DOCSLIB.ORG

Ian Salisbury

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ian Salisbury Ian Salisbury architecture and dispute resolution St Thomas’ House 6 Becket Street Oxford OX1 1PP tel : 01865 250777 fax : 01865 250999 [email protected] DX 145844 Oxford 6 9 May 2009 The Architects Registration Board, 8 Weymouth Street London W1W 5BU Dear Board Members, Consultation 2009/01 – Amendments to the Board’s Criteria at Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 You have invited comment on all three parts of your Criteria which are described as setting the learning outcomes that must be achieved by those successfully gaining the qualifications in architecture that ARB prescribe at Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 level. Such a consultation is valueless if the premise on which the consultation is based is faulty, and my purpose in writing to you is to demonstrate that the Board’s governing statute, the Architects Act, permits the Board under section 4(1)(a) to engage in no activity beyond prescribing the qualification – whereas the Criteria to which you refer either in their present form or in any revised version are clearly intended to provide the means of validating courses rather than prescribing qualifications. The Board has a statutory duty to do no more than to prescribe qualifications and it follows that these Criteria are extraneous to the purposes of the Act. The Act The relevant part of the Act for the purpose of this consultation is section 4(1): A person who has applied to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registration in pursuance of this section is entitled to be registered in Part 1 of the Register if he holds such qualifications and has gained such practical experience as may be prescribed... and the Board’s prescribing duties are permitted by section 6(3): The Board may prescribe the information and evidence to be provided... So it is that the Board has a power no more than to prescribe the qualifications and practical experience necessary for and as a precondition to registration. There is little guidance in the Act over the interpretation of the word prescribe, providing as it does only the following for interpretation: ‘prescribed’ means prescribed by rules made by the Board and ‘prescribe’ means prescribe by rules. Ian Salisbury Limited Registered in England It is therefore useful to consider the background to the Act to discern the intention Company no 4117085 Ian Salisbury 9 May 2009 Page 2 of 12 given to it by parliament. Background When enacted the Architects Act 1997 was an Act that consolidated the legislation formerly contained in the Architects Act 1931, the Architects Registration Act 1938, sections 118 to 125 of and Schedule 2 to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Architects Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/1824) and the Architects Qualifications (EC Recognition) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/2241). All of these were later repealed. The most recent substantive parliamentary debate on the provisions of the Act took place in respect of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill in 1996, when the replacement of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom by the present Architects Registration Board was proposed. In preparation for the parliamentary debate, the Government entered into public consultation. The proposals stemmed from a request, made by ARCUK to the Government in 1992, that the Architects Registration Acts 1931-69 be reviewed. Mr John Warne carried out that review after wide consultation, and his review was published in 1993. The Warne Report concluded that the main weaknesses of ARCUK included excessively prescriptive and inflexible legislation, and an imprecision in the definition of the duties and responsibilities of the Council. The Government’s proposals aimed to overcome these perceived weaknesses in a way that was generally acceptable to the public and the profession alike. As was stated in the public consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment on 19 July 1994:– The main objective of the reforms is to create a small, focussed and effective registration body which represents the interests of both the profession and the general public. Its purpose would be to: set criteria for admission to the register; prevent misuse of the title “architect”; discipline unprofessional conduct, and set fee levels. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Earl Ferrers who said at the outset of the debate on 20 February 1996, that – Our intention is that these changes should make the registration council a more representative and, dare I say it, a more efficient body which will work better for the benefit of both architects and their clients. The debate ran over several days and amendments were proposed. Earl Ferrers fell ill and his position as the government spokesman was promptly taken up by Lord Lucas. Lord Lucas said (on 1 April 1996):– The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the new Architects Registration Board does not spawn several new large and expensive committees. We are certainly sympathetic to that aim. We have established a new professional conduct committee but, having abolished the Board of Architectural Education and the Admissions Committee, the last thing we would wish to see is large new committees rising from the ashes, as it were, to take their place. I accept that such committees may be bureaucratic and expensive to run, and one of our aims in reducing the size of the Architects’ Council of the UK was to reduce Ian Salisbury 9 May 2009 Page 3 of 12 registration costs. The Bill then passed to the House of Commons where it was introduced by the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who said on 7 May 1996:– The reason for reforming ARCUK is that since it was established in 1931, it has grown large and cumbersome and it has taken on functions that are not strictly concerned with registration. Before returning to the Lords for its third reading, on 5 June 1996 a private member Mr Elfyn Llewyd secured parliamentary time to debate compulsory indemnity insurance, provision for which he called for urgently. In reply, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment referred to the Bill, saying:– Current legislation will reform the structure of ARCUK and make minor changes to admission criteria. However, the changes to the criteria remain firmly based on the ability of the individual to function as an architect, and do not extend to any of the criteria to cover financial or insurance matters. We believe that this is as it should be. The reforms, which gained widespread support during public consultation, are based firmly on the idea that ARCUK should be a minimalist body concentrating on the core functions of registration and discipline. The Bill was then returned to the Lords for approval of Commons’ Amendments. A particular set of amendments concerning a requirement to consult bodies of chartered architects before prescribing qualifications and experience needed for entry onto the register was approved. Lord Lucas, speaking for the Government, said:– We recognize that the RIBA plays a predominant role in architectural education and we do not wish the Board to duplicate that role. In summary, the intention of parliament was therefore:– • To create a minimalist body setting criteria for admission to the register; preventing misuse of the title “architect”; disciplining unprofessional conduct, and setting fee levels; • To reduce costs accordingly; • To ensure that the Board concentrates on the core functions of registration and discipline; • Not to extend the functions of the Board to cover financial or insurance matters, and • To allow the RIBA to continue in the predominant role in architectural education without the Board duplicating that role. That is how the Act was written and enacted, and those extracts from speeches explain beyond peradventure the intention of the Parliament at that time. Mistaken interpretation of the statute In a letter to the Chief Executive of the RIBA dated 24 January 2002, the then Registrar said: Ian Salisbury 9 May 2009 Page 4 of 12 “Leading Counsel’s view was that whilst the Architects Act makes no express provision for monitoring compliance with the Code, such a power was to be implied on the basis of a purposive approach.” Despite the public function of the Board, the Registrar refused to elaborate the legal advice received by the Board beyond the broad explanation given in his letter. However, it is understood that an officer of the Board informed a person on the Register that there were three cases that supported the Board’s position, being: A v. B (Governor of Bank of England Intervening) [1991] 1 Bank Law Reports. R v. Security Investments Board ex parte Independent Financial Advisers Assoc. & another [1995] 2 Butterworths Company Law Cases R v. Personal Investment Authority ex parte Lucas Fettes [1995] Occupational Pensions Law Reports At the induction meeting for new members of the Board held on 7 April 2003, the Board’s solicitor also referred generally to “a number of railway cases in the nineteenth century”, and with reference to Chancery, which allowed the court to imply terms into an Act and thereby to ask the question: “Are these implied things a reasonable understanding of the statutory purpose?”. But none of these cases provided authority for a purposive approach, and in respect of railway cases, the only relevant case is London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman1, a twentieth century case where members of the House of Lords came to slightly differing conclusions on the meaning of the word “repairing”2. All of their Lordships were however pursuing the ordinary meaning of the word which does not assist in support of the purposive approach. Authority for this purposive approach is provided unequivocally by the House of Lords in the landmark case of Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Architects Act 1997
