14 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/5adbd893578ad20a9fc1cf2712f307a0.pdf 65f3ac609b66505e0f9208471a7a46c6 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter from John Allan to Building Design Subject The topic of the resource Letter from John Allan to Building Design "RIBA v ARCUK - Fighting a losing Battle" (2 pp.) Description An account of the resource Dear Slr, RIBA — v — ARCUK : Fight Ing a losing battle Recent reports of a new RIBA offensive on ARCUK should both dismay and alert those who have been working for its emancipation and reform over the last ten years. At the same time others unfamiliar with the ARCUK story should be aware that such hostility Is but the latest episode In the Institute's long and losing battle to retain surrepti— t Ious control of the Registration Council. In the mid 1970 v s when the elected representatives of Unattached Architects first engaged the problem, the Council's relationship to the RIBA could most charitably be described as one of abject thralldom. Whether through collective amnesia or pure ignorance, any Independent perception of ARCIJK's statutory responsibilities had simply ceased to exist. Thus our Initial interventions, however green, met with absurd over—reaction, dubious manipulation of procedures, or verbal thuggery In open council. Besides the serious abuse of power, some incidents took on a wholly comic alre 1 remember the moment of baffled outrage when I first contested (unsuc— cesfully of course) the post of chair at one of the committees , followed by reluctant rummaging through the stationery cupboard to see if ARCUK possessed such a thing as ballot papers. Whilst I never actually used the referee's whistle I used to carry into the Council chamber, It Is perhaps worth recording that by the late 1970's the Unattached were taking legal advice on obtaining a High Court injunction on ARCUk's operations — a course of action only terminated through lack of funds. Much has changed since those dark days, albeit at a painfully slow pace, partly through external pressures, and partly — I should like to think — as a result of the efforts of the Unattached (plus a few honourable mavericks too Intelligent to be taken in by the party line) . In responding to such issues as the Monopolies Commission Investigation, the new Standard of Conduct, the Esher Report and the E.E.C. Directive, ARCUK has begun to distinguish Its role from that of the professional associations. Moreover recently, under untypical— Iy non—partisan chairmanship, speakers of any viewpoint are assured of a fair hearing, thus bringing welcome diversity to both Council and BAE more respresentatlve of their respective membership • John Allan M.A. (Edin.), B.A. Hons., Dip. Arch., M.A. (Sheffield), Architect. Richard Barton B.A., B.Arch., (Ncle)., R.I.B.A., John Cooper B.A. (Cantab.) Dip. Arch., Architect. Justin DeSyllas M.Sc., (UCL), AA Dip., Architect, Geraldine O'Riordan B.Arch.(Dublin UCD) Architect. A Co-operative Practice registered under the Industrial & Provident Societies Act 1965 Registration No.23270R. It is both consistent with and central to this process of reform that ARCUK should seek to re—establish control of educational recognition, after the hijacking of this function by the RIBA In the mid 1960's. It Is indeed a statutory duty under the 1931 Act, and for the RIBA to disparage this as 'Interference' Is either disingenuous or merely ignorant. And If the Institute finds it objectionable that ARCIJK appoints Its own Education Officer or vets the new RIBA examination, it has only Itself to blame for the years of arrogant Intransigence that have now provoked such a resolute response. As for the unfortu— nate fall guys, my advice would be to Immediately become unattached, stand for election, and avail themselves of the advantages of democracy As I retire after ten years as an elected councillor, it Is rather a depressing prospect that valuable time and energy now seems likely to be wasted in fighting over old ground that has already been won, thereby diverting attention from new and more fruitful lines of progress. Yet RIBA blimps must realize that any attempts to return ARCUK to the old ways will be resisted — not only by the Unattached who now know the game, but by other interests In Council and BAE who have discovered that the RIBA is not a reliable ally In times of political pressure. The government appointees have likewise necessarily adopted a higher supervisory profile in view of ARCUK's enlarged E.E.C. duties, and even the press has a positive part to play in giving effective coverage to ARCUK t s affairs, including reportage of deliberate fouls. Instead of trying to tUTn the clock back, RIBA would—be saboteurs should overcome their fear of change, recognlse that the Institute's period of hegemony Is ending and seek a constructive contribution in ARCUK's overdue transition from wardship to adulthood. Yours faithfully, JOHN S ALLAN Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource JA Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2.3.87 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/76ac0a47265a64301fa4745b66b72c12.pdf 349a16a75bd3dc9a7bc3c7f15854f6b0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter from K Forder Subject The topic of the resource Letter from K Forder (Registrar) to J Tarn enclosing letter to Stephen Dunmore of DoE re PI Liability Study Team, letter from S Dunmore to Forder dated 18.11.88 and DTI notice (8pp total) Description An account of the resource I enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated 16 November which is self explanatory together with the accompaning Press Release dated 11 May. I have written in terms which indicate surprise that this is the first mention of this matter that has been made to ARCUK with a request for submission by the end of this month. I am however glad to hear that constituent bodies such as the FAS, IAAS, and the RIBA have been consulted and have submitted questionnaires on the mat ter . It rather seems that the big gap in consultation has been an apparent failure to seek the views of unattached architects and the Architectural Association. I am making appropriate representations to the Department of the Environment on this matter together •with querying a situation where it rather appears that on the! three study groups looking at the matter there appear to be only two architects. I should be grateful if constituent bodies could let me have copies of submissions they have made so that we can come to some conclusion on how the matter should proceed. Registrar Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom (STAB: 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Fax: 01-436 5269 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. KJF/CL 18 November 1988 Stephen Dunmore Esq Department of the Environment Room PI/ 123 2 Mars ham Street London swip 3EB Dear Stephen I wr ite to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 16 November on the Professional Liability Review and I am writ ing this letter because although I hope to speak to you on the telephone on Monday there is always a possibility that we may not make contact. You may be surprised to learn that this is the first that ARCUK has heard about the setting up of the Construction Industry Study Team and indeed is the first time we have seen the Press Release dated Il May. I gather there has been another Press Release since then. These facts seem all the more surpris ing in view of the fact that the Architects Registration Council is virtually the only statuatory body in the whole construction industry (apart from the Construction Industry Training Board) . I do not of course want to make a song and dance about it but I really think it is very important that the Statutory Body should be informed of such measures at a very early date. The ludicrous position I face at the momen t is that we are given precisely twelve days in which to make a submiss ion. This is of course quite imposs i b I e. When we have an opportunity to speak perhaps we might discuss this. There are I think two things which have been lost sight of. Firstly, although from the checks I have been able to l.nake it seems that most constituent bodies of ARCUK (but not the Architectural Association ( ! ) ) have been consulted and have been sent questionnaires, it is not generally realised that one in four architects is not a member of a constituent body at all. It rather seems that this sector of the profession has not had an opportunity to make its views known. I think we shall have to discuss this also. Secondly at first glance I find it rather astonishing to real ise that architects, who are after all the leaders of the building team and in fact feel the final financial edge of any professional indemnity issue, are represented by precisely two persons in the study teams, both members of one constituent body and neither of them a present or former member of ARCUK Council. Cont/ 2. