The Architects Act is quite clear in stating there should be an alternative to the prescribed qualifications (Part III), yet the Architects Registration Board steadfastly refuses to explain why it does not provide one. Below the truth is revealed.
As this is quite complex issue, a non-technical explanation first.
It is a commonly held view that to register as an architect in the UK a candidate must first successfully complete the Part III professional examination. However, and this is crucial, the law also states that a person who can demonstrate “equivalent competence” to that of the Part III examination is also entitled to become a registered architect.
So why is this fact deliberately concealed by both the Architects Registration Board and the Royal Institute of British Architects? The simple logic of it is if an alternative to the current Part III qualification in the UK was offered – for example a technical assessment of competence similar to that provided by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland – there could be an abrupt shift from candidates signing up for a Part III course (provided by a number of Schools of Architecture) to opt for the alternative examination and/or assessment. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the income received by the Schools of Architecture could then be threatened and so would the continued existence of the Part III examination as we know it. This is why neither the ARB nor the RIBA offer any alternative to the hegemony of the Part III examination even though they are legally obligated to do so.
On this basis it is entirely understandable (but legally dubious) for the ARB/RIBA/Schools of Architecture triumvirate to selectively implement the Architects Act. The RIBA quite obviously has no desire to undermine its own exam and the Schools of Architecture effectively have a gun held to their head by the ARB; acquiesce or have your accreditation removed. But what if you cannot for any reason complete a Part III course? Not because you cannot reach the standard set – as that would be lowering the standard expected – but simply because for example, you cannot meet the ARB/RIBA requirements in order to complete the Case Study element of the course? Should you not then be offered an alternative solution as the law stipulates?
Buried deep in the ARB’s publication ‘Routes to Registration as an Architect in the UK’ is the proof that candidates can (and do) register as an architect without having first obtained the Part III qualification. (The ARB has also acknowledged this as a fact.) True to its secretive nature the criteria the ARB applies to the select number of candidates who were able to demonstrate “equivalent competence” and have subsequently registered by this route, remains known only to the ARB. It is not difficult to see that if it is done not on applying rational ‘equivalent’ criteria but more on a nod and a wink basis, those who are effectively forced down the Part III route would feel mightily aggrieved if it were to become public knowledge that candidates can get on the register without having first achieved the standards set by Part III. The only rational explanation for the ARB to continue concealing the criteria it applies in these cases is that the criteria are in fact less stringent than the Part III qualification and that is precisely why it remains secret.
If anyone or any organisation can afford to risk about £100,000 they would have a very high probability of winning a Judicial Review of the ARB/RIBA mantra which claims the only way to qualify as an architect is to successfully complete a Part III course. The ARB/RIBA/Schools all know very well no-one is likely to make a challenge so the myth prevails.
Compare this approach with the Republic of Ireland. Over there, they offer both professional exams and a technical assessment to potential candidates both of which happily co-exist and lead to registration. However, in the UK we only have one choice and the ARB/RIBA/Schools make sure the myth is perpetuated to avoid having to provide an alternative as the law states. Worse, they refuse to explain why. So there you have it; in our so called democracy you have unaccountable UK organisations acting like those foreign dictator states the British all too readily want to democratise.
Section 4(1) of the Architects Act 1997 states:
A person who has applied to the registrar in the prescribed manner for registration in pursuance of this section is entitled to be registered in Part 1 of the Register if:
(a) he holds such qualifications and has gained such practical experience as may be prescribed; or
(b) he has a standard of competence which, in the opinion of the board, is equivalent to that demonstrated by satisfying paragraph (a).
However, under Section 4(2) the Board may require a person who applies for registration on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(b) to pass a prescribed examination in architecture.
It cannot be clearer that Section 4(1)(b) creates a legitimate expectation there should be an alternative to Section 4(1)(a). Otherwise paragraph 4(1)(b) is meaningless. In response to Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act, the ARB publishes a policy (General Rule 14) to guide it in meeting the intentions of the Act. General Rule 14 is quite clear in stating:
The examination in architecture prescribed by the Board pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Act (for determining competence pursuant to Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act), shall be one or more of the following:
a) an examination conducted by the Board or a Committee established by the Board;
b) an examination in any subject area(s) nominated by the Board at final level conducted by a school of architecture which awards a prescribed qualification;
c) any other examination which the Board may approve for this purpose;
d) any oral or written examination carried out under such procedures as the Board may establish.
Yet the Architects Registration Board offer none of the equivalent competencies set out at a), b), c) or d) at final level to potential candidates for registration. Furthermore, the Architects Registration Board’s Board has stated their ‘opinion’ as required under the Architects Act as being:
That a person with equivalent competence required by Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act should hold equivalent qualifications to the prescribed qualifications.
Yet – by choice – the Architects Registration Board does not provide “equivalent qualifications” at final level nor does any School of Architecture or franchised establishment. As a direct consequence, the Architects Registration Board is acting unreasonably and beyond its powers by fettering its discretion to ensure that de facto Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act can only be met by obtaining the prescribed ‘Part III qualification’. In so doing, the Architects Registration Board has created a situation where it implements Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Architects Act in an identical manner; a manner that is quite clearly contrary to the intentions of Parliament.
Consequently the ARB’s approach to Section 4(1)(b) is unlawful. The ARB know it, the RIBA know it too; yet they do nothing about it. They get away with it because no-one is prepared to go the High Court and challenge it. So as long as Parliament is content to keep the ARB at arms-length the ARB are permitted to break the law with impunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment