Consultation outcome

Proposed amendments to the regulation of architects

Updated 8 June 2021

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this consultation:

This consultation seeks views on amendments to the Architects Act 1997 following the Building Safety Bill as published in draft on 20 July 2020, together with new measures for the recognition of international architects.

Scope of this consultation:

This consultation follows the draft Building Safety Bill, which takes forward the government’s commitment to fundamental reform of the building safety system. The Bill, which details how the government intends to deliver the principles and recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, includes provisions to improve the monitoring and maintenance of competence of architects through amendments to the Architects Act 1997.

In conjunction with this, as the UK has now formally left the European Union the government has the opportunity to review and amend its regulatory systems in relation to the recognition of international qualifications for the purposes of registration as an architect.

Geographical scope:

This consultation relates to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Impact assessment:

The expected impacts (costs and benefits) of proposals in this consultation are included in Annex A at the end of this document.

Basic information

This consultation is primarily aimed at welcoming views from:

• UK based architects
• Internationally qualified architects
• UK architectural schools and students
• International architectural schools and students
• Architectural businesses
• Procurers of architectural services
• Wider construction and built environment sector

Body/bodies responsible for the consultation:

The Architects Team within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

Duration:

This consultation will last for 12 weeks from 04/11/2020 until 22/01/2021

Enquires:

For any enquiries about this consultation please contact ArchitectsActConsultation@communities.gov.uk

How to respond:

There are two thematic sections in this consultation. Each section is divided into topical chapters which provide background information for questions.

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised.

Online Survey

Should you have any questions or experience problems with the online survey please contact us at:

ArchitectsActConsultation@communities.gov.uk

In light of current advice on homeworking during Covid-19, we ask that you do not send in responses via post to the department, as we may not be able to access them.

When you reply please confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• Your name
• Your position (if applicable)
• The name of organisation (if applicable)
• An address (including post-code),
• An email address and a contact telephone number

Executive Summary

This consultation seeks views on proposed amendments to the Architects Act 1997 following the Building Safety Bill as published in draft on 20 July 2020, together with new measures for the recognition of international architects.

It builds on the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety (the Independent Review).

The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy that resulted in the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. Following the tragedy, the government commissioned the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt. The Independent Review found that the system for ensuring fire and structural safety for high-rise residential buildings is not fit for purpose.

The government is determined to learn the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire and make sure that people are safe, and feel safe, in the buildings they inhabit. It accepted all the Independent Review’s findings and recommendations and is bringing forward fundamental reforms of the entire regulatory system through the draft Building Safety Bill, which includes proposed changes to the Architects Act 1997.

The draft Bill 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. The government plans to make amendments to the Architects Act 1997 to ensure greater competence amongst UK registered architects. These provisions will apply to all architects on the register. These provisions sit alongside wider requirements, as detailed in the draft Bill, 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, has the opportunity to revise and reform many of our regulatory processes. This opportunity extends to the recognition of international architects, and thus the government is aiming to consider the system of international qualification recognition into one independent from EU law.

The government’s aim is both to improve the competence of architects and to formulate a cohesive system of international qualification recognition. These measures would help to quality assure British architectural practice and encourage the best global talents to bring their skills to the UK. These changes will come through amendments to the Architects Act 1997 which will result in changes to the regulatory practice of the Architects Registration Board (ARB).

This consultation document details our proposals to achieve this reform.

We welcome views on our proposals and encourage all those within the architectural industry to inform our final decisions to ensure they are effective. As these proposals intend to change architectural practice, the government invites all architects, as well as those involved in the wider education or practice of architecture, to consider and voice their opinions on the changes in the ARB’s regulatory responsibility. Through these proposals we are determined to ensure that people are safe and feel safe in the buildings they inhabit, and that there is a high level of confidence in the competence of the architect profession.

Next Steps

The consultation will close on 22 January 2021. Responses to this consultation will be analysed and a government response will follow.

Introduction and policy background

The consultation package

1. This document builds on the draft Building Safety Bill and on existing international recognition systems, setting out in more detail how we propose to implement and legislate for the reforms to the Architects Act 1997 and seeks views to inform our policy development.

