RIBA's Submission to the Call for Evidence on Architects Regulation and the Architects Registration Board
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Royal Institute of British Architects RIBA's submission to the Call for Evidence on Architects Regulation and the Architects Registration Board 29 May 2014 The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and its members. It has been promoting architecture and architects since being awarded its Royal Charter in 1837. The 40,000-strong professional institute is committed to serving the public interest through good design and professional standards. The RIBA members represent three quarters of the ARB registered architects in the UK as well as 4,300 chartered architects around the world. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The RIBA supports the continued independent statutory regulation of architects in the UK, in the public interest. This has existed for over 80 years and is well established and valued by UK consumers and by the profession as a way of confirming to clients the professional competency and integrity of fully qualified architects, and of providing safeguards against unlawful or incompetent practice. There is no compelling case to change the current structure, and there would be considerable costs and disruption associated with any major change. The three key reasons for the continuation of the regulation of architects in the UK are: 1. Value of architecture: the importance and public value of architecture to the shared environment, cultural heritage, economic success and well-being of society, with expensive and long term consequences for society if architectural skills and standards are inadequately applied. 2. Importance for consumers: the value and complexity of architectural services to often inexpert consumers, who need to be able to identify and rely upon registered ‘architects’ for major investment in their homes, workplaces and built environment. 3. Role of architects: the unique roles and responsibilities of architects, confirmed by the EU-wide requirement for their registration. However, the RIBA believes that architects’ regulation under the Architects Registration Act Royal Institute of British Architects 1997 could be carried out more effectively and efficiently and at lower cost, with economic benefits for society, consumers and the profession. The RIBA therefore recommends to the 66 Portland Place, London, W1B 1AD, UK Government that the following improvements are made. Tel: +44 (0)20 7580 5533 Fax: +44 (0)20 7255 1541 [email protected] www.architecture.com Page Incorporated by Royal Charter 1 | No: RC000484 Registered Charity No: 210 566 VAT Registration No: 232 351 891 Recommendation 1: In accordance with the better regulation principles, the ARB should undertake its role in prescribing professional qualifications without duplicating the existing and well-established mechanisms operated by the RIBA and the educational institutions. By prescribing RIBA-validated qualifications (nationally and internationally) the ARB could retain its ultimate responsibility to ensure that prescribed qualifications meet the public interest test, while reducing costs for itself, its registrants, educational institutions and, ultimately, consumers of architectural services. Recommendation 2: A prompt and independent review with RIBA input of the ARB’s disciplinary rules and disciplinary performance is carried out to identify and implement improvements. This review should include consultation with people who have been representing architects in the ARB disciplinary process. Recommendation 3: The EU PQD recommendation for CPD should be fulfilled by recommending the use of established CPD systems for architects provided by relevant professional bodies such as the RIBA system, which is already mapped against the agreed prescription/validation criteria, thus avoiding the need for the establishment of a costly additional system. Recommendation 4: The UK Government gives clear guidance to the ARB to apply a more proportionate amount of its efforts and resources (in the order of one third of the retention fee), to protecting the title ‘architect’ against misuse by unregistered and unqualified persons. Recommendation 5: The UK Government to give clear guidance to the ARB to focus on the efficient keeping and maintaining of the register of individual architects, as described by the Act and carrying out of the ‘competent authority’ function for the UK within the remit described in the EU Professional Qualifications Directive. The ARB should be advised by the Government not to expand its remit, services or activities beyond its specific statutory roles. 2 | Page PART ONE – THE CASE FOR ARCHITECTS’ REGULATION RIBA POLICY 1. The RIBA Council re-affirmed its support for the maintenance of statutory regulation of architects, but in a more efficient and effective way, by adopting the following RIBA Policy at its Council meeting on 19 March 2014: 1. To reaffirm its support for the maintenance of statutory protection of the title ‘architect’ 2. To maintain protection of title through an independent minimal ARB, to protect the interest of consumers, non-members of the RIBA as well as RIBA members, and to accord with UK and EU legislation and directive. REASONS FOR CONTINUED REGULATION OF ARCHITECTS 2. Architecture is both a creative art and a technical science that defines the cultural values of a community, as well as determining the quality and effectiveness of the shared environment that a community lives, works and thrives in. Architecture forms the built assets and influences the well-being of society, including its economic success. If the complex and expert skills of architects are not properly developed and applied, it can be extremely debilitating and expensive to a national economy, a local community, individual users and clients. 3. As in other areas of professional practice such as medicine and the law, consumers of architectural services – and particularly individual, one-off consumers – are vulnerable to exploitation with potentially serious consequences for themselves, and wider consequences for the built environment and society. Many clients only require architectural services once, or on a few occasions, in their life-times. They will not generally have the necessary expertise to successfully carry out this role themselves, or be able to assess the competency of others to provide this service for them. For consumer and business clients alike, designing and constructing buildings or facilities is a major, or even their largest, investment. This is particularly the case for home owners in the UK, where residential property forms the largest proportion of personal investment and wealth. 4. This is the crux of the case for requiring additional regulation of architects, compared to other built-environment professionals such as engineers and surveyors, in the interests of the consumer, user and public. Architects need to have a complex and unique mix of creative, technical, management and analytical skills, as well as professional standards and behaviours to protect the wider interests of clients and the general public. This is substantiated by the specific regulation of architects under the EU Professional Qualifications Directive and the specific national regulation of architects in other countries, including EU member states. Unlike other construction professionals, statutory regulation of architects in some form is an EU requirement. 5. Because of the reasons set out above, a good case could be put forward for the extension of the regulation of architects to include the protection of the key functions of architects, as well as the title ‘architect’, to better protect the public interest. This is the model used for architects in other EU member states and also for some other regulated professions in the UK. 6. Conversely, some regulated professions rely upon protection of title or – as with doctors and lawyers – a mixture of protection of title and some protection of function. However attractive restriction of architectural function might appear in theory, in practice it is 3 | Page likely to be fraught and disproportionate in its effects. There would be significant complexities in delineating the specific functions of architects which could be regulated, due to the wide scope and scale of architectural services. 7. Furthermore, certain services provided by architects could be adequately provided by those without the professional qualifications or obligations of regulated architects. But it is useful for the consumer to know that they can expect and rely on a level of competence and professionalism from anyone using the title ‘architect’. Therefore, on balance, the RIBA is only recommending the continuation of the protection of title for architects. 8. The RIBA does not consider that there is a strong case for extending regulation of title to other derivatives of the word ‘architect’, or to other forms of construction services, as there is no EU requirement for such extension, in the public interest, nor do the arguments set out in the paragraphs above apply to other groups or services. 9. In summary, the three key reasons for the continuation of the regulation of architects on broadly the current basis are: 1. Value of architecture: the importance and public value of architecture to the shared environment, cultural heritage, economic success and well-being of society, with expensive and long term consequences for society if architectural skills and standards are inadequately applied. 2. Importance for consumers: the value and complexity of architectural services