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Architects Act 1997. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Architects Act 1997 1997 CHAPTER 22 PART V GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY General [F122 Appeals. (1) A person may appeal to the High Court or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session if he is aggrieved by— (a) refusal of his application for registration in Part 1 of the Register ; (b) failure of the Registrar to comply with section 6(4); (c) his name not being re-entered in, or his name being removed from, Part 1 of the Register by virtue of section 9; (d) the Board’s ordering under section 10 that the Registrar remove his name from Part 1 of the Register; or (e) the making of a disciplinary order in relation to him. (2) Subject to subsection (3), an appeal under subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) or (e) must be made not later than three months after the date on which notice of the decision or order concerned is served on the person. (3) Where an appeal under subsection (1)(a) is made by a person who relied on subsection (2A) of section 4 in applying for registration in pursuance of that section, the appeal must be made not later than four months after the date on which notice of the refusal is served on the person. (4) The time limits for making an appeal under subsection (1)(b) are— (a) where the appeal is made by a person who relied on subsection (2A) of section 4 in applying for registration in pursuance of that section, within seven months, and 2 Architects Act 1997 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM to the ARCHITECTS ACT 1997 (AMENDMENTS ETC) ORDER 2014 2014 No. 4 1. This Explanatory Memorandum Has Been
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE ARCHITECTS ACT 1997 (AMENDMENTS ETC) ORDER 2014 2014 No. 4 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. This memorandum contains information for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 This Order amends the Architects Act 1997 (the “Act”) First, it extends the tenure of a member of the Architects Registration Board. Secondly, it amends the definition of the ‘relevant European State’ used in the Act by including Switzerland within the definition. This amendment means that Swiss architects (an individual who is recognised or qualified to practice as or hold the title of architect in Switzerland) who wish to practice in the United Kingdom may now benefit from automatic recognition and other rights contained within European Directive 2005/36/EC on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications. 3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3.1 None 4. Legislative Context 4.1 Directive 2005/36/EC on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (“the Directive”) establishes a system for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications which is intended to make it easier for EU citizens who are entitled to exercise a regulated profession (one requiring proof of specific professional qualifications, such as an architect) in one Member State (their home State) to pursue the same profession in another Member State
    [Show full text]
  • RIBA's Submission to the Call for Evidence on Architects Regulation and the Architects Registration Board
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • 12730 Analysis of Law in UK BRX:Layout 1
    Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared for the British Red Cross by The views expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the British Red Cross. This report is part of a wider study on cross-border disaster assistance within the EU, carried out in conjunction with five other European National Societies, under the overall co-ordination of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The wider project received funding from the European Commission, who bear no responsibility for the content or use of the information contained in this report. Front cover photograph © Layton Thompson/British Red Cross Flood relief measures in Oxford, 25 July 2007 Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Foreword The United Kingdom is in the fortunate position of Fisher (International Federation of Red Cross and Red being less susceptible to large-scale natural disasters Crescent Societies), Mr Tim Gordon (HMRC), Mr than many other countries. Even so, and as recent Gordon MacMillan (Hanover Associates UK), Mr Roy years have shown, our territory may still be subject to Wilshire (Chief Fire Officer, Hertfordshire County) such emergencies as flooding, and the effects of severe and Ms Moya Wood-Heath (British Red Cross). winter weather. We also wish to thank the authors of this report, The purpose of this study, commissioned by the British Justine Stefanelli and Sarah Williams of the British Red Cross, is to examine the extent to which the legal, Institute of International and Comparative Law, administrative and operational framework for disaster who were assisted by Katharine Everett, Frances response within the UK is able to facilitate potential McClenaghan, Hidenori Takai and Payam Yoseflavi.
    [Show full text]
  • Architects Regulation and the Architects Registration Board Call for Evidence
    Architects Regulation and the Architects Registration Board Call for Evidence Context document April 2014 Department for Communities and Local Government © Crown copyright, 2014 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, email [email protected] or write to us at: Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000 For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK April 2014 ISBN: 978-1-4098-4207-1 Introduction Government is interested in understanding people’s views on architect’s regulation to inform a completely independent review for Architect regulation and the Architects Registration Board. This call for evidence sets out in simple terms the basic considerations which form the basis of the review process, and asks people to respond to specific questions as well as providing the opportunity to submit wider ranging comments and views. The call for evidence questionnaire considers; (1) The Case for Architects Regulation (2) Different Models of Architects Regulation (3) Evaluation of the existing regulatory functions and the Architects Registration board The terms of reference for the periodic review is at Annex A to this document.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Commission Seventh Programme of Law Reform
    THE LAW COMMISSION SEVENTH PROGRAMME OF LAW REFORM Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 15 June 1999 LAW COM No 259 HC 435 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.open.gov.uk/lawcomm/ ii THE LAW COMMISSION SEVENTH PROGRAMME OF LAW REFORM CONTENTS Paragraph Page FOREWORD BY THE CHAIRMAN 1 PART I:WORK DURING THE SEVENTH PROGRAMME OF LAW REFORM 2 Introduction 1.1 2 (1) THE SEVENTH PROGRAMME OF LAW REFORM Consultation 1.3 2 The Law Commission’s project selection criteria 1.6 3 Timing of projects 1.8 4 Further projects 1.11 7 human rights company law a commercial code A rolling programme of law reform 1.16 8 Programme Items 1.17 8 Item 1: Damages 9 Item 2: Limitation of actions 10 Item 3: Illegal transactions 10 Item 4: Compound interest 11 Item 5: Property law 12 Item 6: The law of trusts 14 Item 7: The law of business associations 16 Item 8: Electronic commerce 17 Item 9: Third parties’ rights against insurers 17 Item 10:Criminal law 18 (2) REFERENCES TO THE COMMISSION BY MINISTERS 1.19
    [Show full text]
  • Architects Registration Board Ara Year Ended 31 December 2018
    ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2018 Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government by Command of Her Majesty © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government- licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000 ISBN 978-1-5286-1446-7 CCS0619453160 06/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2018 PERFORMANCE REPORT Statement of the Registrar & Chief Executive, Karen Holmes, on the performance of the Architects Registration Board in 2018. Overview The Annual Report and Financial Statements follow the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. Section 5.2 of the FReM requires us to prepare a “Performance report” which approximates to a Strategic report prepared under the Companies Act 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architects Act 1997 (Swiss Qualifications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
    Regulations made by the Secretary of State, laid before Parliament under paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament within 28 days beginning with the day on which the Regulations were made, subject to extension for periods of dissolution, prorogation or adjournment for more than four days. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2019 No. 810 EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION ARCHITECTS The Architects Act 1997 (Swiss Qualifications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Made - - - - 4th April 2019 Laid before Parliament 5th April 2019 Coming into force in accordance with regulation 1 The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by— (a) in relation to regulation 1, the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c); (b) in relation to regulation 2, section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972( a); (c) in relation to regulations 3 and 4, section 8(1) of, and paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018(b). The Secretary of State is a Minister designated(c) for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in relation to the recognition of higher-education diplomas, formal qualifications, or experience in the occupation, required for the pursuit of professions or occupations. The Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make these Regulations without a draft of the instrument being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament(d). (a) 1972 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Architects Act 1997
