Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on proposed amendments to the Architects Act 1997

Updated 8 June 2021

Executive summary

This document sets out the government’s response to the consultation on proposed amendments to the Architects Act 1997. The consultation document contained 65 questions aimed at gathering views on proposed legislative changes to the regulation of architects in the UK and was split into two thematic sections.

Each section was divided into topical chapters which set out our detailed proposals to:

Part A: Building Safety

• strengthen the Architect Registration Board’s role in monitoring and maintaining the competence of architects on their register
• provide architects with further recourse to contest a decision made by the Architect Registration Board
• increase public confidence by listing disciplinary orders against an architect on the register
• allow the Architect Registration Board to expand its list of chargeable services to cover the full range of services by the Architect Registration Board

Part B: The recognition of international architects

• amend the recognition of internationally qualified architects through the creation of a new recognition system for EU and non-EU qualified international architects

Background

Part A of the consultation built on the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety (‘the Independent Review’). The government accepted all the Independent Review’s findings and recommendations and is bringing forward fundamental reforms of the entire regulatory system through the Building Safety Bill, which places greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the lifecycle of buildings in scope of the new regulatory regime for building safety, including in the building’s design phase.

These provisions proposed in Part A of the consultation sit alongside wider requirements for those carrying out design and building work to have the relevant competence to carry out their role in a way that achieves safe and high-quality outcomes.

In conjunction with this, the United Kingdom has formally left the European Union and in doing so, can revise and reform many of our regulatory processes. This extends to the recognition of international architects, the proposals of which were detailed in Part B of the consultation.

The government aims to both improve the competence of architects and to formulate a cohesive system of international qualification recognition.

The report and responses

Methodology

We sought the views of everyone affected by the proposals set out in the consultation. To ensure that all were able to respond as fully and effectively as possible we published the consultation on GOV.UK, which included a link to the online questionnaire hosted on Microsoft Forms. We also provided contact details in case of difficulties or queries.

Alongside the online questionnaire, we also undertook eight roundtables to engage in dialogue with the architectural sector on our proposals and gather qualitative data. These roundtables were arranged regionally across the United Kingdom, including each of the Devolved Administrations, as well as one tailored event for Schools of Architecture. Qualitative data collected from these roundtables has been consolidated with written responses to form the “Response Summary” sections.

All responses we received have been considered and this document provides a summary of those responses. Many of the questions prompted respondents to select a level of agreement with proposals and some asked for respondents to pick from a choice of options. Where open questions were asked or free text boxes provided, all responses were analysed to identify common themes and coded where possible to collate similar views and comments.

Respondents were permitted to answer as many or as few questions as they wished. Unless otherwise stated, the figures set out in this document represent the number of responses received for that question and not the number of responses received to the overall consultation.

A number of respondents submitted their responses via the dedicated mailbox. Some did not follow the questions or sections as set out in the consultation document and online questionnaire. As a result, questions that were not referred to in their written response were coded as “did not respond.”

Who responded?

In total 404 individuals and organisations responded to this consultation via the online questionnaire and via our dedicated mailbox.

Respondent Classification	Number of responses	Percentage
UK qualified architect	241	60%
Internationally qualified architect	57	14%
UK and Internationally qualified architect	8	2%
UK architectural school faculty member	5	1%
UK architectural school student	6	1%
UK qualified architect & academic	3	1%
International architectural school faculty member	0	0%
International architectural school student	1	0%
Procurer of architectural services	3	1%
Organisation	39	10%
Other (individual)	41	10%

The responses received have informed, and will continue to inform, policy and legislative changes that will drive forward improvements to the regulation of architects in the UK.

We extend our thanks to all those who shared their views and experiences with us throughout the consultation process.

1. Competence and appeals

1.1 Competence

Background

The Architects Act 1997 currently provides the Architects Registration Board (the ARB) with the power to prescribe the entry requirements for individuals seeking to join the register. This power does not extend to the continued scrutiny of an architect’s competence throughout their career. Currently an architect could be practising in the UK throughout their career without any proactive regulatory oversight.

