RIBA rejects advice to hold fire on Arb
11 December, 2009
Report says institute should wait until after election to demand change
The RIBA has stepped up its fight to take over regulation and registration from the Arb, despite a report arguing it should refrain from tackling the issue until after the election.
In a statement released following the RIBA Council meeting on Tuesday, the institute said it had decided that the duties of the Arb should be transferred to it following a process of research and consultation, with statutory protection of title maintained.
President Ruth Reed said that the move was supported by the findings of a new independent report carried out for the RIBA by academic Christopher Ball.
The report admitted the relationship between Arb and the RIBA resembled a “bad marriage” and predicted that RIBA leaders would wish to see Arb scrapped.
Ruth ReedRIBA president claimed the move was supported by the findings of the report
But it downplayed the importance of the issue, saying there was no consensus in the profession on how to deal with it, and warned that all options should be left open until a new government is formed.
The report, for which Ball consulted with Arb, the Department for Communities & Local Government and other architects, said: “The best interests of the profession will be served if the RIBA plays a waiting game, and resists the temptation to choose a favoured option [until after an election].”
It said the RIBA should first make a serious attempt to reach an accommodation with the regulator, thoroughly consult members and work out the cost and staffing implications before pursuing its likely favoured option.
And it added: “While the issues raised… are indeed awkward, they are not particularly significant in the wider scheme of things. Neither the public nor the profession are — or should be — particularly concerned about them…
“There is evidence of considerable confusion among architects about the whole question of registration and regulation. A divided and confused profession is unlikely to persuade a government to legislate to help it.”
The Conservative Party has pledged to abolish the Arb, and Reed said it was right for RIBA to lobby for this now.
Former president Sunand Prasad is the senior figure understood to have argued most strongly for the latest move and Reed admitted she does not see regulation as a key issue.
“It’s not right for this to be a priority for the institute or the membership,” she said. “I feel quite strongly it’s not the issue of the moment although it does get a lot of media interest.”
Arb chief executive Alison Carr said: “Although we do not agree with all of the detailed points [Ball] made in his report, we take his key message that the Arb and RIBA must seek to work collaboratively together wherever possible.”
RIBA debates its very future
-
Members of RIBA Council were called on to consider radical reforms in the midst of a debate over the future of architecture and the profession on Tuesday.
Former president Sunand Prasad joined new chief executive Harry Rich in putting forward a number of issues to be tackled including the recession, globalisation, climate change and localism.
Prasad pointed out that half of all architects’ fees are now paid for by contractors while Rich said he had a “terror” that architects would miss the opportunity to lead on climate change.
Councillor Paul Fletcher even suggested architects should rethink their focus on buildings. “For too long we have focused on design doing and we’ve got to focus on design thinking — it’s a role outside construction,” he said.
Readers' comments
There is a difference between the Conservative pledge to abolish the ARB and to transfer its responsibilities to the RIBA. Getting rid of registration completely would be the obvious route and would be consistent with free market thinking. Why shouldn't anyone use the title, qualified or not and let the market take care of quality. That's what the Conservative Government thought some 20 years ago. At don't mention "Chartered". It isn't a protected word and anyone can use it.
Am not sure if most architects want the RIBA to be doing this also. Protection of the phrase Architect is ridiculous and archiaic
john, are you an ageing technician by any chance?
The RIBA leadership were too weak to deal with the bleeding obvious conflict of interest of freemasonry within the profession, unlike other venerated Royal Institutions. They are unlikely to be any more effective in other difficult roles.