RIBA or ARB; who holds power?

Jun 03, 2021

Dear All,

There’s been a lot of frustration from some in the industry lately about the inability of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) to fix the employment practices of some architects. It took me a long time- and a lot of reading- to figure out the difference between RIBA and the Architects Registration Board (ARB), who could do what, and who had what powers in the profession. While talking with a friend this evening they suggested this letter may be helpful:

RIBA is the most successful and lasting of a number of architects clubs that began to appear in the UK starting with ‘The Architect’s Club’ in 1791. The late 1700s and early 1800s were a time of huge change in the UK construction industry- bought about by growing wealth from the industrial revolution and the growing British Empire. The UK population urbanised and not only was there high demand for housing, but also for new typologies such as factories, workhouses, mills, railway stations etc. It was a boom time for the construction industry and non-construction professionals flocked towards this opportunity, creating new roles such as the general contractor.

The great opportunity and general lack of regulation also gave rise to all sorts of opportunities for the less than scrupulous to defraud their clients- often centring around shoddy building work and inaccurate measuring and quantifying. The latter role at the time was usually carried out by architects and the profession began to lose public trust and prestige as a result of this dodgy practice.

Between 1791 and RIBA’s founding in 1834 there were dozens of clubs formed, all seeking to address the problems that were arising in the public perception of the architectural profession through lack of regulation and unscrupulous or criminal practice. Most started well with good intentions, and descended into glorified dining clubs quite quickly. The RIBA had a rocky and slightly shocking start (read my book when I finish it for more- or dig through some of the further reading below)- but emerged triumphant from the melee of clubs in 1834 and gained a royal charter in 1837.

One of the main aims of the RIBA was to ‘close’ the profession of architecture- to restrict its practice by law to those with a prescribed set of qualifications and who abided by a certain set of professional standards. This, they reasoned, would protect both their members and the public. The latter by giving them a certainty of professionalism, the former by granting them a solid professional reputation to trade upon.

RIBA lobbied the profession and MPs hard and various bills were introduced into parliament in 1886, 1890, 1892, 1895, 1900 and 1903 (some of which RIBA lobbied against because of the wording of the bill). Then there was some infighting between the RIBA architects and some architects who became known as the memorialists about prescribed architectural education. It all got a bit messy and an open letter was published in The Times- so the RIBA shelved the registration policy for a bit for fear of making the whole profession look more ridiculous than they were already beginning to look.

After the upheaval of WWI another Bill was introduced in February 1927. After much backwards and forwards between RIBA, other stakeholders and the government it was shelved in 1928, then reintroduced in 1930, gaining royal assent in 1931. However, RIBA did not gain the role it had hoped for- that of gatekeeper of the profession. The provisions of the act were explicit that ‘the Registration authority should not be a solely professional body’ and legislated the creation of the Architects Registration Council (ARCUK, now ARB). The act was amended in 1938 to protect the title ‘architect’ (the 1931 act only protected ‘registered architect’); and was replaced in 1997 by the current Act which legislated the for the ARB in its current formation. There has never been any political or public appetite for protection of function in the UK and anyone can essentially practice as an architect without using that title.

So… RIBA is a professional membership body- despite the best aims of its early members it has never had any legal powers over the practice of architecture, or indeed any influence other than that leant to it by its membership or by ARB. Today ARB recognises RIBA accredited university courses as giving students exemption from its Part I, II and III exams- but RIBA has no power over whether someone can call themselves an architect. RIBA has a more stringent code of conduct than ARB but it is voluntary for architects to sign up to this ‘gold standard’. Currently around 70% of architects are both ARB registered and RIBA chartered (including me).

[clarification on 14/06/21 the ARB wanted to be clear that they don’t recognise RIBA accredited courses as exemption from qualification criteria. Candidates must complete ARB prescribed courses. I had muddled this as the vast majority of courses are RIBA/ARB exempt and RIBA is part of the consultation process: “As stated under the Architects Act 1997, the ARB is required to consult with bodies representative of architects which are incorporated by royal charter. Therefore, the ARB commonly consults with bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS), the Royal Society of Architects in Wales (RSAW) and the Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA).” Full details of the ARB prescription process can be found here: https://arb.org.uk/information-for-schools-of-architecture-2/prescription-process/ ]

RIBA has never been a trade union and has limited lobbying power for the profession. Arguably/ anecdotally it may not police its members more ‘minor’ lapses of conduct as strictly as some may wish - perhaps because as its membership diminishes so does the likelihood of its continued existence, or its legitimacy in calling for certain levels of professionalism or education. It does however have an excellent reputation among the public and abroad for the high standard of RIBA chartered architects; a well known and prestigious awards programme; an unrivalled library and highly learned staff working on some excellent research and publications. Think of it as an intellectual professional society which sets high standards and publishes useable professional frameworks and contracts that respond to the current architectural climate and you will be largely fairly pleased with it; look to it to raise the bar of the profession single handed or to reform architectural practice entirely and you will be bitterly disappointed. It is also known for its bureaucracy and glacial pace of change- though recent reorganisations of the Institute governing structure have sought to change that… but it’s early days yet.

ARB however does have actual power. Albeit it is limited to telling someone whether than can title themselves ‘architect’. That’s pretty much all ARB is- a registration body which holds the legal register of architects and prosecutes those who use the title illegally or who breach its code of practice. It leans heavily on the RIBA over what educational standards it sets- but it doesn’t have to. The ARB has legal power over prescribed qualifications and could chose to change them to something RIBA disagrees with. However, the long running relationship and general agreement between them (despite the occasional spat) means it probably won’t.

Neither body is a trade union. Both were conceived in an era of private practice where the expectation was that successful office employees would go into partnership with their boss, or start their own practice. Neither were conceived in the world of large practices and salaried architects we exist in today. RIBA has adapted a bit, ARB doesn’t need to; but neither will expertly fill the role of advocating for junior architects or students over the established senior professionals. If i’m being cynical it’s because ARB doesn’t need to, and because senior professionals pay RIBA’s bills. If i’m being realistic it’s probably more likely because those in senior positions in both boards are only recently becoming aware of the scale of some of the issues that have seemingly become endemic- and are now not quite sure what line to take between protecting and promoting junior professionals, and allowing the profession itself to remain viable.

With the Building Safety Bill granting ARB further powers over competence and RIBA’s lightning fast publication of a tested curriculum that covers this; the rising disquiet over social justice issues in the profession; the outcomes of the Grenfell inquiry; a changing professional indemnity insurance market and an ever growing cast of specialist construction consultants… well let’s just say I don’t think any of us will come out of the next few years the way we went in- least of all RIBA and ARB. But I could be wrong, because what do I really know?!

Until next time!

Eleanor

(As a disclaimer I have a contract with RIBA Publishing to write a book- I too have a very tiny financial interest in them not becoming obsolete in the next year or two!)

London Architect

Discussion about this post