2. We want to ensure those in the field of architecture and the built environment have the opportunity to voice their opinions on our proposals to drive up the competence of architects and on the introduction of an amended recognition route for international architects. We welcome responses to this consultation from UK and international architects, architectural students, faculty at schools of architecture, those working in the built environment sector and those procuring architectural services.

3. This consultation is split into two thematic sections:

• Part A: Building safety
• Part B: The recognition of international architects^{[footnote 1]}

4. The impact of these proposals has been considered and calculated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), with input from Architects Registration Board (ARB) colleagues. The findings of these potential impacts are included in Annex A at the end of this document.

Policy background – building safety

5. The government intends to introduce new building safety regulatory standards in the Building Safety Bill. This Bill will cover numerous aspects of the design, construction and occupancy of buildings to ensure greater residential safety and includes amendments to the Architects Act 1997.

Background - Competence

6. The draft Bill will require those carrying out design and building work to have the appropriate competence for their role. It will also place an emphasis on the competence of the principal designers, principal contractors and building safety managers by requiring those appointing them to provide evidence of the competence assessments of those appointed for the roles. This will be underpinned by the industry-led work to improve competence within their sectors.

7. Government is working with the British Standards Institution (BSI) and relevant bodies in the built environment industry to develop an overarching competence framework to be used across industry to develop their sector-specific frameworks, and the competence standards for principal designers, principal contractors and building safety managers. These standards will be available, in a draft form, through the BSI website.

Background – amendments to the Architects Act 1997

8. In order to use the title of ‘architect’ in the UK, an individual must be registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB). These amendments seek to improve the competence of architects, primarily through a new power for the ARB to define, enforce and maintain the competence of architects on the register.

9. The ARB currently has the power to determine the criteria an individual must meet in order to be listed on the register and use the title of ‘architect’, as this is a protected title under Section 20 of the Architects Act 1997. However, there is currently no regulation in place which obliges architects to undergo competence checks or Continuing Professional Development (CPD). With these proposals, the government intends to strengthen the ARB’s role in monitoring and maintaining the competence of architects.

10. These proposals would apply to all architects on the register. The ARB would define the requirements and criteria for current architects and those seeking inclusion on the register, after consultation with the sector. These proposals are in addition to the competence proposals detailed above.

11. If an individual does not meet these requirements during the monitoring process, the ARB would have the power to remove them from the register. This would ensure that high standards of competency are maintained.

12. Individuals would be allowed to apply for time extensions (the length of which to be decided by the ARB) if they are unable to meet the new competence criteria by a pre-determined deadline. However, if an individual does not meet the criteria by the extended date, the ARB would have the power to remove them from the register.

13. The information available on the register would be updated to include the listings of disciplinary actions against an architect. Currently, disciplinary orders are published on the ARB’s website under “Previous PCC (Professional Conduct Committee) decisions” but are not cross-referenced against the architect’s register entry. In order to display information to the public in a transparent way, our provision allows disciplinary orders to be listed next to the name of an architect on the register. Disciplinary orders would be removed once they have been ‘spent’, based on rules to be determined by the ARB.

14. Alongside these provisions, we are consulting on the potential implementation of an appeals process using existing powers in the Architects Act 1997, so that architects who are unsatisfied with a decision reached by the ARB, or its committees, have recourse to contest their decision. This is likely to be through the establishment of an independent committee within the ARB, made up of independent panel members.

15. The Building Safety Bill introduces a power to allow the government, by regulation, to expand the list of the ARB’s chargeable services, as the current list does not cover the full range of services provided by the ARB. This would mean the costs are borne by architects or institutions utilising these additional services, on a cost-recovery basis, so that the ARB is able to minimise impact on the annual retention fee for all architects on the register.

Policy background – recognition of international architects

16. Following our departure from the EU, the government is taking the opportunity to consider its approach to the recognition of professional qualifications from other countries through a system independent from EU law.

17. The findings from this consultation will be considered alongside the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s wider Call for Evidence on the recognition of professional qualifications and regulation of professions.