In the consultation, the government proposed that the ARB be granted the power to monitor the competence of architects throughout their period of registration, to bring the architects profession in line with best practice and the regulation of other professionals in the UK.

The Building Safety Bill as published in draft on 20 July 2020 includes, at Clause 111, 3(a), an expansion of the Architects Act definition of “competence to practise” to also include designation for the “undertaking of recent training.”

The proposal was that the ARB would be able to determine which professional competences should be assessed and how the assessment should take place. If an architect could not meet the new requirements set out by the ARB to a sufficient standard, they may be removed from the register. Architects would be able to request extensions to complete further necessary training without being removed from the register. The approval process and length of time for such an extension would be determined by the ARB.

Response summary

Impact of the proposal

Questions 1 to 4 considered the benefits of the proposal to architects and to promoting best practice. A majority of respondents commented that setting and assessing ongoing competence requirements would have a benefit to promoting best practice, although some respondents were sceptical that the proposal would work within the existing regulatory landscape.

Breakdown

Only 20% of respondents stated that the setting and assessing of competence requirements would have no impact on promoting best practice amongst architects. 23% of respondents to the question noted that this would have a sizeable impact, whilst 25% and 32% indicated that this would have a moderate or minimal impact, respectively.

Of those who responded 346 further elaborated on their response. 19.7% of those respondents independently commented that periodic testing would be welcome to establish a minimum level of knowledge, promote best practise and keep the profession relevant. A further 13.6% stated that these proposals could be useful in defining the architect’s role on site or with regards to fire and life safety or technical detailing. Furthermore, 10.4% respondents advocated for the reservation of activities in relation to the practice of architecture and 17.9% commented that other professions in the design and construction sector are unregulated and so these proposals may encourage some architects to leave the register.

67% stated that they agree that monitoring or testing of competence would have some benefit for architects – 47% believed that it would have sizeable or moderate benefit, whilst 27% believed that it would have minimal benefit. 26% of respondents believed that it would have no benefit. 318 respondents took the opportunity to elaborate on their answer, with 18% of respondents stating that the competence of architects is already maintained and monitored to a satisfactory level through their professional body and 14.2% believed that it would be difficult or burdensome to undertake. However, 17.3% believed that it would be a good way to demonstrate competence and promote good practice across the entire profession.

Confidence

Questions 5 to 7 looked at respondents’ confidence of the establishment of effective criteria. Less than half of respondents were confident that effective criteria could be established and cited the variation of the profession and the risk of the regime becoming a tick-box exercise.

Breakdown

59% of respondents stated that they are either not very or not at all confident that effective criteria can be established which would improve an architect’s competence. Of those respondents who elaborated on their answer, the majority said that architectural practice is too varied and specialised to establish and assess criteria, noting that generalised criteria would be ineffective and create a ‘box-ticking’ culture.

20.7% of respondents also noted that any scheme would need clear, unambiguous requirements as well as greater clarification on who would be setting standards, assessing and monitoring. When asked whether any changes to the regulatory landscape would increase confidence of the establishment of effective criteria, 24.9% of responses featured a reference to reservation of function. Other suggestions included amendments to initial qualification training, on-site training, simplifications to statutory guidance, regulation of other built environment professionals and specialist registers.

Competence system – General

The next set of questions were regarding the general principles of the proposed system. Respondents predominantly responded that any competence regime should consider practical elements of practice and there was support for alignment with the rest of the construction sector through consideration of the competence standards being developed by the British Standard Institution. There was an even split between support and opposition to the introduction of a competence regime.

Breakdown

When asked whether the ARB should monitor and assess an architect’s competence, 50% of respondents agreed with the proposal and 50% of respondents disagreed. Respondents commented that the ARB should take into account overwhelmingly practical aspects of practice such as; building regulations, contracts law, client relationships and roles, procurement practices, site inspections, health and safety, risk management, project management, finances and leadership. Some respondents also drew attention to aspects of design such as building technology, sustainability and fire and life safety.

18.3% of respondents added that ARB should not duplicate the existing work of the RIBA and that designation of roles and responsibilities should be clear. 15.5% of respondents also commented that the ARB Board do not necessarily hold the technical competence to set or administer a competence regime. When asked whether competence requirements should take into account ongoing competence work by the BSI, 60% of respondents agreed, nearly half of whom cited the need to engage with the rest of the sector. However, 25.7% of respondents commented that there are too many standards to follow.

Competence system – Form and function

Questions 12 to 15 asked about the specific form and functions of the proposed regime. There was great support for a Continuous Professional Development system, whereby the ARB had to consult with other organisations such as the professional bodies and which was reviewed periodically at the discretion of the ARB Board.

Breakdown

In response to question 12, 42% of respondents believed that competence standard reviews should occur at the discretion of the ARB Board, whilst 33% believed that they should happen every 5 years, 17% believed that they should happen every 3 years and 9% believed that they should happen every year.

When asked how the ARB should develop their new competence requirements, 72.7% of respondents believed that the ARB should consult other organisations like RIBA. 54% believed that they should look at the regulatory standards of other nations, and 50% believed that they should undertake written consultation with the sector.

47.2% and 47% believed that the ARB should consult with Schools of Architecture and by examining the standards of other professions, respectively. When asked what form the competence checks should take, 69.1% believed that this should be a mandated number of hours of Continuous Professional Development. 38.7% selected an annual declaration and 17.8% selected regular testing of all architects. Only 12.5% selected testing of a random sample of architects.

Existing arrangements

The final set of questions relating to competence were gathering information on the existing picture. Whilst the vast majority of respondents stated that they undertook learning, a much smaller percentage indicated that they undertook any testing or assessment.

Breakdown

When asked whether architect respondents undertake learning to maintain or develop professional skills 97% said that they did. The most common method of administration was mandatory through their professional body (66.1%), followed by other self-sought learning (65.5%), optional through the workplace (40.7%) and mandatory through the workplace (23%). 73.8% of respondents selected that they spend more than 20 hours annually on CPD, whilst 17.9% selected that they spend between 10-20 hours annually.

79% of respondents indicated that they do not undertake any testing to demonstrate competence.

Findings

We recognise the potential benefits of ongoing monitoring and testing of the competence of architects to promoting best practice in the sector and to architects. In light of the responses received in this consultation, the government will give the ARB the power to monitor and assess competence of architects throughout their careers in the forthcoming Building Safety Bill.

The details of this system of competence monitoring will be developed within the ARB’s Competence Review. The ARB will set the criteria, in conjunction with other relevant bodies (such as the Royal Institute of British Architects) and after consultation with the sector.

The government will work with the ARB to ensure that the feedback in this consultation on how ongoing competence monitoring should work in practice is taken into account. In particular, we take note of the preferences expressed for the system to avoid duplication with existing regimes set by the professional bodies, to avoid a “tick-box” exercise and to ensure that the breadth of the profession is taken into account.

We also take note that respondents overwhelmingly supported that the practical aspects of practice (such as contract law, procurement, site inspections and project management) were part of any potential Continuous Professional Development criteria.

1.2 Appeals

Background

The government consulted on the creation of a new appeals process, through either an internal or an independent committee within the ARB^{[footnote 1]}. This would allow individuals a route to dispute decisions. The option to take their case to the High Court as provided for in section 22 of the Architects Act 1997 would remain in case an individual is still unsatisfied with the outcome from the proposed new appeals system. We proposed that this system covered the appeal of decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the competence regime.

Response summary

Form of the appeals body

Questions 20 and 21 considered the options of an internal committee within the ARB to hear appeals as opposed to an external independent body. Respondents supported an internal committee within the ARB but expressed a desire for the committee to have the appropriate knowledge and be appropriately independent.

Breakdown

57% of respondents supported the proposal for an appeals committee to be established as an internal independent committee within the ARB. Respondents referred to simplicity and the appropriateness of the appeals committee being within the same organisation. Comments stressed that the appeals committee will need to be ‘fully independent’ and provide assurance that decisions would be unbiased and not favour the ARB. It was suggested that involvement from professional bodies and other organisations would help to address any potential conflict of interests and maintain accountability of the process.

