Response to ARB’s consultation on the proposed guidance note on maintaining competence to practise

Response to ARB’s consultation on the proposed guidance note on maintaining competence to practise (04/06/2007)

Jack Pringle

President, RIBA

Section 1

We are pleased to see that the ARB has adopted a “deemed to satisfy” approach. In the past we have cited a speech by Gordon Brown to the CBI in November 2005 which spoke of “no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.” Credit should be given to the Board for adopting a similar approach here.

Sections 2 & 3

These sections concern the ARB’s implementation of the Archit5ects Act in developing its guidance on maintaining competence to practise. We have made the following points on previous occasions and remain unhappy about the Board’s interpretation of the statute.

The RIBA places enormous value on CPD as an important aspect of ensuring that professionals maintain their competence to practise. But the value of CPD alone is insufficient justification for the ARB to seek to bring it within its review for all registrants without a statutory basis where there is none.

We are concerned that ARB’s Rule 20 – on which the draft guidance note is based – has no statutory basis. This arises out of the wording of the Architects Act 1997, which uses the phrase “practical experience” in section 4 concerning entitlement to registration, and again in section 9, as in “recent practical experience”, regarding exclusion from the Register. CPD is not practical experience. It is continuing education. By prescribing practical experience to include CPD in Rule 20, the ARB is purporting to prescribe CPD for all registrants where it has no proper statutory authority to9 do so.

The remainder of our comments on this proposal are without prejudice to our continuing objection to the ARB’s interpretation of the Architects Act.

Section 4

We believe that CPD should be structured and suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph beginning “Much of the day to day work of an architects ….” Should read as follows:

“Maintaining competence does not rely solely on structured CPD courses, but could include a blend of activities including [continue as drafted]”.

The RIBA has worked closely with the ARB since 2005 on the development of the RIBA’s core CPD curriculum, which enables architects to maintain their competence alongside the acquisition of important skills and capabilities. We believe that anyone satisfying the RIBA’s requirements will satisfy the Board that they have maintained their competence – not just that they are likely to do so. The guidance should therefore be changed to reflect this. The RIBA confirms that the RIBA’s CPD monitoring system can be made available to ARB registrants who are not also RIBA members at a nominal charge.

The website address contained in the current draft should be changed from www.riba.org to www.architecture.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank McCloskey

Director, RSUA

I am generally happy with the content of the draft guidance note and particularly pleased that an architect satisfying the RIBA’s requirements is likely to satisfy the Board that they have maintained their competence.

It is good that the ARB and the RIBA are in harmony on CPD requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike McQueen

Lecturer in Architecture,

University of Ulster

Further to your invitation to comment on “Proposed Guidance Note on Maintaining Competence to Practise”. Professor Elkadi of the University of Ulster asked me to respond to you.

I acknowledge the importance of CPD policy and requirements and through personal experience have observed that these can be extremely beneficial and relatively easily met by architects working within large practices running in-house CPD programmes.

For architects in small practices or sole practitioners however, the construction and delivery of a meaningful CPD programme can be proportionally much more time consuming and costly, reducing the range of options available to this group.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John F Griffiths

Director, Association of Consultant Architects

I refer to your letter to Fiona Griffiths of ACA dated 27 February 2007 regarding the proposed guidance note.

The Association has considered the proposed guidance notes for the amendment to General Rule 20 and has the following comments.

1. The proposed amendment is incomplete in that it does not state how competence will be assessed amongst those who do not belong to one of the professional bodies. The RIBA has procedures in place to check on members to ensure compliance with their criteria but there appears to be no such procedures in place to ensure unattached members of ARB maintain similar levels of competence.

2. Those working in the academic field (ie. teaching) appear to be exempt from the requirements of Rule 20 and the Association has concerns that the teaching of architecture and in particularly architectural practice requires the same, if not greater, levels of competence as those engaging in the practice of architecture itself. The association cannot believe that doctors in teaching hospitals, for instance, are not required to maintain and demonstrate their competence.

3. There are various categories of “practice” which appear to have escaped definition. For example, it is unclear where a retired architect undertaking voluntary work is in “practice” for the purposes of Rule 20. A similar situation would occur where an architect works for a construction or other company. The term “practising” therefore requires further definition to avoid uncertainty and confusion.

