First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 16 June 2004
[Mr. Kevin Hughes in the Chair]
The Architects (Professional Conduct Committee) Amendment Order 2004
2.30 pm
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Architects (Professional Conduct Committee) Amendment Order 2004 (S.I. 2004, No. 655).
May I first give the Committee the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who prayed against the statutory instrument? Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today. As my party's No. 2 on the Committee, I will take his place.
What we are addressing is a fundamental matter: it is a matter of justice, accountability and transparency. We should all agree on that. However, my hon. Friend prayed against the order because my party cannot agree with it. The problems are to do with the changes to the professional conduct committee of the Architects Registration Board.
I have debated with the Minister on a number of occasions. Once a Department has come to a decision, and once an outside body has said, ''This is the case we wish to put'' and once there has been a limited consultation, there is always the tendency for there to be momentum and for that to be allowed to carry things forward. However, I ask the Minister to reflect on my arguments and those of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about why in this instance there is a need for a rethink, and why the order requires redrafting before it is presented back to the House.
The primary problem is whether an architect who is brought before the professional conduct committee can have confidence in the judgement of the people judging him. On any professional conduct committee, the answer to that should always be an unequivocal yes, because those people should be seen to be independent of the body that he belongs to and of any body that he may have criticised. One of the basic arguments against the proposals before us is that they allow members of the Architects Registration Board to sit on the professional conduct committee. How could a critic of that board have faith in someone who has sat on that board, and of whom he may have been personally critical?
When I was at Oxford polytechnic, I found myself in the position of having a viva and finding that a person on a professional body I had been very critical of was on the panel. I do not know whether other Members have had similar experiences. I had taken two years out of college because my father had had a stroke and had subsequently died. I tried to
Column Number: 4
recommence at the same point halfway through the second term, but I was told not to; that was my mistake. I had also just got married and had bought a house and was organising vice-chairman of the National League of Young Liberals. I might have been stretching myself just a tad at the time.
A Royal Institute of British Architects architect came to judge my work. I will not give his name in case I have misremembered it—I would not want inadvertently to slander someone even though we cannot do that in this place, or to malign them. He introduced himself as having been on the RIBA quinquennial review of the polytechnic in 1976, when I had laid into RIBA for being elitist, self-serving and trying to protect itself. He pointed that out to me when we started the interview. He was probably fair in his judgment of my work, but I was left with no confidence in what was about to happen. Actually, that knocked the wind out of me before we even started. We have the same principle here. Justice has to be done and seen to be done. If it is not seen to be done, there is a danger that discontent will follow.
RIBA has objected to this piece of legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was approached by his constituent, Ian Salisbury, who does not support all RIBA's arguments on an increase in number. However, RIBA's comments are pertinent in terms of the amendment. It asks why the size of the PCC has to be increased and says that only six cases were brought to the PCC in 2002-03.
Does the problem of the people not turning up, and the difficulty obtaining the quorum, occur because elected members or appointed members do not attend? If appointed members of the board were not available, was that because they were doing professional work in their own practice, or were they doing their other duties with the Architects Registration Board? Finally, RIBA asks why, if the Law Society appointee was not available, it did not appoint someone else to do the task. RIBA argues that the delays, which are procedural or investigative, will not be dealt with by an increase in the size of the PCC. It says that the answer lies elsewhere.
A nub of the issue is that the architectural profession feels the ARB is imposing undue pressures on it. There is a lot of criticism of how the ARB is conducting its work, and architects might find themselves before the PCC, having been extremely critical of some of its members. RIBA commented on the legal aspects of that:
''There is a concern that, in a way not contemplated in the Act, the ARB is now introducing policy into the Architects Code and enforcing it through the coercive powers of the PCC. This development results in the PCC being a judge in its own cause. Neither substituting appointees of the Board for one of more Board members, nor expanding the PCC solves this problem.''
I hope that the Minister is able to answer RIBA's questions. If he cannot do so to his own satisfaction, I hope that he withdraws the statutory instrument.
On the same theme, Colin James, a chartered architect from Oxford and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, wrote:
Column Number: 5
''In order to qualify as an architect one requires five years of full-time study, two years in practice and a debt of £15,000+.''