Respondents also expressed a desire for the appeals board to be composed of individuals with appropriate knowledge and experience to make a fair judgement - this was suggested to be a committee comprised of majority architects to allow for peer review. This preference was often qualified as those with ‘full expertise’, familiar ‘with the working practises and conditions of architects’ or ‘knowledge of the discipline’, as ‘those hearing appeals need to be aware of the expected roles of an architect and the current markets they work in’. A small proportion of respondents also noted that other industry professionals would be welcome.

Costs

Questions 23 and 24 considered different funding models for the appeals process. There was general support for the fees to be covered by unsuccessful applicants and responses were split on the raising of the retention fee to fund an independent body.

Breakdown

61% of responses agreed with the proposal that for an internal committee within the ARB, it will be reasonable for individuals to pay a fee (determined on a cost-recovery basis) if their case is unsuccessful.

It was noted by some respondents that although they agree that it is reasonable for individuals to pay a fee (determined on a cost-recovery basis) if their case is unsuccessful, the level at which said fees cannot create a barrier for those who would like to go through the appeals process. When respondents who supported an independent body were asked whether they would still support the creation of an independent body if it meant a higher annual retention fee, but no fees relating to appeals, 51% answered “no”.

Remit

The final questions considered the remit of the appeals process. There was support for a broad range of decisions to be within scope of the appeals process, but less consensus on whether the appeal should be noted on the architect’s register entry whilst this is in progress.

Breakdown

54% of respondents believed that when an architect under disciplinary order is undergoing an appeal, the register should show the disciplinary order until it has been successfully appealed. When asked which types of decisions should be within scope of the appeals process, 76.8% believed that decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the new competence regime should be within the remit of the appeals body.

72.3% of responses supported appealing decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the existing complaints procedure and 54.5% supported an applicant to the Register appealing an unsuccessful application. 45.8% indicated support for a complainant appealing a decision against an architect with whom they are unsatisfied. Comments spoke to a need for one complaints process to provide clarity.

Findings

As set out in the consultation, the government believes it is right to implement a new appeal process to give architects disputing decisions made by the ARB resource to contest their decision. This should include the hearing of appeals to decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the competence regime.

In light of the responses received to this consultation, the government will give the ARB the power to establish an internal and independent appeals committee to hear the appeals. This will not require primary legislation, as we will use existing powers in the Architects Act 1997.

We will work with the ARB to develop a selection process for committee members that allows for the right levels of expertise without compromising the independence of the committee, as well as to determine the remit of the appeals body as informed by the responses to the consultation.

The option to take their case to the High Court as provided for in section 22 of the Architects Act 1997 would remain in case an individual is still unsatisfied with the outcome from the proposed new appeals system.

The government believes that individuals should pay a fee (determined on a cost recovery basis) if their case is unsuccessful. The fees charged relating to the appeals process will be considered alongside other fee provisions set out in Chapter 3 (“Fees”) of this consultation.

2. Listing

Background

Disciplinary orders against an architect reached by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) are currently published on the ARB’s website. The PCC may issue a reprimand, impose a penalty order (fine), issue a suspension or order an erasure from the architects register.

The government proposed that where disciplinary orders are made against an architect by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), that these would be listed alongside the architect’s entry on the public register to help ensure that members of the public using the register to procure architectural services can make an informed decision when choosing which architect to employ.

The ARB Board would make rules to determine the length of time that a disciplinary order would be listed on the register as a note on the architect’s entry. The length of time that the disciplinary order will be listed on the Register would depend on the severity of the offence and once this time period has lapsed, the note on the architect’s register entry would be removed.

If an architect felt that a disciplinary order made against them is either unjust or inaccurate, they would have the option under existing legislation to appeal the finding to the High Court. On a successful appeal (and while the appeal is ongoing), the disciplinary action would not be listed on the register.

