"Crucially,
professional control of the Register was taken away by the government’s
decision which was realised in the 1996/97 Act. This had not been generally expected by those
of the membership who before then had been in favour of continuing protection
of the title ‘architect’. The
significance and effect of the change is now becoming more widely
understood."
(ARB Review Task Group Report, Appendix 2 -
September 2004)
Introductory
In the
event the body was reconstituted as the Architects Registration Board
(1996/1997 Acts). But it was only after
the event that many in the profession came to appreciate the effect of the new
requirement that the majority of the Board should be non-architects and
appointed by the government.
After
nearly a decade of experience of this regime, the profession and others could
usefully consider whether the time has indeed come for discontinuance of
statutory registration. It can be seen
that the regime originating with the 1931 Act served a useful purpose in its
day and under very different conditions from the present. But it is not apparent that the ARB regime
serves any positively productive purpose which could not be done as well or
better by other means, and it must be possible to ask: has the continuation of
the Register under the 1997 Act, and the protection of title that goes with it,
been merely the final phase of an administrative device that has now outlived
its usefulness?
The 1931 Regime
The
basis of the policy (on registration) had always been that the profession was
governed by voluntary associations of practising architects and that the
profession would retain control of registration. This was reflected in the composition of the
registration body (ARCUK) established by the 1931 Act. Shortly after, in the
book published on occasion of the Institute's centenary celebration in 1934 (note 1), in the concluding paragraphs
of the chapter on statutory registration (note 2), Harry Barnes F.R.I.B.A., Chairman of the Registration
Committee, wrote -
" ...... I do not conceive the purpose of the
Registration Act to be that of protecting the Architectural profession. The interests of the Profession are of course
legitimate but are best served by the Architectural Associations in which some
80 per cent of those practising architecture are to be found.
The object of
the Registration Act is to ensure to the public that the architects they employ
possess capacity and character.
Under the
purview of the Board of Architectural Education no one will enjoy the title of
"Registered Architect" without giving evidence of his capacity, and
under that of the Discipline Committee no one will retain the title whose
character has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
The
Architects' Registration Council of the
The
Architects' Registration Council stands at the gateway of the realm of
Architectural practice, but within that realm the affairs of the Architect are
best administered by those voluntary Associations to which he has allied
himself and over the actions of which he has complete control."
After
more than half a century times have changed and a regime of quite another kind
has been installed.
To continue, or not to continue
....
Under
present conditions there are essentially two options respecting registration -
1. Continuance of the Register of
Architects under the ARB regime, subject to amendment of the Act to modify the
Board's statutory powers.
2. Discontinuance of the Register of
Architects by repeal of the Act subject to interim and transitional
arrangements, and other measures (such as regarding education and discipline).
The choice between
continuance and discontinuance is the fundamental issue. A number of subsidiary
issues, including the question of the loss of professional control of the
Register have been raised (see Highton Report).
But even if the ills they indicate could be remedied, the following
analysis indicates that the fundamental issue would remain unresolved.
(1) Protection of the title 'architect'
In relation to statutory protection of title, three
aspects of the world in which architects are practising invite examination. In
summary -
· The design quality of the built environment: this is essentially a cultural concern
which was and remains one of the principal reasons for the formation and
continuance of the RIBA as a chartered body.
It has connotations not only for this country but world wide. It is beyond the ambit of statutory
protection of title.
· The technical sufficiency of buildings: the public interest is secured under
Building Regulations and other enactments.
This too is beyond the statutory protection of the title ‘architect’.
· The business of architectural practice:
contracts of engagement for professional services are always between a
business entity (whether individual, firm, partnership, or company) and the
client, and are governed by the general law, including consumer protection
legislation where applicable. Protection of the title ‘architect’ for business
entities is of no practical relevance for securing the performance of
architectural services.
Can it be maintained in the light of experience since the inception of
the Register under the 1931 Act, and more particularly under the ARB regime
from 1997, that protection of title serves useful purposes in respect of the
aspects indicated above (namely, promoting the quality of the built
environment, or securing the technical sufficiency of buildings or the
performance of architectural services)?
If protection of the title ‘architect’ were discontinued the adverse
effect is likely to be nil.
(2) Due recognition for Chartered Architects
Moreover, there is an anomaly which discontinuance would
remove. This is that a person qualified and duly elected as a full chartered
member of the RIBA is not permitted to practise using the title 'Architect' or
'Chartered Architect' (note 3). In fact, the duality of control over the
style ‘Chartered Architect’, which confers a professional status well
recognised by the general public, and the statutory control of the use of the
common word ‘architect’ tends more to confusion than clarity.
Discontinuance would allow a Chartered Architect to practise as such
without further registration, and would leave the Institute with its proper
responsibility for determining the qualifications recognised for conferring
professional status to practise as a Chartered Architect. The Institute exercises this responsibility
in furtherance of the objective: “the advancement of Architecture and the
promotion of the acquirement of the knowledge of the Arts and Sciences
connected therewith” (Charter Article 2.1).