I hasten to add that that was written in 2002, so that figure will probably have gone up. He continues:
''But anyone can practise architecture in the UK, with no qualifications or experience whatsoever. I am not arguing for protection of function, but I do question ARB's logic in introducing regulations which will make it virtually impossible for any but the very affluent to offer advice as an 'architect' because of the financial restrictions imposed by disproportionate levels of Professional Indemnity Insurance; it will inevitably lead to the deregistration of architects, who can continue to practice in the UK under any other title they wish''—
''architectural consultant'' is one of them—
''and without the constraints of ARB. Your registrar (if he represents the views of the Board) seems quite happy with that. That cannot represent the best interests of the consumer.''
There are clearly serious issues that architects may wish to take up with the ARB.
Consideration of the conduct of the ARB reveals that there were two issues of concern about confidentiality and disclosure of business. I have a copy of the board members' handbook, and the clause on confidentiality reads:
''During the conduct of ARB's affairs, members of the Board might obtain confidential information in relation to the circumstances of a particular architect or firm. Although no clear authority can be cited, it should be assumed that members of the Board are under an obligation to maintain confidentiality in relation to such privileged information''.
That is fair enough, and I do not think that any of us would disagree. However, it goes on
''or indeed, in relation to any information concerning ARB''.
That strikes me as a gagging clause to stop members of the ARB being critical about it and to stop others being given critical information.
Let us now consider the clause on the disclosure of board business to others. It states:
''The Board wishes to encourage openness in its proceedings. However, until such time as it is agreed by the Board that a matter can be brought into the wider domain, confidentiality must prevail for all its proceedings and papers.''
The board is saying that members cannot discuss matters outside unless they have the express consent of the board to do so. There are cases when confidentiality is essential, of course. However, that is not always in the best interests of the bodies or parties concerned.
The Cabinet Office carried out a consultation on the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force on independent regulators. One of the BRTF's recommendations was:
''All regulators should hold at least one open meeting a year that stakeholders can attend, and at which stakeholders are able to ask the Board questions. Open meetings should be widely advertised.''
The ARB's response was:
''ARB holds a minimum of four meetings a year, all of which are open to anyone wishing to attend (subject to available space). Items in closed session are deemed to be not in the public interest. Dates of meetings for the forthcoming year are advertised on the website''.
My hon. Friend's constituent, Ian Salisbury, makes the following observation:
''The board carries out all its business with a presumption for secrecy unless otherwise decided. So, for instance, members of the board are advised that 'it should be assumed that members of the board are under an obligation to maintain confidentiality in
Column Number: 6
relation to such privileged information or indeed, in relation to any information concerning ARB' . . . 'The Board wishes to encourage openness in its proceedings. However, until such a time as it is agreed by the board that a matter can be brought into the public domain, confidentiality must prevail for all its proceedings and papers.' As an example, the board is at present considering its confidentiality policy, but is doing so in private session and without consultation.''
When it comes to open meetings and openness, the board does not seem to meet the Government's proposed recommendations for the conduct of such bodies. That may be an argument for the case that the amendment order is not adequate when it comes to dealing with the ARB.
Let us look further at the BRTF's recommendation on appeals mechanisms. It states:
''All independent regulators should have an appeals mechanism so that stakeholders can challenge decisions without recourse to judicial review. The regulator should however be able to dismiss time wasting appeals.''
It goes on:
''By July 2004, the Government should circulate to all independent regulators guidance on best practice on designing an appeals process.''
The unofficial ARB response is:
''Appeals against ARB decisions (registration, disciplinary) are made through the High Court. However, there are informal processes, eg. Assessment, and such appeals are heard by the board.''
Ian Salisbury observed:
''Appeal lies to the High Court (but no further) on certain registration issues and matters of discipline. The BRTF identifies ARB as one of the independent regulators where decisions may only be challenged by recourse to judicial review.''
It is clearly not Government policy that such matters should be challengeable only by judicial review. If the BRTF recommendation is supported, the ARB should be included within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner by including it in the schedule of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
Two cases are pertinent here. I apologise for quoting the cases of Begum v. Tower Hamlets and of Preiss v. the General Dental Council at some length, but this is an important issue for architects.
|