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY REVIEW CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STUDY TEAM DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Room 23 2 Marsham Street, London SWIP 3EB Fax (01) 276 3826 Direct line 01-276 Mr K Forder Registrar Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom 73 Hall am Street London WIN 6EE 16 November 1988 Dear Kenneth PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY REVIEW As- you may already be aware, the Department of Trade and Industry recently set up three review teams to investigate the problems of professional liability experienced by audi tors; valuation surveyors ; and construction industry professionals, i e architects, consul ting engineers and quantity and building surveyors . A Press Notice concerning the study teams' work is attached. The construction industry study team has been gathering information by means of questionnaires sent out to professionals, clients of the indus try , insurers , brokers and contrac tors ; in tervi ews wi th interes ted parties ; and liaison with the professional institutions . We are seeking to es tablish a factual basis on which to ground our recommendations , to establish the nature and extent of the liability prob 1 em , and to solicit recommendations for improving the current arrangemen ts . I am writing now to give you the opportuni ty, on behalf of ARCUK to put forward evidence to the cons truction industry study team on professional liabili ty probl ems as éhey affect professional archi tects . We are working to a tight timetable, and would be grateful to receive your submission by the end of November. This would be followed, if necessary, by a meeting between ARCUK and the study team chairman and secretariat to discuss the submission. It would be of great help if your submission could broadly follow the structure outlined below: . Problems perceived in the current arrangements . Action taken/ to be taken by your organisation to combat these problems . Priorities for reform. How these reforms could best be implemented. Chairman Professor Donald Bishop, CEng, MICE, ARICS, FCIOB Secretary Ms. Ann Blackmore Technical Secretarv Dr. Geoff Pros.ser Perhaps you would let me know whether you wish to take the opportuni ty of providing evidence. I look forward to hearing from you . Yours sincerely , STEPHEN DUNMORE� 88/363 •101 01-21 s 47,72 11 May 1988 Out ot- I lours 7877 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY STUDIES CHAIRMAN NAMED Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Lord Young today announced the appointment of Professor Andrew Likicrman to chair a series of fact—finding studies into professional liability problems. Three study teams have been set up by the Department of Trade and Industry to establish the nature, scope, extent and implications of these problems. The move is a result of the concern of a range of professions at the increasing number of people using the courts to claim damages for professional negligence and at the dramatic increase in the amounts involved. In addition professional indemnity insurance has become more costly and difficult to obtain. Replying to a Parliamentary Question, Lord Young said: "We have appointed Andrew Likierman, Professor of Accounting and Financial Control at London Business School to be overall Chairman of the fact-finding studies into professional liability. "We have asked Professor Likierman to oversee the work of the three study teams so as to ensure consistency between their approeches and to draw together the results of the individual studies. He will chair a small steering group which will include the Chairmen of the study teams. " These three chairmen will be: Auditors: William C C Morrison CA, deputy senior partner of Peat Marwick Y,cLintock and former President of the Institute of Chartered Äccountants of Scotland Ärchitects/Consu1tinq Enqineers/Construction ÜSurveyors: Donald Bishop CEng, MICE, ÄRICS, F•CIOB formerly London Master Builders Professor of Building at University College, London Other survevors: Ian Oddy FRICS, FRVA, FCIArb — managing partner of St Quintin (Chart.ered Surveyors ) More. . . Liabi it y . 1,0.Td Younq continued: L he menibers of the .study teams have been chc.)3cn so that in each team there is at least one member of the relevant profession or professions, a legal. expert, an insurance and someone with experience as a user of the professional The members are as fol lows: Auditors: Anthony W Mallinson LLM; Robin Jackson; ( further member to be appointed) Architects etc: K Wesley Whims ter FICE, FIStructE, MConsE, FlWEMr FCIArb; Peter Down CEng, FIMechEr SCIBSE, MConsE; Chris Vickers FRICS, ACIArb; Clifford Lansley Dip Arch, AR IBA; Roger Squire FRICS; Bernard Anderson AR IBA; Anthony Kidd FCII, Donald Keating QC, FCIÄrb; Johrl Myatt CEng, FICE Other surveyors: John Chapman FRICS, FRVÄ; Brian Grainger FRICS, F S VA; •Ray Moorman; Edward Hart ill BScr FRICS, Jeremy Mortimer; Kim Lewison Cantab), Barrister at Law NOTES TO EDITORS The decision to ccynmission a series of fact—finding studies was announc.ed by Mr Maude on 28 October 1988 in the light of represent— ations about liability problems from a number of professions and recognising that these problems raised questions of public interest. Anyone wishing to give evidence to the study teams should write to the following addresses: Auditors: Richard Grafen, Department of Trade and Industry, Room 521 10—18 Victoria Street, London SWIH CNN Architects etc: Gail Marshall, Department of the Environment, Roorn Al 07 r Ronne.y House, London SWIP 3PY Other surveyors: Li Ilian P H Birch, Department of the Environment, Room C 14/19At 2 Marsham Street, London SWIP 3EB A copy of the study team's terms of reference and biographical notes on Professor Likierman are attached. ENDS Liability. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FACT-FINDING STUDIES In the .li.ght of current concern about the cost and availability of professional indemnity insurance and the extent of professional civil arising out of statutory requirements ) (b ) architects/ consulting engineers/construction surveyors (c) other surveyors (such as land surveyors and mining surveyors ) The studies should in particular: Examine the nature of the service provided by the professions listed above, the professional duties and liabilities arising from that service, including the extent to which there. are requirements •Eo conform to professional standards and guidelines; the way in which the service is held out to the public; and public expectations and understanding of the service provided; ( i i ) Obtain detailed information about recent trends in the availability and cost of professional indemnity insurance for the profession listed above, and the reasons for these; ( i i i ) Obtain information about how the law has operated in the past and how it currently operates in relation to actions in negligence against members of the professions listed above; ( i v) Consider international developments with particular reference to the European Community and the extent to which they have affected, or may affect, (i), ( i i ) and ( i i i ) above; (v) Assess the effects, now and in the future, of (i), ( i i ) and ( i i i ) above on the availability, quality and cost of the services proviöed by the professions listed above, and the impact on those who rely on the service provided by members of these professions and to assess the effects of (i), ( i i ) and ( i i i ) above on the effectiveness and competitiveness of these professions; (vi ) If appropriate, suggest possible next steps for future consideration of the subject. 1.1i abi 1.i$_v . . . 4 PROFESSOR Professor Andrew Likierman, 44 r is a graduate in Philosophy r Politics and Economics of Balliol College, Oxford. At the London Business School, where he is Professor of Accounting and Financial Control, he is Chairman of the Faculty Board and an elected Governor. He is also Chairman of the Economist Bookshop Ltd, a Council Member of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, a Council Member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and Chairman of its Education and Training Commmittee; a member of -the Audit Commission; chairman of the Editorial Board of "Public Money and Management" and advisor on public expenditure matters to the Treasury amd Civil Service Social Services, Employment and Transport Select Committees of the House of Commons . Before taking up his present post Professor Likierman first worked for Tootal Ltd in Manchester, moving to Qualitex Ltd, where he became a Divisional Managing Director. He also spent three years as a member of the Central Policy Review Staff (the "Think Tank" ) , lectured at Leeds University and was a member of the Council of the Consumers Association. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource K Forder Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 18.11.88 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/689c65412a67b4ce1c4467e7c7d6da94.pdf 3028a6765814c68ab09a6014283e77f6 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter from Sally Oppenheim, July 1979 Description An account of the resource John Murray Esq Unattached Architects ARCUK 75 Hallam Street London wW1 ‘ Cer Als FM abi DEPARTOMFETNRATDE 1VICTORIA STREET ( LONDON SWI1H OET TELEPHONE DIRECTLINE 01215 2©62 y w/ July 1979 Private Secretary V3975 Fromthe SWITCHBOARD 012157877 Minister of State for Consumer Affairs The Rt Hon Sally Oppenheim MP I am writing to thank Mr Koebuck for his letter of 12 July to the Minister of State for Consumer Affairs Summariisng the position of the Unattached Architects. (Mr Roebuck asked that any further correspondence should be addressed to you). Mrs Oppenheim has asked me to say that she too found the meeting on 10 July a very useful one, and that in considering what action is necessary following the Monopolies & Mergers Commission report on architects' scale fees, she and the Secretary of State will take fully into account the points that you, Mr Roebuck and the other representatn of the Unattached Architexts have made. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ken Thorpe Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 07/06/1978 Subject The topic of the resource Letter from Sally Oppenheim, July 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/b5d829ab937a90f283e22c8bc847ed35.pdf cddbdadca2638d368fbe071ae33aa813 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter from William Paul to Michael Jencks Subject The topic of the resource Letter from William Paul to Michael Jencks re Unattached Architects' representation (1p) Description An account of the resource Th.•anks for your letter dated the 22nd of' July 1988, and the enclosed stat ement of some of the issues confronting ARCUK Councillors who represent the 6,600 or so t unattached architects who are on the Register. I am prepared to f discuss t the issues raised in the statement, or any other relevant topics with architects in the Region. It occurs to me that a meeting might be called for this verv purpose at which you one of the other Councillors might care to speake Speaking from experience, and on the assumption. that not more than fifty of those invited to attend would actually make an appearance, the cost of hiring a room would be about C 15—00. I would be prepared to underwrite this cost providéd that those att ending were invited to make a small subscription to offset expenses. If you agree I am prepared to write to the 'unatt ached* inviting them to att end. I real ise that there a number of detailed matters to work out if qy suggestion is adopted, however I thought that I should first make the suggestion t in principle'. If you favour the idea the details can be attended to. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource W Paul Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 29.7.88 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c064efa845e939528ae056ed02d7f844.pdf 1e008b977637354348fcb8e095f66c73 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report Description An account of the resource A REPORT BY ELECTED COUNCILLORS OF THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL (A.R.C.U-K.) at‘—I f;a ; — Fem AGndt Rarbuck . 25 NE Georges Aronia . W~Dry, Nee | Akxs Craw, <99, |Vos ant “Pack (4° oa wae Ze aCape 2MPRMR Cry 7z7IrS CR AREA, haQsee)euee. 42lhecteahARK, ]Connrecions : Loa 4alsin box ea matey meets SALWMG |foo AL AQ 420 o ARK iy Ypposttect 4 |4s ABACure Qwoe es |ee &QchibckeuwmeCakyenaALLK& RALSH TH Gobwa Lear Achar aS IQMuchGAOtoorteheae Bowes wea_s 104 Aarcl.. 1980 ESA SA| ElL# WeYO ANO|OD ; Ga Gslae Yar mas oo. 4a Adheees Omar! COeeyOleaneeegowbeens)tasConeAG.CN & Prvenin Se QypeQecnAck ia | Gs Wsk @oluie @ & ben Ader aa.he eee ae Gus Q-fake & ae = CeorlAuce an hsaa) . Aap WAG CremCLOTee 2. b. Qkockso( olecm 2.5 @-© “4. ARQeWr,K B5ow ‘paper,he Cscw(hRtGeR Gechee: SOGCCLORaieersoa)aCue GeAQhoLesh youCoe GeonomeKune G CRCa Oc Cnet hemaCoy Clones Niemen Tne Coke CG Qu nko coveAnta) Q@ wow 1 OME ONOCNtn hg Soe frum : Loo Dhertt “Qo Ajgarcak tu Golreg A, Sk, iae Akot Oe Go eae Oo 4 shor orola. eyEASI CreeOS re On foe GQ Kok. Sarl C2 4 ne :oa avs Su. Gols LO CaG a) wa TL > G GodoneQusol,meAyrewel6450.60 bm Qleck La Acten gt Dootet uo Detunmye@);OifraseorkUuuwat vl, CO. | Y ,Grdue, Ge Ca Pavole an, Ants, peforGets GQuradactAmtOe {mae fe RokerMatte(Sto~Fos)286)\RuAlla.(P54 $572) er Js) (637 - C685) \ Vunconn ae Bowes wea_s S out | OOD Wd Caml grade yr Colre2 on Hey A0nG p Lack, El # WeYOD ANO|OD Lek of Confe-ts. —Uce £ ALCirk 912 DE aarEyig Combrred slahskeof implicahoro of L TfT Sa mem Conca Ny Areas” —— Bowe awea_ aay CTe feuo>) ‘ Peatle Pulte) Hews‘seatsor.POEIED,POPS apporhored: in accordance ifs fre Avch tet’ Begichaten fet ef 193/. HawsACR TYEEZE)cnchhnfedCL). Has A2euUkeo a By cImplcohoredf parven P_SPOOR. a) Lee APEC mopreply constrhtad CHE) rege" Tspple re - Flea APCUE is empropert, corchhitedcz) -'bhr does on LIBRA eo é a eee, anshAtlea Zl Frepesed sycters ty enero eae ALCUK, PeeLy Less £ De brine nt enfferad &4y ’ Unattached Archlet® aca reef of fre imprope- Censhtutes ofACU. Nis er puuheo ef ARCH a7s ree =comchtr:te d. Ca Zk a Speafe hamed induritlielos arch. techs Cheviced fe Atchtectsee. 5C1931). Arch tect { Gag Kchahor 1 At’ C1988) ArchteetbBapenonCrendreont-)Act(1965) Beogulahsns asspprndby fh a, Arscaphins. ag. &hons SS = PRG a ae ey ARCAIK Shanckag orleans C73/25) « Ge-k lewen's Azyree rant _ conshtrhon ef Comnsttaz> C254f04). Nihee A. 23. feck Coe of Profesor! Cra ch- 4 CGuwdence fo Nes Gude. Boe ACHE Code. 2e- 3. Arnucetl Reports 1973/4, (974) 9S, 1975,(2&, (976/77, 1977]78, 1878/79, ed Oo tt Complants en Spe=hon of Canes RIBA Chote 4Bie fos 1971. FIBA Cota of Prof Corot PIBA Seoles of Charoes Conch tee fo rule a > March 1922, Conch tisbhen Crresponckenca— in Comrachon cihy FIBA subseriphens. EIGA "Becorbung an Acchilect! Bxckack fr Ly ARCUK Cerves POM cLercoe_ Report (2H) 72 29m feeG Leotle— Se Li # Registrar (C;— aportes sp, Ae. BA Connie Mong of hich gees 87/2/97) 4b. fy fredle ty PzdAchin en 47. Arhreles om BeesCCN peLPsse eciges Pricer “fo frG.,- ac ins hucley Foy ey)te blue)(er9) OPOKAsshererre 4].32-/-1230. Belrect frev~ PUA Annnol Reyort C1974-) . Bevel fre P2IBK Ayaie/ Reperr (19 2) ee 09 Gegn (S-4-/475 rHehon7Ah, #2exis Grower Seilert, Sealey & Lo. 14 Jooks Gourt London EC 4 = d4 nolmdale hoad 4cngonu Wa 6 11 march 1960 vear bir Grower, Iwproper Constitution of «iCUK further to our Jetter of yesterday with attached aocu. wents, foliowing our conversation, 1 enclose the remaining documents listed as “to tollow" on Document 2, List of Contents. i enclose also two further documents: 48 - Counsel's opinion in Keyte case 49 —- Notes on the apportionient of seats...etc. No. 48 was recently sent me by the khezistrar of ARCUK and concerns a case which AKCUK is considering under Sec.7 of the act. You night tind it of interest in its discussion of the act. I thought the discussion of literal interpretation of the act night be relevant to our case regarding the no lon-er existent "icllows, associates and liceutiates" o1 the kiss ana the Fisst Scheuule, var. 1 (i). (see vocunent 1). No. 49 contains no aduitional iniormation bat is incluueu as a very briet suniary o1 the situation. vocunents ob waltz E14 WeUD ANO|OD seats on AKCUK should be properly apjoitioned in accordance with the architects hegistration Act 1951 The Architects kegistration Act 1961 requires the Council to be constituted in accordance with the First Schedule of that act. The Scbbaule proviues for appointment of menbers by various bodies and Gov't. winisters as well for the direct election by architects of architect abers. There is no explanation of the intention of the constitution, no systematic approach. The members nay, however, be broken down into 5 groups (1) Those appointed by the Councils of a nunber of named rganisations presumea to have architect nenbers, in propoition ol one appointee ior every 500 (o1 part thereof) of s kinds of their architect nenbers. Appointees nay, but need not, be architects See Far. 1 (i-vi) subject to 0 (a-c). Those elected by sone architects not considerea by the Act to be some kinas of architect members of the above organisations, again on a 1:500 basis. Those elected must be architects. See Par.1 (vii) subject eo One member appointed by the Council of another organ- isation of architects, who may, but need not, be an architect. See Par. 1 (viii). Five menbers in total appointeu by various Gov't. entities, who may, but neea not, be architects. Se area Ct) One member appointea by the Council of each of 7 organisations connecteu withthe building industry, who may not be architects. See Par.2. ots] a | | | 2 | | | El # WeYO ANO|OD they are menbers (f). (a) Account is to be taken only of "teliows, associates & licentiates" of the bodies citea in Par 