We hope the comments listed above are of some assistance and will be considered when the proposed guidance notes are further reviews.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warren Whyte

Chartered Architect

1. If by paying the ARB registration fee is deemed to confirm an architect is competent to practice, this could also be taken to include professional indemnity insurance. This would have the obvious benefit in saving paperwork.

4. If the RIBA CPD scheme is followed then it should mean the Board is satisfied, not “likely to be satisfied”. The RIBA requirements are onerous and extensive, the ARB should be able to treat these as the Gold Standard.

5. The inference in this section is that competence has to be re-established after two years. I am not convinced that two years has been chosen for any specific reason. Why not three, or five? If CPD has been continued (say during a career break or family reasons) then that should be sufficient for at least two years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Levett

Director of Standards, General Optical Council

Thank you for giving the General Optical Council (GOC) the opportunity to comment on your proposed Guidance Note on Maintaining Competence to Practise.

We welcome the proposed guidance. The Hampton review (Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement, March 2005) stressed that regulators had hitherto placed insufficient focus on providing guidance and advice to ensure compliance, and concluded ‘better advice leads to better regulatory outcomes’ (p.10). We note that ARB’s approach in issuing guidance on this topic is in accord with regulatory best practice.

As you aware, GOC is the regulatory body for dispensing opticians and optometrists in the UK. All registered optometrists and dispensing opticians are required to undertake continuing education and training (CET). Registrants have to gain a prescribed number of CET points, through attending approved events, over a period of three years. We have recently completed the first three year cycle, and have been pleased at outcome which has shown the willingness of the dispensing opticians and optometrists to embrace CET as part of their professionalism. Less than 2% of registrants were removed from the registers this year for failing to meet CET requirements.

We are aware that undertaking CET does not guarantee that competence is maintained, and we will shortly be considering how our scheme can be developed within a broader framework of assuring the continuing fitness to practise of our registrants through periodic revalidation. As such, we view developments at ARB with interest, as your requirements relate to registrants demonstrating that they have undertaken sufficient activities to maintain their competence.

We note that ARB requires architects to maintain their competence in all areas set out in your criteria. A key issue for GOC, as we prepare to introduce revalidation for our registrants, will be whether registrant should be required to demonstrate they have maintained their competence against all the GOC core competencies, or whether focus should be placed on certain competencies where failure to meet the required standard poses the greatest risk to patients, and/or whether we link these requirements to the declared scope of practice of individual registrants. Our thinking on this will be guided by our wish to demonstrate that our requirements are risk-based, proportionate and appropriately targeted.

On this issue, we note that ARB has made a policy decision that architects should be required to maintain competence in all areas of the criteria. We wonder whether, in the interests of adopting a demonstrably risk-based and targeted approach, you may wish your guidance to highlight those areas where a failure to maintain competence presents the greatest risk to clients and the general public. Architects would then know where it was of the utmost importance to focus or ‘weight’ their activities in maintaining competence. In developing your systems for auditing compliance, you could then focus on what steps architects had taken to maintain competence in these ‘high risk’ areas.

Finally, the Government has recently declared that ‘professional regulation should be as much about sustaining, improving and assuring the professional standards of the overwhelming majority of health professionals as it is about identifying and addressing poor practice or bad behaviour’ (Trust, Assurance and Safety, February 2007, p.2). Whilst you proposed guidance note stresses the importance for architects to maintain minimum levels of competence, we wonder whether it should set out an expectation that competence is developed and improved within a framework of life-long learning.

We hope these comments are helpful, and would be interested to learn of the outcomes of your consultation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R.A.Fellows

Head of Department,University of Huddersfield.

It is not clear whether or not those on the Register and not practising (eg. FT teaching) have to demonstrate that they are competent to practise.

Section 1, by stating "…those on the Register and in practice" suggests that they do not, whereas Section 2, by stating "Under the Act, architects must ensure that they are competent to practise" suggests that they do.

Perhaps there is a clearer way of expressing the conditions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patricia Monahan

Professional Regulation Policy Project Manager, RICS

Thank you for inviting RICS’ views on the proposed guidance on maintaining competence to practise for architects. By way of background, you may be interested to know that RICS has undertaken recently an extensive review of its own regulatory regime. This review has involved detailed consideration of the entire regulatory process which has resulted in a move from a detailed prescriptive set of rules to a principles based approach with an emphasis on risk assessment. Our guiding principle in drawing up our revised rules has been the need for a consistent, transparent and proportionate approach. We are pleased to offer our comments on the proposed guidance note on maintenance of competence to practise for architects, particularly in the light of our own recent experience. We accept that there will be differences in approach owing to the statutory status of the Board under the Architects Act 1997.