18. The ARB is currently the UK’s competent authority for architects under the EU’s Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive 2005 (2005/36/EC). It is responsible for recognising EU and international qualifications held by those wishing to register in the UK and for facilitating the recognition of appropriately UK-qualified professionals who wish to register in the EU.

19. Individuals holding non-EU recognised qualifications must currently seek recognition under the prescribed examination recognition route, by demonstrating equivalence to the UK’s Part 1 and 2 qualifications and completing a Part 3 course and examination.

20. The UK’s departure from the EU presents an opportunity to consider a unified process for the recognition of architects qualified in the EU and other countries. We are considering two options, presented below. These are to either create a simplified recognition process for internationally qualified architects that carry qualifications and experience equivalent to the UK qualification standard, or to expand the prescribed examination route to EU qualified architects.

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 examinations. Once qualifications are deemed equivalent, they would be added to a list held by the ARB. The ARB would have the flexibility to prescribe compensation measures to ensure that all individuals registering under this process are held to equivalent standards. The existing prescribed examination route would remain for holders of qualifications which are not listed. This is 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.

Part A – Building safety

1. Competence & appeals

Competence setting

1.1 The Architects Act 1997 provides 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.

1.2 “Competence” is defined as having the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours to fulfil the functions expected of an architect.

1.3 The government proposes 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.”

1.4 In practice, this means that the ARB would be able to determine which professional competences should be assessed and how the assessment should take place. To note, the ARB Board would be obligated to consult with professional bodies and other stakeholders before introducing new requirements.

1.5 If an architect does not meet the new requirements set out by the ARB to a sufficient standard, they may be removed from the register. However, 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.

1.6 We are also consulting on the creation of a new appeals process, most likely to be through an internal but independent committee within the ARB (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). 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 propose this system covers the appeal of decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the competence regime.

Questions

Q. 1. Do you believe that setting and assessing competence requirements would promote best practice among architects?

a. This would have a sizeable impact on promoting best practice
b. This would have a moderate impact on promoting best practice
c. This would have a minimal impact on promoting best practice
d. This would have no impact on promoting best practice

Q. 2. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.1.

Q. 3. Do you agree that monitoring or testing of competence would be beneficial to architects?

a. This would have a sizeable benefit
b. This would have a moderate benefit
c. This would have a minimal benefit
d. This would have no benefit

Q. 4. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.3.

Q. 5. How confident are you that effective criteria can be established which would improve an architect’s competence?

a. Very confident
b. Moderately confident
c. Not very confident
d. Not at all confident

Q. 6. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.5.

Q. 7. If you answered c. or d. to Q.5, would any changes to the current regulatory landscape increase your confidence of the establishment of effective criteria?

Q. 8. Do you agree with the proposal that the Architects Registration Board (ARB) should monitor and assess an architect’s professional competence?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 9. Which skills, knowledge, experience or behaviours should be overseen and assessed by the ARB?

Q. 10. Do you agree that the competence requirements should take account of the competence standards currently being developed by the British Standard Institution with the built environment industry?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 11. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.10.

Q. 12. Do you agree with the proposal that the ARB is obligated to review and update the competence standards after a set period?

a. Yes - Competence standard reviews should occur every year
b. Yes - Competence standard reviews should occur every 3 years
c. Yes - Competence standard reviews should occur every 5 years
d. No - It should be at the discretion of the ARB Board

Q. 13. How should the ARB develop the new competence requirements? Please select all that apply

a. Through consultations with other organisations such as the Royal Institute of British Architects
b. Through consultation with universities and Schools of Architecture
c. Through written consultations with the wider sector
d. Through oversight and advice from the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government
e. By examining the regulatory standards of other nations
f. By examining the regulatory standards of other professions
g. Other (please explain below)

Q. 14. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.13.

Q. 15. What form should the assessment of competence take? Please select all that apply

a. A mandated number of hours of Continuous Professional Development (CPD)
b. Regular testing of all architects
c. Testing of a random sample of architects
d. An annual declaration
e. Other (please specify)

Q. 16. If you are an architect, do you already undertake learning to maintain or develop professional skills (Continuous Professional Development)?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 17. If you answered yes to Q.16, how is this administered? Please select all that apply

a. Mandatory through your workplace
b. Optional through your workplace
c. Mandatory through your professional body
d. Optional through your professional body
e. Other mandatory learning
f. Other self-sought learning

Q. 18. If you answered yes to Q.16, how many hours per year do you spend on Continuous Professional Development (CPD)?

a. Less than 5 hours
b. Between 5 and 10 hours
c. Between 10 and 20 hours
d. More than 20 hours
e. Unsure

Q. 19. If you are an architect, do you currently undertake any testing to demonstrate competence?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 20. If you answered yes to Q.19, who administers the testing and what material is examined?