If an architect is erased from the register by the PCC, their Register entry is deleted. If the architect successfully re-registers, the ARB Board would decide whether the erasure order should be noted on the register, and for how long.

Response summary

Impact of the proposal

Questions 27 to 29 considered the impacts of the proposal on the sector and on public confidence. Respondents were sceptical of the benefits of displaying disciplinary orders against an architect on the public register, citing low morale and potential damage to public confidence. There was also a lack of consensus on whether the proposal would act as a deterrent.

Breakdown

58 % of respondents stated that they do not agree that publicly displaying disciplinary orders against a registered architect would promote public confidence in the profession. Respondents explained that displaying disciplinary orders on the Register could lead to low morale of architects and damage public confidence. Respondents also expressed concern that this measure might single out architects in the built environment and not cover other built environment professionals.

42% of respondents stated that they believe the measure would increase confidence in the profession. Of those who further elaborated on their answer the majority stated that the measure would promote honesty and transparency for the public. When asked whether publicly displaying disciplinary orders on the Register would act as an effective deterrent to acts of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence, there was no consensus in view among respondents. 50% of respondents agreed that the measure would as a deterrent and 50% of respondent disagreed.

The listing system

When asked about the details of the proposed system itself, a higher proportion of respondents agreed that the ARB should make rules to determine the length of time a disciplinary order is visible on the register. Respondents also provided alternative suggestions on how the rules should be made, including involving the professional bodies. The majority of respondents stated that the length of time a disciplinary action is listed should correspond to the severity of the offence.

Breakdown

62% of respondents agreed that the ARB Board should determine the rules for the length of time a disciplinary order is visible on the Register. Those who disagreed suggested involving the professional body, RIBA, or an independent body in the determination of rules. 74% of respondents agreed that the length of time a disciplinary order is visible on the Register should be set depending on the severity of the order.

When asked what level of transparency is appropriate when the ARB Board determines the rules setting out the length of time a disciplinary order is listed 52% of respondents said the ARB Board papers should be published on the ARB website and decisions detailed in those papers, 58% stated that the lengths of time and the rules determining the disciplinary order rules should be published and accessible on the ARB website, 62.4% stated that the ARB should undertake consultation with the sector and 20.4% of respondents stated that the ARB should seek governmental approval.

When asked what information should be accessible when a disciplinary action is displayed against an architect, there was a lack of consensus but a higher proportion (55%) stated that the Register should detail the reasons for the disciplinary order, including the date of the offence and length of the disciplinary action as opposed to the alternative option of only listing the disciplinary order itself.

Findings

We recognise that concerns have been raised in this consultation that publicly displaying disciplinary orders against a registered architect may lower morale in the profession and ‘single out’ architects on the register.

However, as also shown in the responses to this consultation, the government believes that doing so will improve transparency, promote public confidence in the profession, and may deter poor professional conduct or incompetence.

Therefore, government will give the ARB powers to publish disciplinary orders against an architect on the register by the PCC in the forthcoming Building Safety Bill.

The government will work with the ARB to determine the length of time a disciplinary order shall be listed on the register. We think that the time the order is listed should take into account the severity of the order. The ARB will also consult the sector in the determination of those rules. The ARB will publish the rules determining the lengths of time a disciplinary order will be listed on its website.

3. Fees

Background

Currently there is a limited list of services for which the ARB Board can charge. These are set out in the Architects Act 1997. The cost of the majority of the ARB’s functions is currently met by registration and annual retention fees for the architects register under section 8 of the 1997 Act. This is charged by the ARB to all architects to maintain regulated status.

To ensure the ARB has the resource to deliver its services and to minimise impact on the annual retention fee, in particular for those architects that do not utilise additional services, the government proposed to amend the Architects Act 1997 to enable the ARB to charge for additional regulatory services.

The Building Safety Bill as published in draft on 20 July 2020 includes, at clause 112, a power for the Secretary of State to make provision for the services for which the ARB Board may charge a fee. Fees would be designed to recover full costs and not intended to make a profit.

