Proposed amendment to rule 20 of the Board’s General Rules

Proposed amendment to rule 20 of the Board’s General Rules - Consultation (23/05/2006)

Dear Consultee,

Proposed amendment to rule 20 of the Board’s General Rules - Consultation

You are invited to comment on the Architects Registration Board’s (ARB) proposals for amending its General Rules to re-state and clarify ARB’s requirements on practical experience and maintaining competence to practise in relation to retention and re-entry onto the Register of Architects under Section 9(1) of the Architects Act 1997.

The practical experience prescribed by ARB for this purpose is set out in rule 20 of the Board’s General Rules. Before making such rules, ARB is required to publish a draft of the rules and allow those to whom the rules would be applicable the opportunity of making representations to ARB (see Section 23 of the Architects Act 1997). At its meeting of 11th May, 2006, ARB approved a new draft rule, to replace the existing rule 20, for consultation.

To assist your consideration of the proposals, I shall explain the review undertaken by ARB which has informed the proposal, and the purpose of the proposed rule change.

1. The proposed amendment to rule 20

The existing rule states:

Any person who falls within the categories described in Section 9 (1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act who has not been engaged in the practice of architecture for a continuous period of two years immediately prior to the date of the application, may be required by the Board to satisfy them of his or her competence to practise.

The proposed rule states:

Any person who falls within the categories described in Section 9 (1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Act and who is engaged in the practice of architecture must have gained such practical experience as prescribed by the Board.

The prescribed practical experience for the purposes of this Rule shall be that such a person shall have undertaken sufficient activities, including CPD and active engagement in the practice of architecture, during the period of two years immediately prior to the application, in order to maintain competence to practise in accordance with the Board’s guidelines which shall be published from time to time.

Where the Board is not satisfied that such a person has gained such recent practical experience, that person may be required to satisfy the Board of their competence to practise.

2. Background to the proposed rule change

Many regulatory and professional bodies within the construction industry and other professions, have made the maintenance of competence - or CPD - a mandatory requirement rather than merely a disciplinary issue. Such bodies include the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institution of Civil Engineers, and the Chartered Institute of Building. This position appears to be in line with current expectations among the general public that members of all professions maintain an appropriate level of competence. It is also beneficial to architects that the Register is associated in the public mind with high standards of competence.

At its meeting in May 2005, ARB decided that architects should be required to demonstrate that they have maintained their competence to practise. While no decision was made as to the form this should take, views were expressed that any scheme should be based on the following principles:

It should be light-touch and proportionate;

It should not unnecessarily duplicate activities already undertaken as part of a CPD scheme through membership of a professional body; and

Financial costs to registrants in the form of any increase in retention fees should be kept to a minimum.

ARB also agreed that discussions should commence with the RIBA to find out more about the changes to its scheme for CPD, as around 70% of registrants are also RIBA members. Several meetings have taken place with the RIBA, during which the RIBA expressed its willingness to work with ARB in developing its scheme. A representative of the RIBA has attended and usefully participated in discussions at the Board and ARB’s Prescription Committee. As a result the RIBA has made some revisions to the Core Curriculum for CPD (which is at the heart of its scheme) in order to meet points made by ARB.

The Core Curriculum is tied back into key areas of the criteria by which ARB prescribes qualifications in architecture for the purposes of entry onto the Register. These criteria are held in common by ARB and RIBA. Thus, the requisite levels of competence in these essential areas should be maintained by an architect who meets those requirements.

ARB’s Prescription Committee has agreed that registrants who have complied with the RIBA Core Curriculum requirements of its CPD scheme are likely to satisfy ARB of their competence to practise, but noted that the RIBA does not monitor the quality or appropriateness of the activities undertaken.

The proposed amendment to rule 20 arises out of these deliberations.

3. The purpose of the amendment

ARB is required to prescribe the practical experience that any person must have gained to be retained on the Register or be re-entered onto the Register after a period of absence. If ARB is not satisfied that a person has gained such practical experience, that person may be removed or not re-entered onto the Register unless they can satisfy ARB that they are competent to practise (see Section 9(1) of the Architects Act 1997).

The current practical experience prescribed by ARB, under rule 20, is a continuous period of two years engagement in the practice of architecture. Under the current rule, anyone not having such experience who is applying to be retained or re-entered onto the Register may be required to satisfy ARB that they are competent to practise.

ARB has noted that its rule as currently drafted:

Applies to everyone seeking to be retained or re-entered on the Register, whether or not they intend to practise as an architect whilst on the Register;

States that anyone who caeses to practise for any period, even briefly (such as a career break), in the period of up to two years prior to their applying to be retained or re-entered on the Register, may be required to satisfy ARB of their competence to practise; and

Does not recognise that CPD, as well as engagement in the practice of architecture, may assist in maintaining competence as an architect.

The current rule, therefore, needs revising for the following reasons. Firstly, architects who do not practice, but for their own reasons remain registered, do not pose a risk to users of architectural services. However, the current rule could require those who declare that they are not in practice to undergo assessment to satisfy ARB that they are competent to practise ¹. Secondly, for those who are in practice, a two year period of continuous practice is not in keeping with modern working practices, disproportionately affects certain registrants (e.g. those who take maternity or paternity leave), and does not recognise that structured CPD can contribute to maintaining competence.

ARB’s current practice is to only require those who have been absent from the Register for a period of two years or more to satisfy ARB that they are competent to practise. However, in reviewing current practice to assure the public and the profession that those on the Register are competent to practise, ARB needs a rule which:

Focuses on where the risk to users of architectural services lies with respect to the competence of architects;

Does not disproportionately burden architects on the Register, particularly those who pose no risk to users of architectural services;

Allows for ARB to be flexible as to how an architect has maintained competence.

The proposed new rule only applies to architects in practice. Hence anyone who declares themselves to not be in practice when applying to be retained on, or returning to, the Register will not be expected to comply with the rule, unless that person resumes practice or has falsely declared that they are not in practice.

¹. All architects, when applying to be retained on or to return to the Register, are required to declare to ARB whether or not they are engaged in practice as part of ARB’s policy in monitoring compliance with its requirements on professional indemnity insurance.

The proposed rule also envisages that architects may undertake various activities, including CPD as well as active engagement in practice, to maintain their competence, over a two year period immediately before the application to return to or be retained on the Register. The rule does not specify any set continuous period of practice during that period.

Finally, the proposed rule envisages that ARB will issue guidelines to assist architects in complying with the rule.

3. Responding to the proposal

Comments are invited on any aspect of the proposed rule change. ARB will consider schemes for monitoring compliance with the proposed rule later in 2006. However, ARB believes that there are merits to the proposed rule change whatever scheme for monitoring compliance is adopted by ARB, and asks consultees at this stage to restrict comments to the current proposal.

Attached to this letter is a list of those organisations that have been consulted. This letter will be posted on ARB’s website, and will be e-mailed to those individuals on the Register who have expressed an interested in receiving material from ARB on such matters. If you find that any organisation which is not included in the attached list should also be consulted, please let ARB know as soon as possible.

As the proposal acts more to clarify ARB’s position on practical experience and the maintenance of competence, it has been decided not hold a lengthy consultation on this matter. Please return your comments to ARB as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 5pm on Friday 23rd June 2006.

Yours sincerely,

Jon Levett

Head of Education

CONSULTEES

Association of Consultant Architects

Association of Professional Studies Advisers in Architecture

Bar Council

Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists

Chartered Institute of Building

Construction Industry Council

General Dental Council

General Medical Council

General Optical Council

General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

Health Professions Council

Institution of Civil Engineers

Institution of Structural Engineers

Landscape Institute

Law Society

Law Society of Northern Ireland

Law Society of Scotland

National Consumer Council

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Royal Institute of British Architects

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

Royal Society of Ulster Architects

Royal Society of Architects in Wales

Royal Town Planning Institute

Serving Construction and Architecture in Local Authorities

Scottish Consumer Council

Welsh Consumer Council