(3) Registration without statutory protection of title
If there is a case for maintaining a register of persons qualified as
architects without the statutory protection of title what sort of body is best
able to prescribe and develop the qualifications? Surely that can only be a body constituted
mainly, if not exclusively, of members of the practising profession.
Of course the RIBA has such a register of Chartered Architects. Is there a need for a register for persons
who are qualified to become chartered architects but have chosen not to? It should be noted that a certain proportion
of persons who are qualified to be chartered architects choose neither to be
registered nor join the Institute and yet may be engaged in performing
architectural services. In a free
economy it must be for the chartered body to make itself sufficiently
attractive to maintain its membership and in any event persons who choose not
to be chartered members of the RIBA are free to form their own professional
association(s) with their own exclusive use of title.
(4) Registration related to protected
function: Building Regulations
There may be a case for a registration regime in respect
of part of the function of building design, namely, for the purpose of the
Building Act 1984. Registration could be
given to persons specifically qualified, whether in the field of architecture,
engineering, or surveying, that is, across all disciplines contributing to the
building process; and if that proposal were adopted all the chartered bodies
would be expected to collaborate in enabling this to be done. In the 21st century such a thing
is likely to be more useful than the Architects Act and a better bargain both
for the public at large (note 4) and
for clients who, as building owners and developers, are required to comply with
statutory provisions under the Building Act.
Implementation of statutory registration in this field would have the
advantage of being able to draw on the existing law as contained in the
Building Act 1984 (note 5).
NOTES
(as
numbered in text)
1. The
Growth and Work of the Royal Institute of British Architects edited by
J.A.Gotch PPRIBA.
2. In this
chapter the author includes an informative account of the history of
registration quoting extensively an article published in the RIBA Journal of
3. This
is especially anomalous when it is considered that (a) full chartered
membership of the Institute is conditional on a person passing its examinations
(or having obtained qualifications giving exemption from those examinations),
and (b) the RIBA’s position as the principal body of practising architects in
deciding the attributes which are fitting and necessary in an individual who is
to be a member of the architects’ profession. When registration was controlled
by the profession and the RIBA had a dominant influence this anomaly could be
satisfactorily explained, but this is no longer the case.
4. e.g. in the saving of some of the resources
devoted to Building Control by Local Authorities.
5. See section 17 (approved certifiers) and section 49 (approved
inspectors). See also, section 7 of the
APPENDIX
Statutory
registration - chronology of key events
1834 Royal Institute of British Architects granted its
Royal Charter.
1884 Society of Architects formed, after a campaign by a
group of ARIBA to be allowed to vote on RIBA affairs had been resisted by
FRIBA.
1887 Architects and Engineers Registration Act Committee
formed as an independent committee to promote a bill for registration of
architects, engineers and surveyors. The bill was withdrawn after chief bodies
representing engineers petitioned against it.
1889&1891 Architects Registration Bill Committee
put forward bills for registration of architects, which were strongly supported
by the Society of Architects but opposed by an independent group of
prominent architects and artists.
1892 Papers published, defining the profession of
architecture:
Norman
Shaw and T.G.Jackson (eds.) “Architecture, A Profession or an Art”.
William
H. White “The Architect and his artists, An essay to assist the public in
considering the question is architecture a profession or an art”.
1902 Architects Registration Bill Committee amalgamated
with the Society of Architects as a joint Registration Committee.
1905 RIBA Education Policy was adopted for statutory
powers to secure satisfactory training for architects by way of registration of
title, by and through the RIBA.
1908 RIBA Licentiate Class formed, for architects who
could show evidence of competence, without exams. On closure in 1913, over 2000
had been accepted.
1924-1959 RIBA Standing Registration Committee
1925 Amalgamation of RIBA and Society of Architects:
most of Soc. of Arch. Members transferred to Licentiate class, which was
reopened.
1927 RIBA Registration Committee has draft bill
introduced in Parliament, but opposed by IAAS and FAS.
1931
Bill
recast and enacted as the Architects (Registration ) Act 1931, enabling
the Register of Architects to be established under a statutory body called the Architects
Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK). The Council was to be made up of
representatives of all architectural bodies in
1938 The Architects Registration Act, 1938 changed the
protected title from “Registered Architect” to “Architect”.
1992
Government,
in response to a request from ARCUK, commissioned review of the Architects
Registration Acts by an independent assessor (John Warne).
1993
Warne Report published - principal
recommendation: abolition of protection of title ‘architect’ and disbanding of
ARCUK. RIBA Council initially supported
this recommendation, but this was resisted by the RIBA membership. As a result RIBA campaigned for the retention
of protection of title with a ‘stream-lined’ registration board.
1996
Part III of Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, among other things,
reconstituted the registration body as the Architects Registration Board
(ARB).
1997 Architects Act 1997, a consolidating act, brought together the provisions of Part III of the 1996 Act and previous registration legislation. The Architects Registration Board then established with a majority of appointed lay members and a minority of elected Architect members.
---------------------------------------------
[Back]
(Minor
corrections 8 December 2006)
The
author of this article has consented to publication in whole or in part by
Wikipedia on the terms of that organisation. 14 April 2010.