1@i) ana (ii) but no such qualification appiies to the bodies cited in (iii-vi). Account is not to be taken of stuaent members of the body cited in Par 1(iv) but no such qualification applies to the bodies cited in (iii) (v) and (vi). Architect members of nore than one of the bodies cited in (i-v) are taken account of in all the bodies of which they are members. (Accordingy to AC figures as of 31-i1U-79, there are 21406 individual architects reckoned for the purposes o1 the Act t be members of the boaies citeu in (i-V), but seperate totals ada up to 22196, thus 792 multiple nenber ships. Honorary, corresponding or retirea members of the bodies citeu in (i-v})#NkxxBk are to be taken account of under (vii) and not under (i-vi). Par 3(c). E-g-, although ARCUK's Regs. refer to those architects taken account of under (vii) as "unattached", they may well be membe! ot one of the hodies citea in (i-vi). The "anomaly" of (3) above. although seats on ARCUK covered by (1) and (2) above appear to be on a basis of 1 seat per 50U people, the Act clearly does not establish a consistent system of 500 architects = i AR€UK member. note for example that {aj as below, some architects are not to be represented (a) (b), some architects are to be represented more than others (c)(a), only some architects must be represented represented and not represented by the body(s) of which by architects (c), and some architects are to be uirectly Eye SYP lily) as non-architect booklet published arch 1976, attached, and note total absence of elected Councillors. See also “aaverts" on )---is that ARCUK is composed of architectural “constituent bodies" (a term of ever-changing meaning which appears nowhere in the act or kegs) of which the RIBA is "the leading constituent body" (see p.15, draft AKCUK Annual Report for 1979-80) if not the only one of any signilicance. (Note that despite AkKCUK kegs lo and 14, nenbers of AKCUK appointed under Far.1(ix) and 2 are never (£) The varying qualitications for Councillors, architect or not under (1) (2) and (3) above. ») Only architects ordinarily resident in the UK are to be taken account of although the appointing Councils of the bodies cited in Far 1 (i-vi) pre- sumably represent architects resivent abroad as well being fellows, associates or licentiatesS," while the Notice and licentiates)." The notice also makes no distinction between the bodies cited in (i-vi) regarding (a) ana (b) aiscussed above. (see attached docunents) it should also be noted that the Act definitely gives no special importance to any Councillors as opposea to any others. Ali are equal. The mouel of ARCUK'S constitution aspropounded by the KIBA---and even AKCUK see "Composition" on p.3 of peach-coloured AKCUK info. it may be of interest to note that the wording, and thus the meaning, on the ofiicial notice calling for nominations sent out to "unattached" architects by AKCUK departs trom the Scheaule in some way , the Schedule under Par.l(i) and (ii) states “...architect members reads "Corporate member (including fellows, a ciat PESTice Blire[ere) elected to the Council's important Finance & General Purposes ana Professional Purposes Com) ittees.) When the Council was first constituted in harch of 42 members there were 12 appointed by the KIBA, 15 by other "arch." bogies, 5 "representing unattached architects," 5 appointed by gov't. and 7 appointed by eae g] tae | | (mot merely of the so-called "arch. constituent bodie nay have a member of that body apvointes to a viscipline Comittee ot ANCUK hearing a case oi "disgraceiul conduct against him or her and (2)that those archs. not considered tor the purposes of the First Schedule to be menbers of one of the bodies referrred to in Par.1 (i-vi) may elect members of ARCUK. =| Finally. it should be noted that in no way does the Act sugpest that akCUK should be composed largely of architects, should be controliea by organisations with architectmenbers,orshouldservetheinterestsofarch- |EE | itects. ‘| -E | other construction industry organisations. (see attached). | By March 1940, by which time the 1958 Act had made regis- tration mandatory for architects, the figures had changed to 15 KIBA, 15 other "arch." boui x "unattached", with the remaining unchanged. (see attached). he only ways in which the Act appears to treat one architect differently trom another are (1)that any arch. who is a member of any boby reierreu to in the Schedule Pye STNe Blile)|er0) xx Zi tow K is improperly constitut ( The electea Councillors believe that AKCUK is allowing the xk&#K RIBA Council to appoint more members of AKCUK than callea tor by the Archs. Keg. Act 1931. proviaes {or AkCUK to include "one member appointed by (1) The First Schedule, Par. 1(i), of the 1931 Act the Council of the KIBa in respect of every 5UU architect wembers of that Institute, being tellows, associates or licentiates thereof." (our underlining) About ten years ago the kIBA amended its hoyal Charter (with Privy Council approval) to create a single class of “Corporate Member" ( a term not found in the Act) and eliminated all "fellows, associates and licentiates.” Although the Act seems clear that only architect members of the KIBA who are fellows, associates of licentiates houla } taken account of under Par.1 (4), ARCUK, ignoring the change in the kIp/ Charter, takes account of architect members 01 the KiBA under Par.1(i) who are not fellows, associates or licentiates. it should be noted that at a similar time, the K1IBA also amended its Charter to eliminate the class of ketired Members. hetired members since then have been classed as Corporate Members". (Figures supplied by the kIBA to an kkIbA member confirm that the hiBa now has between 1000 and 1500 such retired members classed as Corp. Members who pay reduced sunscriptions because they are retired.) Although the Act is very clear that Ketired henbers are not to be considerea as architect mewbers of the PIRA but shoula be taken account of under Par.1(vii) as "unattached architects, AkCUK has ceased to do this since the change oveEv I-lUroel are)(ole) in the hi#bsA's Charter. It may also be noted that although the Nat. Feu. of Building ‘raves Operatives (more recently known as the Nat. Fed. of Construction Unions) is entitlea to appoint a Council member under Par.2, since it dissolved (although its member unions still exist) its seat has remained ant, Annual Keports of AKCUK indicating “Not entitled noninate" rather than “not nominating.” | The electea Councillors believe, therefore, that | according to the Act, | (1) The RIBA Council has at present no right to appoint any AKCUK Councillors (and should not have been | allowed to do so since it changeu its Charter to | elininate teliows, associates anu licentiates). | Those architect menbers of the kibA who are ordinarily resident in the UK and who are ueened not to be architect wenbers of kIBA because they are honorary, cori esponuing or retired menbers--and only these--should be taken of by AKCUK under Par 1(vii) and be "represen- accordingly as "unattached" architects, as Par (vi) and (vii) excludes from reckoning all architect menbers oi the k1BA, not merely those who are iellows, associates or licentiates (subject of course to the proviso in Far 5 (c)). The Act should be applied to Par 1 (ii-vi), covering other organisations with architect members, in the sate way as it should be appliea to the k1BA. Assuming that ii the KIBA were not alloweu to appoint menbers of akCUK as per (1) above it would make appropriate changes in its Charter to make such appointments again legal, action should also be taken i EL# WeYO ANO|OD to insure that at that time seats on ARCUK are apppr- tioned strictly in acco:aance with the act. ‘here is good reason to believe that AKCUK at present considers as members of the RIBA many arch who are not kKIBA menbers and considers as "unattached" fewer architects than required,. The consequence o1 this is that there would still be more k1BA-appointed Councillors than called for by the Act and too tew “unattached". ihe evidence for be- lieving this is presenteu below, I1-1i1-I Sib, 4 Das How _AkC improperly constituted Gi In response to a questionaire published in the architects Journal of 30-1-80 (see attached), 28 (that “< ‘> tl | 25%) of the 112 architects who said they were "unattached" and answered the question whether or not they had received | | architects should) said they had not. (Obviously, 112 architects responding is a small sample of the presumably over 5000 unattached. There is no 1eason om the face of it to believe, however, that the sample is nec rily biased regaraing the giestior Of these 28, 16 gave their nanes on the questionaire official nomination papers from ARCUK (as all "unattached" SyEvI-re lave)(eye) and the elected councillors have checkea their staterents against AKCUK records. Oi these,16, SNCUK records showed 6 claimed by one o r more of the bodies cited in First Schedule, Parl (i-v) incluging 5 claimed by the bIE