2 Questions
How does the Architects Registration Board answer inquiries? A 2005 exchange of letters between a registered person and the ARB is an example of how the ARB is going about its business.
The architect put two questions: one about prosecutions against unregistered persons for using the title “Architect”, and the other about the degree of independence of the ARB from government control.
13 December 2005 : architect to former ARB chairman:
Dear Mr Lloyd,
I see that in your statement of 10 advantages in being a registered architect, (circulated with the retention fee invoice) item 2, that the ARB “safeguards against unscrupulous individuals seeking to trade unlawfully” under the title “architect”. Can you please tell me how many prosecutions ARB has brought in the current year against businesses using that title, without having any employee or director who could claim to have completed a recognised training, as distinct from cases in which you have pursued individuals who can claim to have passed RIBA exams parts 1, 2 and 3 but who infringed one or more of the rules set up by ARB, or stood accused of transgressing the professional code?
I see that in the statement of 10 advantages that you say under item 3, that ARB is independent of government control, in that the majority of the Board are appointed by the Privy Council. On the Privy Council's web site they say that they are “one of the oldest parts of government”. The Privy Council comes under the Ministry of Rt Hon Baroness (Valerie) Amos, Lord President of Council. If ARB were independent of Government control, it would not be under the supervision of the Deputy Prime Minister's office, and all board meetings would not be attended by a Civil Servant.
Yours sincerely
19 December 2005 : Reply to Architect from the then ARB Chief Executive and Registrar.
This reply stated that there were six prosecutions for abuse in 2005; named the convicted persons; mentioned that a Guidance Note issued by the RIBA stated that RIBA members wishing to use the title “architect” must be registered with the ARB, and added: “You could check the names against the RIBA membership roll if you wished”.
21 December 2005 : Architect’s reply to ARB Chief Executive and Registrar.
Dear Mr Vaughan,
Thank you for your reply to my letter of 13th December addressed to Mr Lloyd.
I note that you do not challenge my second paragraph. I interpret this as an acknowledgment that ARB's statement to registrants, of 10 advantages, under item 3, that ARB is independent of government control, is incorrect and misleading.
With regard to the questions raised in my first paragraph, of protection of title, your advantages item 2, I would respectfully suggest that your answer is evasive. To put the question in another way, of the six prosecutions for title abuse successfully prosecuted in 2005, can you please tell me how many of those six persons were at one time regarded as sufficiently qualified to be accepted onto the ARB register?
Yours sincerely
4 January 2006 : Reply to Architect from ARB Chief Executive and Registrar.
This stated: “You are wrong to assume that I agree with your view of ARB’s status. As to the names you want I have given you the information I have. I have to comply with the Data Protection Act. The rest is for you.”
6 January 2006 : Architect’s reply to ARB Chief Executive and Registrar.
Dear Mr Vaughan,
Thank you for your reply to my letter of 21 st Dec.
I note that you do not agree with my statement on ARB’s status. In that case, may I enquire which of the my supporting facts you disagree with? These are:–
1. That a majority of the Board members are appointed by the Privy Council.
2. On the Privy Council’s web site they say that they are “one of the oldest parts of government”.
3. The Privy Council comes under the Ministry of Rt. Hon Baroness (Valerie) Amos, Lord President of Council.
4. That ARB is under the supervision of the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, and all board meetings are attended by a Civil Servant.
You say that you are unable to answer the question I posed in my third paragraph and that you are prevented by the Data Protection Act. I did not ask for names (as you imply) or any personal particulars of the cases. Only for the number of persons, out of a total of six, who were at one time regarded as sufficiently qualified to be accepted onto the ARB register? I cannot see therefore, how such information would contravene the DPA. I ask you once again to provide it.
I consider this correspondence to be of pubic interest. I am therefore sending copies to BD.
Yours sincerely
23 January 2006 : Reply to Architect from ARB Chief Executive and Registrar.
This letter declined to “enter into a debate” on whether the ARB was independent of government, choosing instead to refer the architect firstly to the Privy Council and secondly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Registrar then went on to say:
“As to the matter of which persons have been sufficiently qualified to be accepted onto the ARB Register ... I have already given you the names and you can access details of those persons, had they been on the register, as it is published each year. As that seems something you are unwilling to do for yourself I have decided to do it for you.
“Having looked at the registers it seems to me that D— S— used to be on it but no longer is. R— P— is on the Register. I can find no trace of the others”.
[back]