Q. 21. With regards to the appeals process, would your preference be for the appeals hearing body to be:

a. An internal independent Committee within the ARB
b. An external independent body

Q. 22. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.21.

Q. 23. If you selected an internal Committee within the ARB, do you agree that it is reasonable for individuals to pay a fee (determined on a cost-recovery basis) if their case is unsuccessful?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 24. If you selected an external independent body, would you support the creation of an independent body if it meant a higher annual retention fee, but no fees relating to appeals?

a. Yes
b. No
c. It would depend on the increase of the retention fee

Q. 25. Do you agree that when a disciplinary order is undergoing an appeal, this should be stated on the architect’s register entry?

a. Yes – the register should note if a disciplinary order is undergoing appeal
b. No – the register should not change disciplinary orders until they have been successfully appealed

Q. 26. Which cases should be within the remit of the appeals body? Please select all that apply

a. Appealing decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the competence regime
b. Appealing decisions relating to the removal of an architect from the register under the existing complaints procedure
c. A complainant appealing a decision against an architect with whom they are unsatisfied
d. An applicant appealing an unsuccessful application to join the register
e. Other (Please state)

2. Listing

Disciplinary action

2.1 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 recommends that this is presented in a more transparent way, 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.

2.2 The government proposes that when disciplinary orders are made against an architect by the PCC, these would be listed alongside the architect’s entry on the register. The ARB Board would determine the rules for 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. Once this time period has lapsed, the note on the architect’s register entry would be removed.

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

2.4 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.

Questions

Q. 27. Do you agree that the register publicly displaying disciplinary orders against a registered architect would promote public confidence in the profession?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 28. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.27.

Q. 29. Do you agree that the register publicly displaying disciplinary orders would act as an effective deterrent to acts of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence?

a. Yes b. No

Q. 30. Do you agree that the ARB Board should determine the rules for the length of time a disciplinary order is visible on the register?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 31. If you disagree, what alternative would you propose?

Q. 32. Do you agree that the length of time a disciplinary order is visible on the register should be set depending on the severity of the order?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 33. What level of transparency is appropriate when the ARB Board determines the rules setting out the length of time a disciplinary order is listed? Please select all that apply

a. ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are detailed in those papers
b. The lengths of time and the rules determining them should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website
c. The ARB should undertake consultation with the sector
d. The ARB should seek governmental approval

Q. 34. When a disciplinary action is displayed against an architect, what information should be accessible?

a. The register should detail the reasons for the disciplinary order, including the date of the offence and length of the disciplinary action
b. The register should only state the disciplinary order which has been placed on an architect, with more information available on the Professional Conduct Committee page on the ARB’s website
c. Other (Please state)

3. Fees

3.1 Currently there is a limited list of chargeable services the ARB Board can administer. These are set out in the Architects Act 1997.

3.2 The cost of the majority of the ARB’s functions are 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. The registration fees are determined on a cost-recovery basis and vary depending on the route of recognition; activities to recognise internationally qualified architects require more resource, due to the more complex process.

3.3 After the EU Exit Transition Period, there will be an expansion in the services the ARB provides to implement Mutual Recognition Agreements or Memoranda of Understanding relating to the regulation of architects (see Part B: The Recognition of International Architects), as well as the administration of the new monitoring of competence regime. To ensure the ARB have the resource to deliver these additional services and to minimise impact on the annual retention fee, in particular for those architects that do not utilise additional services, the government proposes to amend the Architects Act 1997 to extend the provisions for the ARB to charge for additional regulatory services.

3.4 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.