Three were clained by no body but were not included in the unattached total (!). Une TM listea as unattached but was not shown on the list of unatiached voters (')- It has not yet been possible to ascertain whether he has been included in the total of unattachea used for appor— tioning seats on ARCUK. The other 6 are indicatea by AKCUK as being unattached (presunably a postal problem). Thus, | | not being considered by AKCUK as unattached, a coniirmation rate of 60%. Applying, this rate to the total of 2& who said they had not received papers, suggests that 16.8 of | | \ Pe a | | ot 1G traceable, 9 or 10 can be considered confirmed as the 28 might be confirmed, 15% of the tw 112 respondi i At the sane tine, ot 4K, 4391 +737 traceable, be elected and 40, not 41, appointed by the RIBA. it should be noted that the kegistrar oi A\CUK has papers in Nov.'79 returned them (as requested on the form) because they were members of one oi the relevapt bocies and were thus mistakenly considerd unattached. Assuming that AKCUK considerea then only 4815 (allowing for 66 istakes) as unattached, the above figures would be modified to 5076 unattached, 19790 KIBA. No change in implications ror seats on akCUK. It should also be noted that in addition to those responding to this questionaire, some of the elected coun- ciliors know personally architects who claim they resigned from the kiBA several years ago ana are still classilied by AnCUK as hIBA. They also occasionally meet architects who say ARCUK regards them as kKIBA althoush they have never been menbers oi the kKIbA. (One case vavid Heath, ym r= q E| | This implies that rather than there being now 4381 "un- attachea" archs. as claimed by AKCUK, there may really 5 were attributed to the RIBA, a confirmation rate of 51.25%. Applying this rate to the 28 oi 112 who said they had not received papers suggests that 8.75 might be confirmed. Thus, ARCUK may be attributing 8.75 to KIBA for each 16.8 | it may be wrongfully denying the "unattached." This implies that rather than there being 20090 KIBA members on the kegister (for Ist Schedule purposes), there are only 19719. The implications for the apportionment of seats on AKCUK of this alone is that 11, not 9, Councillors should pointed out that 40 os tue 1 supposedly sent nomination | 3 | be 773 nore, or 5154. / HL= 18 433] 5) S yeBTL eBlile)[<re) still regaraea as il#a by AKCUK even though he has never been a hibA member and has written expressly to akCUK to say so apd to ask to be properly consiuered as "unattached".) The iigures includea here o1 people wrongly classi- fied by ARCUK could include some of the architects who had been expelled by the KIBA, or resigned, after the Oct. 31 ARCUK "cut-off" but before the jan/Feb 1980 survey date. See(ZI) for how K1IBA uses Regs. loophole by admitting and reinstating members just before 31 Oct. and expélling nembers just after. The figures would not include people who still consiaerea themselves K1BA members, despite not having paid their subscriptio perhaps for several years, because they had not bee expelled by the k1Ba. See 625 (Vv) iow AKCUK is improperly constituted (111) One reason why the KIBA Council has been allowed by ARCUK to appoint more members than the Act calls for is that the kegs. of ARCUK (made under Sec 15 of Act, by K1BA-controlled akCUK, with Privy Council approval) call ior the membership submitted to AkCUK to be that on a single day only, 1 Uctober annually. ‘the k1BA Council conveniently admits new menbers ana reinstates ex-nembers annually just before that date but expells members annually just aiter that date. Thus, once a year%at Oct.351 the membership of the RIBaA for ARCUK purposes is higher than during the rest of the year. For the past three or four years these expulsions have averaged ahout 750 per year. As about 76.3% of the k corporate membership is consiuered by AKCUK to be architects resident in the UK, one may assume that of those 75U, £ 76.0 or 570, are creaited by AKCUK to RIBa. The tigure which AnCUK uses to apyoition seats tor appointment by the kIA Council thus ought to be 19520, not 20090, on this assumption alone. Fresunably most (95y0, or 545) of thes O should be added to the total of those considered by AKCUK to be “unattached," with the renainder still members of another body enabled to appoint members of AKCUK under Ist Schedule, Par 1 (ii-v It s pointed out by the fegistrar that in 1977 the kIBA Council considered that it had by error not enployed this aevice. Apparently, the ‘true" menbership was thus for once reported to AKCUK. 4 figures for Y, Use of AkCUK Regs. "loophole* by kIBA (Oct.51 date) eL# WED INo|OD the "unattachea" reitlect this: in 1975, 2707; in 1976, 3128; in 1977, 4120; in 1978, ,4s64. ELE -a5999- 6 bey ce CQyeayorn) ) sedieci?, ery Bs SAVEie h Fproewa4y)eyoey Arnab mo How ARCUK is improperly constituted CV When aoes an RIBA member cease to be a member for WhendoesanKIBAmembercesseoore AKCUK purpose: the guestion of KIBA arrears. Having heard continued stories of architect members of the RIBA resident in the UK who had not been expelied by the K1BA despite long subscription arrears, the elected councillors were also struck by what appeared to be an annual discrepancy between the number of corp- orate members clained by the k1bA and the subscription De 4-42 income actually received from those nenbers. According to the RIBA's treasurer, this apparent [Doe.38] discrepancy is due to the fact that many RIBA members pay subs at reduced rates, thus accounting ior the apparent rortfall in subs income (compared to the total to be expected if all corporate members paid full sub). In recent years this apparent discrepancy has been the equivalent of 550U members (approx.) not paying any sub out of a total of 26500 if the remainder paid full sub. It is difficult to find out the nunbers ot members atfullandreducedsubsandinarears. KIBArefusesto givesuchinfotonon-members andevenmembershavefound it so far inpossible to secure the info fron the kIBA. Fion seme figures recently supplied by the kIBA to a menber, account can be taken of those who pay reduced subs and the apparent discrepancy described above brought down to a more realistic figure. kIBA full sub for 1979 was £50. an assumed apparent discrepancy of 5500 members (it was 5811 in 1978) would 7 Document @ EL# WeUD ANO|OD 488 "semi-retired" to account for It is known, however, that of the RIBA's approx. 5500 overseas corporate members (5522 in 1976), those in BEC countries are expected to pay full sub and all others, half. We have not been able to obtain a breakdown into these categories from the k1Ba, but examination of several pages selected at randow trom the kIbA Direct of Menbers suggests that roughly 9 (say, 500) are irom other EXC countries, principally Mire. An examination of I membership figures at the time (1970-71) when Eire members ceased to be shown in kIBA's UK figure and begar to be shown in the overseas figure confirms this estimate. Thus another 5000 members wust be reckoned at a reduction of£25, accounting for£125,000 #191,075 (4rom above) -{125,000 =£66,075 still unaccounted for. This could be accounted for if 1322 members on full sub were completely in arrears haa not paid any of 1979 sub. But menbers at full sub are expected to account for only 62.6% of the total expected sub income. So it is really more likely that there are 1601 members in arrears, if TEES 7 fas -fes925 =f191,075 still account for a shortiali of £275,000. 3335 newly-qualitied members 1026" o 53 "semi-retired" ove 219 retired members © reduction it 922 "fully retired" members & Peay eBlaTe arrears are assumed spread evenly aniong all members regard— as "mewbers." income. we think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AKCUK presently counts as h1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 of 20090 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, 95j or 1 (since les than 5y of KIBA menbers so counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the Ist Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." Ii this were done, on these grounds alone the kIBA Council shoula get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income 2 less of sub level they are on, li these arrears are then distributed proportionally among those KIBA members on the Kegister of Architects and resident in the UK (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARCUK counts as RKIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as menbers despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the K1ba has little to gain by keeping others on Pye stale PUlere) Presunably, some people have paid some part of their sub, so the total number of people in arrears must be increased to account for the same shortfall in described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted incone. > less of sub level they are on. li these arrears are then (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARKCUK counts as RIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this be increased to account for the same shortfall in ve think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AkCUK presently counts as k1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 )0$0 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, cele (since les than 5y of kiBa members counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the lst Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." grounds alone the kIBA Council should get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It is possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income If this were done, on these distributed proportionally among those KIBA menbers on the kegister of Architects and resident in the UK figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as members despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the k1ba has little to gain by keeping others on as "mewsbers Fresunably, some people have paid some part of their b, so the total number of people in arrears must EYPETL-WOBIT(-ro) described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted tor by short term (one year) arrears, since tre sub income from members in arrears one year would be largely compensated for by members paying off their arrears of the previous year. There seems to us to be only two logical conclusions: (2) as described above, that there are many members in long-term arrears who ne pay off their arrears e.g., "terminal" arrears, or (2) the number of people in short-term arrears is already very large and is growing at an ever so that those paying off their arréars can never make up for the ever larger nunbers just going into arrears. This seens implausible. E1# WeUD INE|OO A. “unattached “architects laisse _e 425° Ame |29390 2440 The combined stehstical eerie TTBeDouments4-7+ “towPROUAKU6 aecoed“) |. Totad acording teARCLK 31-l0-74 = 4351 ; | scbsequerbyonvmodwsahached’byMOKnom () Z. (EL ie om a Assum Ft wleryreked m 1336 | | Spunk(wotti), Feler,sna Heantiates ley Members. but R160 I \ i OF 1131 w UK assume YaonRefs =505 “vetived” cout ag “unattached ae 3.(E) [en re ees 4.() Add hecaure4 eas ole+54S ¢ J“i(240|| Deduct est.240 fou =240 | \ (O00 151000 \ | Yoceclep’ of iandIE 6.(BL) Ade becauseoflangle Ores PIP Sco lirclcre) FST. REAL porat“unarTAcuen'= 73 26 THIS SUGGESTS “UniaTiacHeD “ swoucp BE ENTITLED To ELECT I5 Counaiees (NOT 4 AS | 3 a FRESENTLY AUD ATED.) | - THis SUGGETS AREUK S18ULP AeeeepioN 35 SEATS Fee APPOINTMENT BY The RIBA Count. (NET 4) AS PRESENTLY ALLS ceTED) 2 RIGMMoccia a eae of eae Seals on CUR [, Tetel accercling 4 ARCUK 3(-107R = 20040 assumedslestoycfrmaARALMC +40 ( ; ZO\ZO A (Z) See prenens 3,(qs) ct n page 565 mA -300 My Ley O70: 870 | Deduct est. (Fofer x72 | “oeclap” ofTardI 6.Gf)SlotrectCe -.Foo ounvea<S Esp RAL yerac “eIeA” = 17365 =/S00 suetrncr 2765 =27b5_ Peetlow litelco) ie AKCUK not constit qd) There is no outside agency to insure that ARCUK really is the ARCUK aescribed in the First Schedule of the 1951 Act. No person or body is held responsible for so ensuring. ARCUK, under Sec 15(1)(£) may make Regs. "generally for carrying out the purposes of this Act," but apparently is not obliged to. It should be noted in passing, howeve: that the ist Schedule did provide for such a responsible agency for the first constitution of the Council (the Secretary of State and a committee appointed by him), and that Kegs. made by ARCUK must be approved by the Privy Council and that "any person aggrieved by the hemoval of his name from the kegister Recon t appeal to the High Court or Court of Session, whose “order shall be final." (Sec 9). (2) The Regs. (43-45) made by AKCUK under the Act to prescribe the manner of the election of members under lst Schedule Par 1(vii) are not adeguate to insure that seats on AKCUK are apportioned in accordance with the Aét or may even tena to prevent their being so apportioned. (a) In a nunber of ways, hegs 45-45 do not strictly follow the Schedule (eg, compare Par 3(b) and(c) to delinition of "unattached" in keg 43). (b)The use of one day as a reference point for determining the relevant members of various organisations provides a loophole preventing the ist Schedule fron being properly inplemented. (see III) (c) The kegs do not proviae for an outside and impartial body to administer the appo1tionnent of seats ed by eye yey InojoD those with a vested interest in the outcone o1 the apportionment , their control of akc (dG) In oraer to determine the nunbers of "unattached" archs. and elected councillors---and, in practice but not according to any keg., coincidentally the number other Councillors to be appointed by bodies in Par 1(i- keg 45 allows for, but does not require, those bodies to supply the Clerk of the Couicil with a list of their members. In the case of those lists not being supplied, the Clerk is to use the "last published list" of such boay. At a time when the relevant UK memberships of all those bouies are apparently declining, while the “unnattached" are increasing in number, this provision is clearly insufficient to carry out the act. im any case, there is no provision in the hegs as to how the Clerj is to use or interpret these lists in determining the nuiber of unattsched archs. (e) No keg provides explicitly tor determining the number of AkCUK members which each of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may nominate. (£) The kegs provide that the only infornation to be used to deternine the number of votinig archs. under Par 1 (vii) shall be proviuea by the bodies cited in (i-vi), rather than allowing for or providing that into be supplied by the indiviaual architect regarding his or her membership o1 such bodies. And when AiCUK has asked individual archs. for info (Ann. heport 71/72, par 27, attached, and attached Form A), it has only asked "unattached" architects whether they night be attached, without ing attached archs. whether they might be unatt, el# Mello) AINOJOD ‘ibere is no mechanisi Lor reiuting a claim by one of these bouies that an arch is a menber. the system is clearly one-sided and open to abuse. (eg) There is no system for determining the validity of such menbership claims by such bodies. (h) The lists of members called for by the kegs are not required to specity the class of membership, thus giving AkCUK insufiicient info, to apportion seats aetermine the number of "unattached" as per the Scheaule. (i) There is no explanation 01 who (akCUK or the body concerned) is to determine what tor the purposes oi the Act constitutes being a meuber of such an organi- sation and on what grounas that determination shall take place. For exanple, the ketention F_e which each arch. nust pay AKCUK under 13 (1)(a) is due Jan. 1 of each year in advance and AkCUK normally strikes off the ister the following Lecewber 31 all those who owe any The various bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may keep tembers in arrears on their rolls ior varying amounts of tine. AkCUK goes not appear to question any claim by a body that an arch. is a member oi that body for any reason. Like AhKCUX, KIBa memb. subs. are due Jan 1 annually in aavance and the kIBA's Charter allows it to expel] menber after only 7 w.onths in arrears. It appears to us (see IV) that the kIBA claims for AKCUK purposes many architects in long-term, terminal arrears and others who have resigned or were never members at all and that AiCUK accepts theese claims. (1t may be noted that the Faculty of Architects & Surveyors, seePar. 1(iii), currently claims as menbers for AhCUK purposes only"those whose subs. were fully paid and with whon we were in contact." See attached document.) 2 1t is also open to question whether the purpose of the Act can be servea when seats are apportioned t appointing bodies based on memberships totals which those bodies can inflate (gaining extra seats on AKCUK) with architeets who are members under duress. Employee architects probably couprise at least 75% of those on the kegister resiaent in the UK. Although the kIBA publicly claims to be a voluntary body (see attached), many employee architects are members of the KIBA only because their employer requires them to be so, in violation the Employ. Protect. Act and TULRA, as the kIBA is not an indepenuent trade union (being enployer-aowinatea) and because k1bA menbership is in no way’a higher qualilication than kegistration with AlCUK. be estimate that 4000 01 the #Kis k1Ba's UK arch. members are required by their employers to be hiba members, ana it is probably sate to say that at least 2UUU are probably k1BA members for that reason only. 1 should be notea that many other arch. members of the kIBA who are employees are "encouraged" to join the kIbA by their employer, usually an KIBA member, paying their kIBA sub. This is probably as widespread as invol- untary membership. It should also be noted that Inlana }evenue permits *ke KIBA subs to be an aliowance against income (eg, public subsidy of Kiba) but does not vo this in respect oi all the bodies in Ist Scheaule Par 1(i-vi) who are entitled to appoint members of AkCUK on the 1:500 basi Ea evel Blircl(cre) (3) Though AKCUK'S Kegs are clearly totally inadequate A) sure that the Council is properly constituted in accordance with the A€t, it appears also that they are not being properly implemented. Thé lists provided for in keg 45(1)(b) are not being supplied to the Clerk. Nor are the ast published lists", as required by the Act, apparently used. (4) e believe that human error and fraudulent intent hate been given free rein because of (i)(2) ana (3) above. Given the political complexion oi AhCUK as it is presently, and apparently wrongly, constituted, it is very unlikely that this AkCUK will make ana inplempnt any kegs which could ensure that the Council is properly constituted. For the sane reason, it is also very unlikly that tkehibA & ARCUK will proauce and make public the info wich would indicate exactly to what extent the Council is wrongiully constitute €1L# weUD INE|OD oposed tem to ensure properly constituted AR ARCUK for what at present pretends to be ARCUK) needs to be obliged by some outside agency to amend its Regulations under Sec.13 of the 1931 Act, as well as taking equivalent short-term measures despite its present kegs., to, (1) require apportionment of seats on ARCUK in accordance with the First Schedule of the 1931 Act to be the responsibility of an external, impartial, lay (non- architect) agency which would each year tell ARCUK what its constitution would be for the following year. define membership of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) of the Ist Schedule to discount menbers in arrears longer than AKCUK itself permits and to discount members who affirm that they are members only because they are obliged to be as a condition o1 enploymen plug up the "one day of the year" loop-hole so that menbership for AKCUK purposes is a realistic 1epre- sentation of the organisation's membership. consider an architect not to be a relevant member of one of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) unless confirmed annually by the architect (not the body) that he or she is a member of such a body in accordance with the definition of membership in (2) above and in full accordance with the provisions of the Ist Schedule. (ARCUK already writes to every architect twice a year.) if (4) is not acceptable for any reason, require bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) to furnish ARCUK such information at it requires in order to ensure that the Council is constituted in accordance with the First 7d | | ese | >| g| = 2| — -| EYPETB (oro) the proper nunber of eected councillors Scheaule, in abseuce o1 which alleged mewbers tor whose "case" the into. is requireu would be considered "unattached" ana voting. Furthermore, in the tirst instance, we propose that it be required €G) that persons improperly appointed to the Council by the RIBA Council be imuediately removed trom the Council, that any election by the Council 01 persons to serve on the Board of Arch. Education, Admi ions Cttee, biscipline Cttee, F&GP, PPC, other Council boards, panels, delegations etc. as well as the Council's ana their chairpersons, anu Council appointments, be considered void it held while the Council is improperly cousituted ana provision maae for new elections ana appointnents by the properly constituted Council. (8) that as soon as practicable a special election be that those bouies, incl. AkCUK and FIBA, which have information which could clarify the extent of mal- apportionemént of seats on ARCUK should make freely available that info. (40) that the legality o1 acts of the Council carried ELi#WUD sNo|OD held to elect adaitional councillors so that there is out while it was ivproperly constituted be clarified. LOSS AND DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY ‘UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS SEE AS A RESULT OF THE IMPROPER CONSTITUTION OF A.R.C.U.K. oO 1.01 It was clearly the intention of The Architects Registration Act 1931 to provide equal rights of representatiom to all those persons who, though registered, choose not to become members of those bodies referred to in Schedule I, 2. (4) = (vi), and that such persons should enjoy equal benefits and likewise be equally subject to the Council's disciplinary powers as provided im respect of all registered persons. persons. entrance qualifications. / yeBTL eBlile)[er0) 1.02 To the extent that correct representatiom of registered persons under Schedule I, 1 (vii) is currently not acheived, both the spirit and the letter of the Act are being thwarted. To be denied their due representation in the Council's affairs in itself constitutes a fundamental grievance of this category of registered 2.01 The primary functions of A.R.C.U.K. as enshrined in the Architects Registration Act 1931 are the establishment of a Register of Architects (1,(3)), the admissioomf names thereto (1,(3)), and the removal of names therefrom (1,(3a & b),7 &11). The recognition and holding of examinations suitable to qualify successful candidates for admission to the Register is made the explicit duty of The Board of Architectural Education to recommend to the Council, (5, (2a & b)). In this way, through their representatiom on Council; tunattached! architects were intended to participate in the determination of EG 2.02 However, by its undue dominance of the Council, the R-I.B.A. bas removed the exercise of this duty out of A.R.C.U.K. into its own system of Visiting Boards, im which BsA.E. representation (invariably by R.I.B.A. members) is merely a token gesture. (See A.R.C.U.K. Annual Reports 1974/5 (101/2), 1975/6 (49), 1976/7 (71), 1977/8 (62), 1978/9 (60/ 61). N.B. the latter Report in which the B.A.E. is actually referred to as "a wide ranging assemblage of educationalists .. called together LOSS AND DETRIMENT /2 atconsiderablepublicexpenseforamereformality.") The‘unattached' architects have thus been denied their due part im establishing the quality of those eligible to enter the Register. 3.01 In the matter of removals from the Register, the Discipline Committee is appointed (1931 Act, 7(2)) to examine cases where a registered person may have been guilty of conduct disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect. The criteria employed in considering such cases are as embodied in the A.R.C.U.K. Code of Professional Conduct. 3.02 However, the disproportionate representatiom of the R.I.B.A. on Council has enabled the Institute to extend the applicatiom of its own association rules beyond its own membership to all registered persons. This illegitimate extension of R.I.B.A. control is clearly evident in the content of the A.R.C.U.K. Code, which is substantially identical to that of the R.I.B.A., and indeed is published with the R.I.B.A. Notes appended. to practice in ways which the Registration Acts do not prohibit. continued defence of the Conditions of Engagement in defiance of the Ze 3-03 In this way ‘unattached’ architects may be disciplined to the detriment of their livelyhood for breaches of a code not freely determined in their own Council, but emanating from a private associatiotmo which they do not belong. 4.01 Equally, this illegitimate protection of the R.I-B.A. Code by the identical A.R.C.U.K. Code curtails the freedom of non-R.1.B.A. architects 4.02 Thus ‘unattached' architects are, for example, obliged by Rules 1.1 and 3.2 of the 'A.R.C.U.K. Code' to apply the 'recognised' Conditions of Engagement of bodies listed in Schedule 1, 1 (i) - (vi). (A.R.C.U-K. Code of Professional Conduct. p.5, footnote.) 4.03 These Conditions of Engagement (in fact those promulgated by the R.I-B-A.) require that an architect's fees are charged in accordance with a fixed Scale of Charges, thereby denying ‘unattached' architects their proper freedom under the Acts to enhance their livelyhood by quoting fees in competition with other architects. The degree to which A.R.C.U.! thus improperly controlled by the R.I.B.A. is evident in the Council's LOSS AND DETRIMENT /3 Monopolies & Mergers Commission's conclusions and recommendations (accepted by the present and previous Governments) that such fixed Scales of Charges be abandoned in the public interest. (See "Architects' Services — A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees", The Monopolies & Mergers Commission, H.M.S.0., 8th Nov. 1977, paras. 285 & 286.) 5.01 Likewise an 'unattached' architect's freedom to carry on his practice in the form of a limited liability company which isnot proscribed by the Registration Acts is nevertheless denied by Rule 2.4 of the (R.I.B.A.surrogate)A.R.C.U.K.CodeofProfessionalConduct. Inthie way the R.I.B.A. bas improperly used the 'A.R.C.U.K.' Code to protect its own members from what "unattached" architects may consider to be more advantageous forms of practice. 