The government considered two options to amend the Architects Act 1997. One option was to use secondary legislation to set out a prescriptive list of services and service types outside of the ARB’s core duties for which the ARB Board can charge fees. This would mean the ARB would only be able to charge for services listed in the legislation.

A second option was to amend the Architects Act 1997 to allow the ARB Board to determine the services and service types, outside of its core duties, for which fees could be charged. This would allow the ARB Board to amend the rules around fees as and when necessary to manage its business.

Response summary

Fees system – General

Questions 35 to 37 considered the impact and structure of a fees system. There was a lack of consensus on whether the ARB should have the ability to charge for additional fees, but generally respondents preferred for any chargeable services to be listed in legislation. If chargeable services are at the discretion of the ARB Board, a small majority of respondents agreed that the ARB should be required to consult with the sector.

Breakdown

49% of respondents agreed with the proposals for the ARB to be granted a power to charge fees for services, whilst 51% replied “No”. 61% of respondents preferred for chargeable services to be listed in legislation, as opposed to 39% who believed that the ARB Board should determine the services for which it can charge.

Question 37 questioned the level of scrutiny required if the ARB Board were able to determine chargeable services, and 62.9% of respondents replied that, if the ARB Board can determine chargeable services, the ARB should undertake consultation with the sector. 58% believed that the list of chargeable services and fee amounts should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website, 39.8% selected that ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are stated in those papers and 26% selected that the ARB should seek governmental approval.

Fees system – Chargeable services

Questions 38 to 43 interrogated the types of services for which the ARB may be able to charge. There were general comments about the annual retention fee, including suggestions for fee reductions for architects out of employment. On the matter of higher education prescription, there was wider support for charging international Schools of Architecture for prescription as opposed to domestic institutions. There was also support from the majority of respondents for the charging of a fee with regards to matters relating to international registration.

Breakdown

When asked whether other services should be considered for charging, respondents replied that they would generally pay a higher retention fee for a more comprehensive offer from the ARB which included greater engagement on Professional Indemnity Insurance issues, specialist registers or greater involvement in the reduction of the illegal use of the title of “architect.”

Further respondents commented that the annual retention fee should be reduced for the unemployed or small practices. Some respondents drew a link to charges for competence or international recognition, as related to proposals featured in other sections of the consultation.

46% of respondents believed that UK Schools of Architecture should pay a fee for prescription, compared to 66% of respondents who believed that international Schools of Architecture should pay for prescription. 51% of respondents believed that the initial application fee should depend on the architects’ route of their recognition, on a cost-recovery basis.

When asked about which types of services the ARB should charge for, 78.5% of respondents believed that individuals holding international qualifications wishing to register in the UK should pay a charge. 65.6% of respondents believed that the ARB should charge for prescription of qualifications provided by international institutions. 57.7% supported the ARB charge for the provision of evidence for UK qualified individuals wishing to register abroad and 40.5% supported that the ARB charge for the prescription of qualifications provided by domestic Schools of Architecture.

With regards to the level of transparency, 67.8% believed that the process for payment should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website and 62.7% believed that the ARB should undertake consultation with the sector. 49.4% selected that ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are stated in those papers.

Findings

In light of the responses received in this consultation, the government will introduce a power in the forthcoming Building Safety Bill to extend the provisions for the ARB to charge for additional regulatory services. This will extend the currently limited list of chargeable services the ARB can administer, as set out in the Architects Act 1997.

The government also wishes to minimise the impact on the annual retention fee, if possible. This extended charging regime is intended to ensure the ARB has the resources it needs to deliver additional services – including implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements or Memoranda of Understanding relating to the regulation of architects and the administration of the new monitoring of competence regime. As stated in the consultation, fees would be designed to recover full costs and not intended to make a profit.

The government will implement this charging regime in Regulations, providing clarity on the additional services for which the ARB may charge. This will mean that the ARB would only be able to charge for services listed in the legislation.

The government will also work with the ARB to further consider the question of charging for prescription (both domestic and international) as well as the variation in initial application fee depending on the route to recognition.