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Architects Act 1997. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Architects Act 1997 1997 CHAPTER 22 An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to architects. [19th March 1997] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART I THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD 1 The Board. (1) There shall continue to be a body corporate known as the Architects Registration Board. (2) There shall continue to be a Professional Conduct Committee of the Board. (3) Part I of Schedule 1 makes provision about the Board. (4) Part II of that Schedule makes provision about the Professional Conduct Committee. (5) Part III of that Schedule gives the Board power to establish other committees and makes provision about committees established by the Board. (6) Part IV of that Schedule makes general provision about the Board and its committees. [F11A Designation of the Board as competent authority (1) The Board is designated as the competent authority in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Directive so far as relating to architects. (2) The designation under subsection (1) does not extend to the awarding of degrees, diplomas or other qualifications in architecture. 2 Architects Act 1997 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Architects Act 1997
    Architects Act 1997 CHAPTER 22 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Tim ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION B0AJW Section 1. The Board. PART II REGISTRATION ETC. The Registrar and the Register 2. The Registrar. 3. The Register. Registration 4. Registration: general. 5. Registration: EEA qualifications. 6. Registration: further procedural requirements. 7. Penalty for obtaining registration by false representation. Removal from Register etc. 8. Retention of name in Register. 9. Competence to practise. 10. Disqualification in an EEA State. 11. Failure to notify change of address. List of visiting EEA architects 12. Visiting EEA architects. PART III DISCIPLINE Professional standards 13. Code of practice. c. 22 Architects Act 1997 Section 14. Professional misconduct and incompetence. Disciplinary orders 15. Disciplinary orders. 16. Penalty orders. 17. Suspension orders. 18. Erasure orders. Visiting EEA architects 19. Application of discipline provisions to visiting EEA architects. PART IV USE OF TITLE "ARCHITECT" 20. Use of title "architect". 21. Offence. PART V GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY General 22. Appeals. 23. Rules. 24. Service of documents. Supplementary 25. Interpretation. 26. Consequential amendments. 27. Transitionals, repeals etc. 28. Short title, commencement and extent. SCHEDULES: Schedule 1—The Board and its committees. Part I—The Board. Part IT—The Professional Conduct Committee. Part Ill—Other committees. Part IV—-General. Schedule 2—Transitional provisions and savings. Schedule 3—Repeals and revocations. ELIZABETH II c. 22 Architects Act 1997 1997 CHAPTER 22 An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to architects. [19th March 19971 E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and B Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART I ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BoAIW 1.—(l) There shall continue to be a body corporate known as the The Board.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No
    Draft Legislation: This is a draft item of legislation. This draft has since been made as a UK Statutory Instrument: The Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 717 Draft Regulations laid before Parliament under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2019 No. 0000 EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION ARCHITECTS The Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Made - - - - Coming into force in accordance with regulation 1(2) The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8(1) of, and paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018(1). In accordance with paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7 to that Act, a draft of this instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. PART 1 Introductory Citation and commencement 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. (2) These Regulations come into force on whichever is the later of— (a) exit day, and (b) the day after the day on which these Regulations are made. Interpretation 2. In these Regulations— “the 1997 Act” means the Architects Act 1997(2); (1) 2018 c.16. (2) 1997 c.22. Amended by S.I. 2002/2842, S.I. 2008/1331, S.I. 2011/1043, S.I. 2014/4S.I. 2016/1008 and S.I. 2018/947. Document Generated: 2019-04-07 Draft Legislation: This is a draft item of legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architects Act 1997 (Amendments Etc.) Order 2018
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2018 No. 947 ARCHITECTS The Architects Act 1997 (Amendments etc.) Order 2018 Made - - - - 28th August 2018 Laid before Parliament 30th August 2018 Coming into force - - 7th January 2019 The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph 24 of Schedule 1 to the Architects Act 1997(1), and having consulted in accordance with that paragraph with the Architects Registration Board and such other persons as he considered fit, makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and interpretation 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Architects Act 1997 (Amendments etc.) Order 2018 and comes into force on 7th January 2019. (2) In this Order, “the Act” means the Architects Act 1997. Amendment of Architects Act 1997 2. For “chairman”, each time it occurs in the Act substitute “chair”. 3.—(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 (The Board and its Committees) to the Act is amended as follows. (2) For paragraphs 1 to 3 substitute— “Membership 1.—(1) The Board is to consist of eleven members— (a) a person appointed to be chair of the Board who is not registered in Part 1 of the Register; (b) five other persons not registered in Part 1 of the Register, and (c) five persons registered in Part 1 of the Register. (2) The members are to be appointed by the Privy Council after consultation with the Secretary of State and such other persons or bodies as the Privy Council thinks fit.
    [Show full text]