House of Commons Standing Cttee on Delegated Legislation (pt 2)

Architects (Professional Conduct Committee) Amendment Order 2004

[back to previous text]

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab): No, it is very interesting.
Richard Younger-Ross: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that.
In response to correspondence from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Ian Salisbury writes:

''In Begum, one of the questions asked was whether an officer of the Borough Council''—

Tower Hamlets—

''when deciding upon entitlement to housing, had constituted an 'independent and impartial tribunal' for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights . . . Lord Hoffinan then went on to say, at paragraph 42 of his speech, that the possibility of an appeal was insufficient to compensate for lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the primary decision taker.''

That is a pertinent point. Ian Salisbury accepts in his letter that this is administrative rather than judicial decision taking. He continues:
Column Number: 7

''Begum nevertheless clearly has application in the obiter dicta; but the ODPM's conclusion does not seem to me to take heed of the weight of criticism that the House of Lords levelled against first instance tribunals where a conflict of interest between legislative and judicial functions may be perceived to exist.''

There is clearly a case of that with the PCC and the board.
Ian Salisbury continues:

''Preiss v General Dental Council has closer relevance. Here the Privy Council felt it might be helpful to comment on the earlier faults of the GDC disciplinary procedures despite it having already embarked on a programme of constitutional reform. The very clear advice when considering the former predominance of members of the GDC serving on the Professional Conduct Committee (given at paragraph 20), was for the necessity of 'a divorce between the general policymaking functions of the [GDC] and the distinctive function of adjudicating on disciplinary charges'''.

The General Dental Council has indeed separated those powers. The people who sit on its disciplinary procedures committee do not sit on the GDC. In the case of the General Medical Council, it is entirely feasible that someone should sit on the fitness to practise committee, but they never do. I understand that that is not the case with the ARB.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider the arguments. This is a matter of justice and openness. It has been said often before, and it is perhaps a trite expression, but justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Clearly the amendment to the ARB procedures may do justice but justice will not be done by it.

2.48 pm

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): May I first declare an interest as a director of a family business with an interest in the building industry? I shall speak for only a minute.
When the Government consulted on this draft legislation in 2003, the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is a reputable body, opposed it. I hope that the Minister can explain comprehensively why the Government did not listen to RIBA and why they are going down this route. I am not sure why we must change things for the sake of a committee that handles only six cases.
I know that the Minister has some idea of RIBA's concerns. I hope that he can reassure the Committee about why the changes are being made. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who prayed against the order, did us a favour. If there are concerns among the general community, it is right that the Government put on the record why change is necessary.

2.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) ranged far and wide in his speech praying against the statutory instrument. I shall try to focus on the business before the Committee, but also to respond to some of the points that he raised.

Column Number: 8
The Architects Registration Board, set up by the Architects Act 1997, came into being on 1 April 1997 with the aim of

''protecting the consumer and safeguarding the reputation of architects''.