4. New recognition system for international architects

Background

The consultation considered proposals for a new system for the recognition of international architects. The government proposed two options for a new recognition system:

Option 1: To allow the ARB to recognise international qualifications it deems equivalent to UK standards, allowing holders of those qualifications to be exempt from sitting Prescribed Exams. Once qualifications are deemed equivalent, they would be added to a list held by the ARB. This would be a single, cohesive system of recognition, which would provide the same opportunities for recognition to architects qualified in the EU and the rest of the world.

The ARB would have the flexibility to prescribe compensation measures to ensure that all individuals registering under this process are held to equivalent standards. Any compensation measures would be designed to identify and address gaps, to ensure all architects registering in the UK meet the same standard. The existing Prescribed Exam route would remain for holders of qualifications which are not listed.

This was the Government’s preferred policy option.

Option 2: The ARB expands their Prescribed Examination route so that EU qualified architects without any potential arrangements under a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the UK apply through the existing third country recognition route. Individuals would have to undertake UK examinations and at least a year of further study.

Response summary

Impacts of Option 1

Questions 44 to 49 considered the impact of Option 1 with regards to attracting internationally qualified architects to register in the UK. Consultation responses strongly supported Option 1, with the majority of respondents stating that Option 1 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects.

There was however a consensus that the recognition of international qualifications should be reciprocal so that UK qualified architects can enjoy the same benefits abroad.

Breakdown

The majority of respondents (41%) strongly agreed that Option 1 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects. 67% of respondents agreed that Option 1 would be beneficial. Only 9% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this proposal. The majority of respondents who elaborated on their answer noted that Option 1 would attract international architects and encourage more talent.

Similarly, respondents also spoke of the positive impact of retaining internationally qualified architects who, under Option 1, may no longer have to face long and expensive routes to registration. When asked whether Option 1 would encourage international architects to practise in the UK the majority of respondents (60%) stated that it would encourage international architects to practise in the UK. When asked whether Option 1 would facilitate the trade of architectural services 57% of respondents agreed that it would. 64% of respondents stated that they would not support Option 1 if the system was not reciprocal.

Compensation measures

Questions 50 to 52 considered respondents’ confidence in the development of effective criteria for compensatory measures, as well as the measures themselves. Although over half of respondents stated that they were confident that effective criteria could be established, a sizeable proportion of respondents expressed a lack of confidence. The final question in this section considered the measures themselves, of which there was support for the ARB to conduct interviews with applicants before Registration.

Breakdown

When asked about their confidence in the establishment of compensation measures to accompany Option 1, 58% of respondents stated that they were confident. When asked whether changes in the current regulatory landscape would increase respondent’s confidence in the establishment of effective criteria for compensation measures, respondents mentioned among other things the importance of the RIBA membership, the role of ongoing testing/monitoring competence and the Part 3 exam.

When asked what form compensation measures should take, 59.5% of respondents stated a preference for an interview with the applicant before registration, 43.5% of respondents stated a preference for online learning before registration and 38% of respondents stated a preference for a written test before registration.

Scrutiny and standards

Questions 53 to 55 considered the level of scrutiny appropriate for adding qualifications to the list under Option 1, as well as the level of confidence that Option 1 would ensure competence equivalent to domestic standards. Respondents overwhelmingly felt confident that Option 1 would ensure that internationally qualified architects demonstrate equivalent competence to domestically trained architects and supported the proposal that the list of qualifications is published and accessible on the ARB’s website.

Breakdown

When asked about the appropriate level of scrutiny for adding qualifications to the list under Option 1, 68.8% of respondents said that the list of qualifications should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website. 54.8% of respondents also stated a desire for consultation with the sector and 47% advocated for the publication of ARB Board papers which stated the decisions.

73% of respondents stated that they are confident that Option 1 would ensure equivalent competence to domestically trained architects. When asked whether any changes to the regulatory landscape would increase confidence in the competence of architects registering through Option 1, respondents gave a variety of responses ranging from requiring the Part 3 exam to stating the need for the ARB to review qualifications.

