Contents

An unequal standard across Europe - illustrating the irrational requirement for the RIBA Part III qualification from those applying for registration from the United Kingdom while requiring only the equivalent of an RIBA Part II qualification from those applying from the EU.

A challenge to the unequal standard across Europe - Case Study 4 - describing the injustice of how an established and successful practitioner who would be qualified to practise and to describe himself as an architect within the European Union is prevented from doing so in the United Kingdom and the Union by rule of the Architects Registration Board.   (23 November 2010)

Case Study 4, Part 2 (4 April 2011): With the Appellant's permission we publish the Opinion of Mr Craig Morrison (Brick Court Chambers) here for the information of inquirers and policy-makers. Its conclusion is that the Applicant had two arguable grounds on which to challenge the decision of the Board, namely (1) that it resulted in indefensible inconsistency as regards UK and EU-trained applicants, but that (for the reasons given in the Opinion) counsel believed that this ground was likely to be unsuccessful on appeal; and (2) that the Board’s approach to s.4(1)(b) is contrary to the requirements of the Architects Act 1997, and (in Counsel's view) the second ground had much greater force as a matter of principle (but would be unlikely to lead to the overturning of the Board’s decision as regards the Applicant on the particular facts of this case).

The duty to consult - illustrating concerns raised by the Board's approach to statutory consultation when prescribing qualifications.

The ARB's own examinations - illustrating a means of circumventing the Board's much criticised examinations.

Architectural education in the United Kingdom : Examinations, qualifications and reasonable expectations - This note, published on 2 June 2007 on a separate page, has been submitted by a contributor for the information of inquirers and policy-makers, particularly having regard to the topics of eligibility for membership of the RIBA, mutual recognition of qualifications among EEA States, and freedom to practise as an architect worldwide.  To the article ( To PDF version)

Case Study 3, Part 1 - does the Architects Act comply with EU requirements?

Validation of courses or the prescription of qualifications?  An AARUK contributor, in a letter to Board Members on 9 May 2009, argues that the current practice of the Board is to validate architectural courses rather than (as permitted by the Act) to prescribe qualifications.  He suggests that the whole of the Board's involvement with "learning outcomes" should be unravelled so that the Board can deliver its statutory duty to prescribe qualifications to the equivalent level of RIBA Part II, and no higher.

______________________________________________________________________

Case Study 3 - Does the Architects Act comply with EU requirements?

AARUK has been informed (November 2008) that the European Commission is inquiring into a question about the validity of section 4 of the Architects Act 1997 as amended from 20 June 2008, having regard to the Internal Market requirement imposed on the UK Government by the EU Directive on the mutual recognition of qualifications in architecture (2005/36/EC).

For sequel see the Note of 10 February 2009 : Conflicts of Interest.

See also:

• An unequal Standard across Europe

• the Highton Report, and

• an unofficial version of the Architects Act, as amended and in force (from June 2008).

• Case Study 3, Part 2 and Part 3.

[ back to education contents] [ back to front page ]