Who Scrutinises the ARB?

The following sets out how the Architects Registration Board effectively runs a collective, unaccountable dictatorship. 

The Architects Act established by Parliament in 1997 sets out the ARB’s powers. Its board operates in a quasi-judicial capacity on how to interpret the Architects Act and how European Directives in the UK are implemented. In theory it functions under the auspices of its sponsoring government department, Communities and Local Government. However, in 2010 the ARB and the CLG jointly produced a framework agreement which sets out how the ARB and CLG are content to remain at arms-length from each other for the next five years. Consequently, the government has left the ARB to operate as an autonomous organisation free from any visible democratic accountability. The Minister currently responsible for the ARB is Andrew Stunell MP. 

The ARB is governed by a 15 person board, eight of whom are directly appointed by Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council after consultation with the Secretary of State and other bodies the Privy Council thinks fit; none of the appointed members can be registered architects. The framework agreement states the unelected members are appointed on merit following an open and transparent process and independent assessment. Yet nowhere is it stipulated in that agreement what the “open and transparent process” is, who can apply or indeed, how to apply. Despite giving the appearance of ‘fair-play’ mystery still shrouds the Privy Council and how it makes its decisions or operates. It is accused of obsessive secrecy because of the oath its members take; until 1993 revealing the oath was considered treasonous. The remaining seven members are elected exclusively from Part 1 of the register of architects by other registered architects. Members of the architectural profession who are not on the register (who cannot refer to themselves as architects) have no voting rights yet are governed by its decisions.

It is therefore immediately apparent the unelected, secretly appointed members of the ARB have ultimate control over the registration of architects. The CLG framework agreement makes it clear the ARB operates at “arms-length” from the government even though the CLG’s Accounting Officer (the Permanent Secretary of State) is ultimately accountable to Parliament. Such a light touch, non-interventionalist policy makes it clear both the government and Parliament have no desire to ensure the ARB is not abusing its powers. Unlike the banking profession – where public opinion has forced the government to intervene – the government appear content to leave the ARB board free from even basic scrutiny.

In stark contrast to the UK government, the European Commission does hold the ARB to account. As a direct result, the CLG and the ARB have been forced (much to their chagrin) to amend the Architects Act to ensure its implementation is fair to qualified architects from other EU member states wishing to enter the register of architects in the UK. In the opinion of the EC therefore, the ARB’s interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC was misconceived.

Where European citizens can rely on the European Commission to ensure the law is applied correctly, for UK subjects (of the Queen) the only recourse to how the ARB interprets the Architects Act is not to democratically appointed members of the government but to the Courts directly. (Confirmed in writing by Andrew Stunell MP.) The government therefore ensures the ARB effectively operates as a collective dictator at the behest of the Privy Council with little or no democratic accountability.

As the government have indicated their unwillingness to hold the ARB to account, if an organisation or individual disagrees with the ARB on a point of principle they will have to find at least £50,000 to mount a legal challenge* as petitioning a virtually unassailable 15 person board will no doubt be a fruitless exercise. The ARB, which is funded by a compulsory registration fee (the amount of which the ARB determine themselves and whose liabilities are ultimately underwritten by public money through the Treasury) can therefore sit back and smugly conclude their financial resources are superior to any individual likely to mount a challenge through the Courts. Accountability in the UK therefore comes down to who has the deepest financial resources and not who has a valid point to make.

* There is no general right to appeal on any decision made by the ARB – which is regarded as a public corporation by the Office for National Statistics – as there is for other public bodies; for example when a decision is made on a planning application. The ARB does have an internal appeals process but it is restricted to very specific instances and is generally held by the wider profession to be inadequate. For a general summary on this see “RIBA blasts ARB appeal process as inadequate” Building Design, 30^th November 2007.