers. We are surprised and concerned by the extent to which the present consultation paper makes little or no attempt to consider the consumer interest, and instead focuses on the interests of the profession. This is perhaps in itself an indication of why the role of an independent body in this field remains important.

Click here to download this document in PDF format.