Impacts of Option 2

Questions 56 to 63 considered the impacts of Option 2 to the UK architecture sector. When asked whether Option 2 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects, only a small proportion of respondents agreed that it would be beneficial. Many respondents who stated that Option 2 would be beneficial explained that they felt that this approach to recognition would help ensure familiarity with UK regulations and the UK context through the requirement of Part 3.

Of those who disagreed that Option 2 would be beneficial, some stated concern in relation to a higher perceived cost of recruiting and a lack of access to international talent. The majority of respondents agreed that Option 2 would result in fewer internationally qualified architects practising in the UK due to the length of the existing ‘Prescribed Examination’ process. Respondents stated that the process is costly, long and therefore restricted to the more affluent.

Respondents also stated that it increases the likelihood of international architects practising in the UK without using the architect title to avoid undergoing the onerous ‘Prescribed Examination’ process. Most respondents did not believe that Option 2 would facilitate trade or encourage internationally qualified architects to practise in the UK. However, 44% of respondents did state that Option 2 would have a positive impact on promoting higher architectural standards amongst architects in the UK.

Breakdown

Only 26% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Option 2 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects. When given the option to elaborate, 23% of respondents stated concern that Option 2 could lead to a lack of access to international talent. 18% of respondents also said that the higher costs of recruiting under Option 2 could impact the recruitment of international architects.

Only 25% of respondents agreed that Option 2 would encourage international architects to practise or work in the UK, 41% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that Option 2 would facilitate the trade of architectural services. 43% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that Option 2 would facilitate trade, compared to 16% who agreed or strongly agreed.

When asked whether internationally qualified architects going through the Prescribed Examination route under Option 2 would promote higher architectural standards amongst architects, 44% of respondents stated that it would have a positive impact, 37% stated that there would be minimal or no impact on promoting higher architectural standards and 18% stated that there would be negative impact on promoting higher architectural standards. The majority of respondents (77%) agreed that Option 2 would result in fewer internationally qualified architects practising in the UK due to the length of the existing ‘Prescribed Examination’ process.

Summary

When asked which approach respondents preferred, the majority of respondents stated that they preferred Option 1.

Breakdown

75% of respondents stated that Option 1 as their preference for the recognition of international architectural qualifications. Respondents stated that the former EU recognition process under the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive has worked well which used a similar approach. Others advised that some sort of examination or other measure to bridge the gap in knowledge before registration would be advisable.

Respondents also mentioned that the listed approach (Option 1) will provide a level playing field by requiring all to demonstrate the same standard and meet the same qualification threshold.

Findings

We have considered carefully the responses to this consultation on the options for the recognition of international architects in the UK to be undertaken through our preferred ‘listed qualifications’ route (Option 1), or the alternative ‘prescribed examination’ route (Option 2).

Considering the clear support for the ‘listed qualifications’ route, we will legislate to amend the Architects Act 1997 to allow holders of qualifications which the ARB deems as equivalent to UK standards to enter the UK register. The ARB will publish the list of recognised international qualifications on their website.

Potential registrants will be required to demonstrate the compensatory measures prescribed by the ARB, such as training or tests, in order to ensure all individuals registering under this process are held to equivalent standards. These measures will ensure individuals joining the register are familiar with the content covered by a UK Part 3 qualifications, including UK regulations and the UK context. The ARB will determine the specific measures needed.

The ‘listed qualifications’ route provides the flexibility for recognising internationally qualified architects that will ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for international architects. It will help protect the supply of architects and ensure the UK architects sector continues to benefit from the varied skills and experience international architects bring with them. We take note of respondents’ preference for reciprocity, so this route will be used primarily to implement reciprocal arrangements.

The existing Prescribed Examinations will remain in place for holders of qualifications that have not been deemed as of equivalent standard to UK qualifications.

1. Should any of the proposals in this document lead to the creation of a new central government arm’s length body the usual, separate government approval process would apply for such an entity. ↩