It regulates the architecture profession by maintaining a register of qualified architects, of whom there are approximately 30,000 in the United Kingdom. A person cannot practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word ''architect'' unless he or she is registered under the Act.
The Architects Registration Board is a statutory body corporate with certain functions. Those include the appointment of a registrar, the maintenance of a register of architects and removal of architects from the register, the implementation and subsequent review of a disciplinary code, and the establishment of a professional conduct committee, which has statutory duties of its own.
The board requires registered persons to pay a retention fee for entry on the register, and remuneration and expenses of board members are funded by the board and not by the Exchequer. The responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as the sponsoring Department in relation to the Architects Registration Board, include recommending the appointment of the lay members of the board and amending the UK qualifications listed under the architects directive 85/384/EC. That harmonises qualifications across Europe to allow the free movement of architects in the European Union. [Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members will not rise to the reaction of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The Architects Registration Board has assumed the former role of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom as the competent authority for the UK for the purposes of the directive.
The board meets four times a year and consists of 15 members, of whom seven are elected and eight are appointed. The elected members are elected in accordance with the board's electoral scheme, with the approval of the Privy Council, after consultation with bodies representative of architects. The eight appointed members are appointed by the Privy Council after consultation with the Secretary of State. No registered person shall be eligible for appointment as an appointed member. Board members serve for a term of three years, which can be renewed once. The board members elect their own chair, who is currently Judge Humphrey Lloyd QC.
The board can set up committees—we are now getting to the point of the statutory instrument—as it considers appropriate, which meet several times a year. Of those, only the professional conduct committee has been established by law, in schedule 1 to the Architects Act 1997. Therefore, any changes to the composition of the professional conduct committee require an amendment to the Act.
Currently, the nine members of the professional conduct committee are four elected architect members and three lay members of the ARB, and two people nominated by the Law Society. The current quorum must consist of one architect member of the ARB, one
Column Number: 9
lay member and one Law Society nominee. The order before the Committee increases the number of members of the professional conduct committee to 16 by adding one additional person nominated by the president of the Law Society and six additional people appointed by the ARB, of whom three shall be architects. The order also widens the pool of people who can form a quorum. That must consist of one Law Society nominee, one registered person and one person who is neither a registered person nor a Law Society nominee.
I want to deal now with some of the questions. The members of the professional conduct committee are all busy people, and it is often difficult to convene the necessary quorum for a disciplinary hearing. That results in delays in hearing cases. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 state that a person is entitled to a civil rights hearing within a reasonable time. For several years the Architects Registration Board has been pressing for changes to schedule 1 to the Architects Act 1997 to increase the pool of members of the professional conduct committee.
The then Minister responsible, the present Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), agreed last June to consult on proposals for a draft statutory instrument amending the Act. He also agreed that the consultation should be confined to organisations in the fields of architecture, law and consumer affairs, limited in time scale, and not accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment. It was considered that a regulatory impact assessment was not necessary, as the proposals made no impact on industry and resulted in no cost to the taxpayer, although they could benefit small businesses. The consultation took place in July, August and early September last year, and 11 responses were received. Apart from the ARB's own response, two respondents agreed with the proposals without reservations and five agreed with some qualifications. Three respondents disagreed with the proposals and also sought a fundamental review of the board. Those were the Association of Consultant Architects, the Royal Institute of British Architects and an elected member of the ARB.
The ACA called for a parliamentary Committee to investigate and report on the ARB's remit under the Architects Act 1997. However, we believe that a parliamentary Committee investigation would merely serve to re-open debates that went on many years ago. I have not given the Committee the benefit of the history of the establishment of the ARB in 1997. I decided that that would probably be in my best interest.
RIBA considered that the changes were unnecessary on several grounds, which have been repeated in Committee today. It said that there were insufficient cases to justify the proposed changes, that delays could still occur at the procedural and investigation stages, and that meeting dates for the professional conduct committee should be established well in advance so that a quorum could be convened.

Column Number: 10
However, the costs of the changes are minimal and the board can make appropriate amendments to its procedures to reduce delays occurring at the procedural and investigation stages. In addition, even if meeting dates for the PCC are established well in advance, members of the PCC are not entirely masters of their own diaries. We are satisfied that the offices of the board would not over several years have asked for the increase if there had not been a problem that needed to be addressed.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge is right that one of the elected board members submitted a response in a personal capacity, and he has raised some of those concerns this afternoon. He repeated the point that that respondent thought that no members of the ARB should serve on the PCC. I emphasise that the quorum established by the order will allow the PCC to be independent of the board in an individual case. As it consists of one person nominated by the Law Society, a member of the committee who is a registered person and a member of the committee who is not a registered person or a Law Society nominee, the PCC could be quorate without a board member present.
However, whatever the board decides, there is a right of appeal from the making of a disciplinary order by the PCC to the High Court under section 22 of the Architects Act. We do not believe, therefore, that there is sufficient merit in the points raised today and during the consultation to cause us to reconsider our proposals.
In the six years of the ARB's existence, there has been no complaint or challenge alleging that the composition of the PCC has resulted in a lack of independence or bias because of the presence of board members. The PCC, as presently constituted with board members, has no hesitation in dismissing charges brought before it if it is satisfied that there is no case to answer or if the charges are not proved. That illustrates its ability in practice to act independently and without bias.
Individual members of the profession have indicated that they are supportive of the involvement of board members in the PCC. There is a view that that makes the PCC more accountable in the sense that the flavour of cases informs consideration of the profession's views around the board table.
The ARB has advertised for six additional lay and architect members of the PCC. The lay members could have any background, although a connection with consumer issues or professional practice in any walk of life would be an advantage. An interest or involvement in architecture is desirable but not essential. The architect members are likely to have had recent experience of practice in the UK. Experience as an expert witness, arbitrator or member of a tribunal would also be an advantage. More than 200 applications, mostly of high quality, have been received, and the ARB is drawing up a shortlist under the guidance of an independent scrutineer, who has carried out a similar role for the General Dental Council.

Column Number: 11
As some of the comments made this afternoon have shown, the issue of architectural regulation is a live one in the profession. We understand that, and we have taken into account the views of the profession, consumer interest and the Law Society. As very few professionals abuse their position and merit removal from the register, we need a committee that can examine complaints against an architect's professional conduct. If we need a professional conduct committee, it should be able to deal with cases efficiently, which I hope deals with the points and questions raised today. That is the aim of the order, and I hope the Committee will allow it to stand.

3 pm

©Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 June 2004