3.5 The types of services that are being considered for fee charges are the ARB’s role in the following:

• Considering and prescribing – ‘recognising’ – the UK qualifications required to join the register. Once a qualification is prescribed, graduates holding those qualifications are exempt from undertaking the Part 1 and Part 2 examinations
• Providing evidence to international regulators for UK qualified individuals wishing to register abroad
• Considering and recognising the international qualifications required for registration in the UK

3.6 We are considering two options to amend the Architects Act 1997. One option would be 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.

3.7 A second option would be 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.

3.8 The first option presented in paragraph 3.6 would create a prescribed list of chargeable services in the Architects Act 1997. A prescribed list would provide a clear fees framework for architects and architectural institutions. Any amendments to the list, however, would require new secondary legislation, which means that the ARB Board would not be able to charge for services outside the prescribed list unless legislation to amend the list came into effect. As the ARB is self-funded this could negatively impact its capacity to deliver on its regulatory requirements and role in improving competence in the sector, although government would be mindful of this in mandating the services that could be charged for now, and in any new secondary legislation.

3.9 The second option, presented in paragraph 3.7, would provide greater flexibility to the ARB Board in determining the services for which they can charge, subject to transparency and/or consultation requirements. This more agile approach would enable the ARB to respond more effectively to new challenges as it would be likely to result in more efficient implementation and delivery, although there would be a resource impact on the ARB in delivering any amendments to their rules around fees.

Questions

Q. 35. Do you agree that the proposals set out to amend the powers of the Architects Registration Board to charge fees are proportionate and would minimise the impact on the annual retention fee?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 36. Which of the following do you think is the most appropriate way to determine which services the ARB can charge for?

a. Chargeable services should be listed in secondary legislation
b. The ARB Board should determine the services for which it can charge

Q. 37. If b, what level of transparency should be required when the ARB Board wish to amend chargeable services or fee amounts? Please select all that apply

a. ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are stated in those papers
b. The list of chargeable services and fee amounts should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website
c. The ARB should undertake consultation with the sector
d. The ARB should seek governmental approval
e. Other (Please state)

Q. 38. Are there other services or types of services that should be included in the list set out in paragraph 3.5?

Q. 39. Do you agree that UK schools of architecture should pay a fee for their qualifications to be prescribed by the ARB?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 40. Do you agree that international schools of architecture should pay a fee for their qualifications to be prescribed by the ARB?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 41. Do you agree that architects’ initial registration fees should vary based on the route of their recognition, on a cost-recovery basis?

a. Yes
b. No

Q. 42. For which services or types of services would it be reasonable for the ARB to charge a fee? Please select all that apply

a. International registration - provision of evidence for UK qualified individuals wishing to register abroad
b. International registration - individuals holding international qualifications wishing to register in the UK
c. Prescription of qualifications provided by domestic Schools of Architecture
d. Prescription of qualifications provided by international Schools of Architecture
e. Other (please specify)

Q. 43. What level of transparency should be required when the Board is determining which types of individuals or institutions are liable for the payment of fees? Please select all that apply

a. ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are stated in those papers
b. The process for payment should be published and accessible on the ARB’s website
c. The ARB should undertake consultation with the sector
d. The ARB should seek governmental approval
e. Other (Please state)

Part B – The recognition of international architects

International Qualification Recognition

4.1 On 31 January 2020 the UK left the EU and commenced negotiations with the EU to determine the Future Relationship. This provides us with the opportunity to revise and reform many of our regulatory processes. The Government is proposing amendments to the recognition system for international architects which would give both EU and non-EU qualified architects the same opportunities to seek recognition in the UK.

4.2 The government is considering two potential options for this 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. This option would enable architects with international qualifications to register with the ARB more quickly which would preserve the flow of international talent into the UK. 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 is 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. This would be a less flexible option as individuals would have to undertake UK examinations and at least a year of further study. However, it would ensure that all architects registering in the UK are held to exactly the same requirements.

Questions

Q. 44. To what extent do you agree that Option 1 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects?

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 45. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.44.

