CIAT responds to the architects' regulation review

This response is from the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT) regarding the undertaking of a review of the regulation of architects.

Following a Call for Evidence by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 16 August 2021, with a view to undertaking a review of the regulation of architects, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT) Executive Summary reads as follows:

This Call for Evidence is to consider the current form of regulation for architects and the architectural sector in the UK. CIAT has serious concerns on the fragmented, biased and blinkered nature of the Call for Evidence, and the implications its findings may have on the Built Environment sector and professionals operating within it, should any recommendations that come as a result of the findings be implemented.

It is the opinion of CIAT that:

This consultation should have been undertaken in full collaboration with relevant representative professional bodies at all stages, with a comprehensive analysis carried out of the roles and functions of all qualified and competent built environment professionals that may be affected by this review.
The survey in its current form and its responses should be disregarded by the DLUHC (formerly MHCLG). The survey must be rewritten without bias or ambiguity in collaboration with relevant professional bodies to ensure the inclusion and representation of all relevant built environment professions, to allow them to respond in full, with due consideration given to their comments in view of the wealth of knowledge and experience they hold.
Critically, with the imminent enactment of the Building Safety Bill, the new building safety regime, and the establishment of the HSE as the regulator, the ongoing need for the Architects Registration Board (ARB) must be seriously considered as should the continued protection of the title architect, as there is no justification of why one profession should hold a privileged status over others.
The implication of the intention to protect function requires a transparent impact assessment. To regulate functions which are perceived as typically undertaken by architects would narrow competition through the exclusion of all other professions and may exploit a dominant market position.