We note that the guidance asks architects to demonstrate their competence at registration and on an ongoing basis whilst in practice. On admission to RICS membership, a prospective Chartered Surveyor must pass an assessment of professional competence. In preparation for compliance with the lifelong learning requirements, candidates must also complete a specified number of hours of independently undertaken professional development. Once qualified, members must adhere to regulations requiring continuous professional development. We therefore view the approach taken by the ARB as a sensible requirement which reflects RICS’ own approach to ”lifelong learning”, as it is described. Such a stipulation offers reassurance to the public that the professional instructed will bring the necessary knowledge and skills to their appointment.

Guidelines for maintaining competence

Prior to first registration, the ARB requires architects to demonstrate attainment of minimum levels of competence in relevant areas of practice with the ARB setting out criteria – including design, technology and environment etc. These criteria must be satisfied on an ongoing basis. In its own guidelines for members, (both at entry stage and on an ongoing basis), RICS does not specify any particular areas of practice as criteria for lifelong learning ;instead, the rule states members must undertake lifelong learning that is appropriate to their professional work ; generic matters/skills to be developed are listed in helpsheets for members’ guidance in satisfying the rule. RICS members practise in an extremely wide range of fields, (possibly more diverse than architects) and this may necessitate a difference of approach.

We are interested to note that much of the day-to -day work of an architect is thought likely to contribute to maintenance of an individual’s competence. RICS adopts a similar approach to its members’ compliance with lifelong learning rules. Like the ARB requirements, RICS recognises that there are a number of activities which can contribute to maintenance of competence that are not limited to formal courses but can include self-directed learning, work-based learning and professional activities.

We believe that in order to achieve the optimum benefit, professional self development must be tailored directly to meet individual needs and this is determined best by the professional concerned.

RICS members are obliged to demonstrate they have undertaken a certain number of hours lifelong learning as a minimum. Beyond this, however, RICS is keen to focus on the quality rather than the quantity of activities undertaken by members in fulfilment of their obligation to professional development.

We are keen to emphasise to members the need to plan their own programme of lifelong learning and to set their own objectives. This should be followed by an evaluation of the lifelong learning undertaken together with a full record of outcomes and achievements.

RICS is keen to encourage both individual members and firms to view lifelong learning in a positive and constructive manner rather than simply as additional regulation requiring compliance. A proper programme of lifelong learning for all members within a firm will enhance the level of expertise within the firm; this should, in turn, offer commercial benefits, as knowledge is broadened and standards of competence raised.

As many firms, particularly larger ones, operate their own comprehensive staff training programmes, RICS has decided that, where appropriate, these should be recognised as meeting lifelong learning requirements. Accordingly, where an RICS regulated firm offers a structured training programme which meets specified criteria

this will be recognised by RICS as fulfilling the individual lifelong learning obligation of individual members within the firm.

How should an architect, or an individual applying to register, demonstrate competence?

Under RICS requirements members are expected to set their own programme in terms of lifelong learning as they are best placed to determine their own individual needs. RICS asks members to set their own objectives in professional development and to assess whether the outcomes have satisfied the objectives. We would endorse the approach taken by the ARB as offering a system flexible enough to

accommodate the differing requirements of individual architects.

How should activities relating to maintaining competence be planned and recorded?

The requirement of the ARB for architects to record and evaluate their learning activities is similar to that required by RICS of its members. Members are encouraged to use an on-line recording system but records may be submitted in whatever format they choose. RICS places special emphasis on the planning process, identifying learning needs, setting objectives and evaluating whether these have been met.

Will architects need to submit evidence of their competence to ARB?

We note that the ARB plans to issue guidance for those who may be asked to provide evidence of competence. RICS does not issue separate guidance for those subject to monitoring for compliance with its lifelong learning rule. A number of members are selected on a random basis to submit their records in order to demonstrate evidence of compliance. Records are assessed against the lifelong learning rule with RICS assisting members in a positive manner. Whilst RICS sanctions may in some cases be applied to those found to be non-compliant, the main approach is assistance and encouragement to members.

Further Discussion

We would be pleased to share our experience of setting and monitoring lifelong learning rules with the ARB if this would be helpful.