Q. 46. To what extent do you agree Option 1 would encourage international architects to practise in the UK? Select one:

a. Significantly encourage international architects to practice in the UK
b. Moderately encourage international architects to practice in the UK
c. Neither encourage nor discourage
d. Moderately discourage international architects to practice in the UK
e. Significantly discourage international architects to practice in the UK

Q. 47. To what extent do you agree that Option 1 would facilitate trade of architectural services?

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 48. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.47.

Q 49. Would you support Option 1 if the system was not reciprocal (for example, the ARB recognises qualifications from another jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction does not recognise UK qualifications in the same way)?

a. Yes b. No

Q. 50. How confident are you that effective criteria could be established for compensation measures?

a. Very confident
b. Moderately confident
c. Not very confident
d. Not at all confident

Q. 51. If you answered c. or d. to Q.50, would any changes to the current regulatory landscape increase your confidence of the establishment of effective criteria?

Q. 52. What form should compensation measures take? Please select all that apply

a. The ARB conducts an interview with the applicant before Registration
b. The applicant undertakes a written test before Registration
c. The applicant undertakes some online learning before Registration
d. Other (Please state)

Q. 53. What level of scrutiny would be appropriate when qualifications are added to the list under Option 1? Please select all that apply

a. ARB Board papers are published on the ARB website and decisions are stated in those papers
b. The list of qualifications is published and accessible on the ARB’s website
c. The ARB should undertake consultation with the sector
d. The ARB should seek governmental approval
e. Other (Please state)

Q. 54. How confident are you that Option 1 would ensure competence equivalent to domestically trained architects?

a. Very confident
b. Moderately confident
c. Not very confident
d. Not at all confident

Q. 55. If you answered c. or d. to Q.54, would any changes to the current regulatory landscape increase your confidence of the competence of architects registering through Option 1?

Q. 56. To what extent do you agree that Option 2 would be beneficial to UK architectural practices wishing to recruit international architects?

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 57. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.56.

Q. 58. To what extent do you agree Option 2 would encourage international architects to practise or work in the UK? Select one:

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 59. To what extent do you agree Option 2 would facilitate trade of architectural services?

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 60. Please briefly explain your answer to Q.59.

Q. 61. What impact do you think requiring all internationally qualified architects to go through the prescribed examination route under Option 2 would have on promoting higher architectural standards amongst architects? Select one:

a. Sizeable positive impact on promoting higher architectural standards
b. Moderate positive impact on promoting higher architectural standards
c. Minimal or no impact on promoting higher architectural standards
d. Moderate negative impact on promoting higher architectural standards
e. Sizeable negative impact on promoting higher architectural standards

Q. 62. To what extent do you agree that Option 2 would result in fewer internationally qualified architects practising in the UK due to the length of the prescribed examination process?

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Q. 63. Please briefly set out the reasons for your answer to Q.62.

Q. 64. Which method do you think is preferable for recognising international architectural qualifications?

a. Option 1 – listed qualifications
b. Option 2 – prescribed examinations

Q. 65. Please briefly set out the reasons for your answer to Q.64.

Annex A

Costs and benefits

The government aims to improve the monitoring of competence of architects and to formulate a cohesive system of international qualification recognition. These measures will help to quality assure British architectural practice and encourage the best global talent to bring their skills to the UK. The consultation document details our proposals to achieve this reform. This Annex considers its costs and impacts.

Below is an assessment of the main costs and benefits of implementing the proposals detailed in this consultation document. We intend to refine these in the consultation process, as we gather further information.

Annex A: Part A – Building safety

Costs

1. General

1.1 Familiarisation costs: There are 42,547 architects registered as of the end of 2019 (See ARB 2019 annual report. We assume that it would take approximately 1 hour to familiarise with new competence requirements, transparency of disciplinary procedures and fees. We assume the hourly wage is £22.11 for architects (Taking the 2019 median salary of an architect (5+ years ARB registered), and that overhead costs represent an additional 30% of the wage.

Estimated total familiarisation costs (transitional costs) are therefore:

For individual architects: £22.11 x 130% = £28.74 Total for all registered architects: £28.74 x 42,547 = £1.2 million one-off

2. Competence

2.1 Training costs as a result of competence requirements: This is dependent on the form of the competence regime, which will be informed by this consultation. Table A sets out the time costs per architect depending on number of hours per year required to complete the competence requirements and the time period between assessment / monitoring.

The figures in the table are calculated as: (£22.11 x (a hours) x 130%) / b years Where a = number of hours per year and b = frequency of competence assessment, in years

Table A

	b = 1 year (annually)	b = 2 years	b = 3 years	b = 4 years	b = 5 years
a = 5 hours per year	£143.71	£71.86	£47.90	£35.93	£28.74
a = 10 hours per year	£287.43	£143.71	£95.81	£71.86	£57.49
a = 15 hours per year	£431.15	£215.50	£143.71	£107.75	£86.20
a = 20 hours per year	£574.86	£287.43	£191.62	£143.71	£114.97

For example, a Continuous Professional Development (CPD) regime may mandate 1.5 days (10 hours) of training every two years for each architect.

Estimated cost of CPD: (£22.11 x 10hrs x 130%) / 2 = £143.71 per architect per annum

2.2 Of the 42,547 architects currently registered, approximately half are members of RIBA. Moreover, larger firms will already offer comparable CPD as routine and have allowances for development days. We estimate that 2,781 architects work at large UK-based architectural practices (we define large as employing over 100 UK architects. As these architects may already meet the new requirements, the number of architects affected by the new legislation is reduced to (42,547-2,781)/2 = 19,883

Once a potential regime is determined by the ARB, informed by this consultation, we expect them to provide more detailed information on the costs and benefits of the new regime as part of further consultation on how it will be operationalised.

3. Appeals

3.1 In the consultation document we set out two options, either an internal committee or an external body.

3.2 The cost of an internal committee would be paid by the appellant if their case was unsuccessful. We expect this to be the salary of the panel (£450 a day) multiplied by the overhead factor. A possible model for this panel would be the ARB’s existing Professional Conduct Committee, which would be made up of 3 panel members and take roughly half a day per case.

Estimated cost per appeal: (£450 x 130% x 3 members) / 2 = £878 per unsuccessful appeal

3.3 We currently do not have an estimate of the volume of appeals, as this will be informed by the responses to this consultation when determining the remit of the appeals committee and the form of the competence regime. We will do further work once we have more clarity on these points.

3.4 Another option would be to set up an external appeals body, which is closer in form to the Ombudsman model. This would be free to access but would be covered through a raise in the annual retention fee paid by architects. Once again, the cost of this would be informed by the responses to this consultation when determining the remit of the appeals committee and the form of the competence regime.

4. Transparency of disciplinary procedures

4.1 The cost of transparency of disciplinary action is assessed to be negligible and will fall to the ARB.

5. Fees

5.1 All potential charges will be on a cost-recovery basis. These would be determined by the ARB Board, informed by the results of this consultation. An initial assessment of potential fees is set out below.

• Fees for international recognition for UK architects wishing to register abroad will be likely to match the existing administrative application fees. This fee is currently £40.
• Fees for international architects wishing to register in the UK will be determined by the process used for registration. Current fees for the prescribed examination route will be unchanged. Potential fees for other recognition routes are explored below in ‘Part B – Recognition of International Architects’.
• The ARB does not currently charge to prescribe qualifications, so an assessment of fees has not yet been undertaken.

Benefits

6. The exact regime for monitoring competence is to be determined, and so we have not been able to monetise benefits. Nevertheless, we have identified several areas where we expect benefits to accrue. These include:

a. Green economy: Improved training for architects on climate change and sustainability may improve the energy efficiency of the buildings being built. This is dependent on the competence regime; for example, if there is improved training and awareness on construction of energy efficient fabric of building this may lead to energy savings and reduced emissions.

b. Public safety: Improved training for architects may improve the safety of building being built. This is dependent on the competence regime; for example, if there is improved training on fire safety regulations, this may lead to a reduction in fire-related professional negligence disputes which has a cost to society.

c. Public confidence: Improved demonstration of competence and more transparent disciplinary procedures may increase public confidence in the reputation of architects.

d. Reduced costs to industry: Improved demonstration of competence for architects may reduce costs in the construction industry through time savings from better use of existing technology, reduction in the need for reworks etc. This is dependent on the competence regime; for example, training in the use of software and Building Information Management (BIM) and - for SMEs - formal business management, may also increase productivity and hence reduce costs.

e. International competitiveness: Improved demonstration of competence of UK architects may increase the reputation of UK architectural services, which is one of the largest Professional Business Services export sectors in the UK. This may lead to an increase in total UK exports in the architectural services sector.

Annex A: Part B – Recognition of international architects

Costs

1. Option A

1.1 Familiarisation costs: These would predominantly be borne by international architects so would be dependent on Home State architect salaries. However, UK architectural practises with 5 or more people may be concerned with recruiting applicants directly from other countries. Therefore approximately 1430 chartered practices would be affected (see RIBA 2019 benchmarking report) . We assume that one architect from each practice would take half an hour to familiarise themselves with these changes.

For individual practices: £22.11 x 0.5hrs x 130% = £14.37 Total for all practices: £22.11 x 0.5hrs x 130% x 1430 = £20,441.25

1.2 The ARB estimates that the cost of setting up the new system to be approximately £450,000 (inclusive of expert salaries, overheads, negotiating relevant mutual recognition agreements, IT systems etc). This is likely to be passed on through changes in the initial registration fee for international architects.

1.3 Initial calculations suggest a potential cost of £250 for applicants to this system, provided no compensation measures are required. This would constitute a saving for internationally qualified architects, who would have otherwise undertaken the prescribed examination route.

1.4 The prescribed examination route currently carries a cost of £1671 per Part, as well as the cost of undertaking a Part 3 course and examination. In addition, there is a £6000 difference in annual median salary between a Part 2 Architectural Assistant and an architect (less than 5 years ARB registered). See RIBA salary guide.

Current cost of prescribed examination: £1671 + £1671 + £3030 = £6372 Loss of earnings: £6000 Total saving of proposed new recognition route: £6372 + £6000 - £250 = £12,122

1.5 There is no expected increase in costs to architects currently on the register.

2. Costs – Option B

2.1 This system already exists and more information on costs for the prescribed examination route can be found on the ARB’s website.

Benefits

3. Option A

3.1 The expedited registration route represents a substantial time and cost savings (estimated above to be £12,700 per architect) for internationally qualified architects to register with the ARB.

3.2 There is a shortage of architects in the UK. We do not envision that this route would reduce demand for UK architect practices; this should in fact be beneficial for UK architectural firms, who have emphasised the value of international talent in bringing diversity to the profession. To note, internationally qualified architects wishing to practise in the UK will be subject to Home Office immigration rules.

3.3 Stakeholders have previously raised that recruiting architects from abroad is beneficial for exporting architectural services to other countries, as it allows UK practices to hold expertise on the culture, social context and regulations of another jurisdiction.

3.4 We anticipate that an expedited recognition route may be beneficial for UK schools of architecture, as easier recognition processes may encourage movement of students between jurisdictions. We will seek to explore the impact on UK schools of architecture during this consultation.

4. Option B

4.1 The infrastructure for the prescribed examination route already exists and ensures that all architects registering in the UK are tested through the same process.

4.2 Although requiring all international architects to go through the prescribed examination route may lead to some applicants repeating aspects of the qualification process, it ensures that all international architects meet the UK standard.

About this Consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal data, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the Freedom of Information Act and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will process your personal data in accordance with the law and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under the Data Protection Act 2018.

Note that this section only refers to your personal data (your name address and anything that could be used to identify you personally) not the content of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The Data Protection Act 2018 states that, as a government department, MHCLG may process personal data as necessary for the effective performance of a task carried out in the public interest. i.e. a consultation.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

Personal data will not be shared outside of MHCLG. Any findings that are shared with parties outside of MHCLG will be anonymised to remove any personal data.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, erasure

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you
b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record
c. to ask to have all or some of your data deleted or corrected
d. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at the ICO website, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

6. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

7. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.

8. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system.

 

1. For the purposes of this consultation document, references to processes to recognise internationally-qualified architects refers to processes which could be used to recognise the international qualifications that an individual may hold; when we reference processes to recognise EU-qualified architects, we are referring to the processes which could be used to recognise the EU qualifications that an individual may hold.) ↩