6.01 Another constraint in the manner of practice that the R.I.B.A. is at liberty to impose on its own members, but which is extended to all registered persons by means of its improper inclusion in the 'A.R.C.U.K.! Code, is the prosziption of advertising. (Rule 3.6) In this case, moreover, while through A.R.C.U.K. the R.I.B.A. prohibits 'soliciting' by registered persons, it simultaneously engages in vigorous advertising on behalf of its own members. Here again the improper constitution of A.R.C.U has prevented ‘unattached architects in their enjoyment of equal rights | in pursuing their means of livelyhood. 7.01 Lastly, and again by virtue of illegitimate R.I.B.A. representation | and dominance in Council, the equal opportunities in obtaining employment that are envisaged in the Act's single level of registered persons - (ise. equal qualification conferred by entry to the Register) - are prejudiced by the the widespread imposition of R.I.B.A. membership as a pre-requisite for job applications. Although A.R.C.U.K. has frequently been advised of this practice it remains negligent in informing employers of its injustice. (R.I.B.A. membership entails no higher qualification.) 8.01 In sum, through the improper constitution of A.R.C.U.K., ‘unattached’ architects are seen to suffer loss and detriment in the equal treatment and right to livelyhood to which under The Architects Registration Acts they are entitled, tee elaOecd ese) / at © me notes on the politics of AKCUK as it no! D: uted (b) 6 persons appointed by the Councils of certain other i | 6 non-architects appointed by certain other bocies involvea in the construction industry Since 1977, nearly all of the elected councillors have been enployee-architect nembe of the New architecture Movenent, a group aiming to make the profession more accountable to the public ana more democratically con— a trolled at ali levels. These NAN. members elected as | are all members of the relevant trade union, TASS or NALGO as the case may be. Although probably of its own (non-retired) UK member ship are employee architects, the K1Ba Council regularly appoints 90) management architects to AlCUK. The RIBA Council and its committees are similarly dominated by employers, whose interests the KIBA is widely seen as pursuing y | Es xcept for the elected members, other akCUK councillors generally rally behind the kIBA appointees' position, with one or two exceptions. sl ARCUK at present (1979-80) consists of 66 members, (a) 40 persons appointed by the RIBA Council bodies because they have architect member | (c) 9 architects electea by architects one person appointed by the Council of the koyal Society of Ulster Architects (part of kIBA) 5 persons appointed by gov't entitie < | Those under a, b, d and e need not be architects but invariably are and are with at most one or two exceptions per year, nembers of the k1BA as well. 6. Previous to the passage of the architects hegistration Act 1931, the K1Ba had sought trom Farliament a monopoly on the use of the title "architect" for its own members. When Parliament refused this and set up ARCUK and the Register instead, the RIBA Council apparently resolved to control AKCUK (see Loc. 46) as an RIBA puppet in its own interes and to prevent its proper functioning as an independent, public interest boay. The present situation can be compared to a classic "banana republic" (AKCUK), with the United Fruit Co. (i1BA) manipulating the puppet with little attempt to apply a veneer of derocracy over all the usual procedures of a tin-horn dictatorship or one-party state. (see voc. 14). {he agministration 01 AKCUK is carried out by a kegistrar and h taif. The present Kegistrar was selected in secret by a committee of KIBA members, some of whoni were no lounger members of AkCUK, and presented to the Council for reatification only, two years ago. The RIBA's UK membership, after increasing for man years, has been in decline since 1975, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of UK architects. Ihe nuiber oi UK architects in other boaies entitled to appoint persons to AKCUK on that basis is also declining. A recent survey published in the Architects Journal (see boc. 37) indicated that 70 of 294 KIBA members responding (anu 99% of 153 "unattached" architects) thought that RIBA control of AKCUK was not in the best interests of the public. 66% of the KIBA members (and 95% of the “unattached") also thought it w not in the best interests of the proiessior = Pye staleBll cre) A.C.Drysdale of Architecture Guildhall Portsmouth Hants .David Heath Levitt Berstein Assoc. 30 Oval Road London NW1 WSreertve Named (ncindvar Cazes o Hsontranchsement ot “vuattachoA ’Archdtcely Evidence of disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects. In response to a questionnaire to the profession published in the ARCHITECTS JOURNAL of 30 January 1980, 21% of a sample of 150 "unattached" architects claimed not to have received nomination papers for the 1980/81 Council elections. If representative this indicate assive disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects and a loss of at least 2 seats on council if these 21% are excluded from the ARCUK list of ache a to the "unattached" would be made worse if the 1% were attributed by ARCUK to one of the 6 nominating bodies thereby increasing their representation on Council at the expense of the "unattached". € es yweuo Tatel[oto) vespondents(14%) gave their name and that the elected councillors were able to r statements against ARCUK records The results of this eck are as follows:- A.-Registered architects considering themselves "unattached" but listed as 4a member of one or more of the 6 nominating bodies. Name & address Registration No. Body J.S.Dodd 23271 AA 37 Braemar Road Worcester Park Surrey Ian Redford Lowden 44945 101 Turnbert Avenue Ardler Dundee Martin Goodwin 38515 Dept. of Architecture London Borough of Southwark L.Tek Ong 41849 ; | Architects Dept. London Borough of Hammersmith Roger Thompson Sevenoaks Kent W.J.Wintle Dawn Dartington Totnes Devon TQ9 6HE 30144 The RIBA has informed ARCUK that thi are their members. ARCUK accept this despite at least one written request to ARCUK (from David Heath) to be listed unattached. David Heath is not and never has been, amember of the RIBA. L.Tek Ong Roger Thompson and Martin Goodwin resigned from the RIBA in 1978. Sworn statements to this effect can be obtained. Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design Civic Offices Guildhall Portsmouth PO1 2AT B.1.Patel Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design 7 1 | ; | | Saale ] Civic Offices Giuldhall Portsmouth P01 2AT . M.G.Watts Directorate of Architecture Telford Development Corporation Priorslee Hall Telford Salop TF2 9NT had walker toAe inae : architects Kxaned RIGA 1 ] A| Bayleys Hi Registered architects not attributed to any | of the nominating bodies and yet not included on the list of "unattached", and therefore not sent nomination papers. z oyeeele telre) P.Lowendon 31348 C. Registered architect listed as "unattached" but not included in mailing of nomination papers. D.W.Olden 35906 28 Bell Place Edinburgh EH3 SHT Bey LOE mus is on the arch itect to inform the Registrar of any change of addr and failure to do this mi account for those sent to old addresses. No explanation was given by the Registrar for groups A,B,&C above. This short investigation was only possible because a sample of names was available and the elected councillors were prepared to devote their time to checking them. It is alarming that this should reveal 12 architects wrongly disenfranched and the fear is that there are many more as yet undisclosed. There is at present no intention within ARCUK to carry out a thorough scrutiny , nor to allow an independent scrutiny ofmembership status. CTE tLe bluaicre) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unattached Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Letter seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/3b18aea6997e95880b04a060f7015bdb.pdf 65c5027547ed7536253a763dc695e997 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Adam Purser Subject The topic of the resource 5 pp. Description An account of the resource Le he ANT AoAn- Co.OuenreQton a C2: Po Det TO prtey© OETeOrN SOO aa wQCralol ObQbme&Cote. Caha cor Ololak. Ke bewbe, te ee ASR laser fos Fo Omurn8 © yoR “KE yo Pr psxQk EQx. beck . ous On Gerrtioenral, V 2 Zane eee ee Mone @Qrxo KCK wana, toh Arve, Ns fo ow > ' ‘Lo _L -fp snen. ee hxorben. Cosas, Sov</ Gro. a ay Pav One R&Sa) Ay WHE, @ Pissoike oksren , CRA An Pt SL a KoneaGp 2)PAOpennyHe,obGat—Cano olbx ~~ &% CEA /LAC, heeCathet’ AK cron Psy AD AQ Vg —/ On.Koobth 2LnbkKeAny& lcaOopAasnnOste GC, & A, Ato 4A MAM && Locke GuecizQhen term , Quel fo Cudaties the. Carbs Sty One my 7 Awe RnOG3D Ss LYAf —fisk EQ eae bt 49 @ oft buss 2 wh of SG 67Lae Kh): Ah, SK. &. D2, a yen Kaen, 2 €Q.0 «st 42. Qe att ey ee AQk QssQin He ee alsasi es Lr2of ro AX, Q Ch bboy Cs oh Lo Cite BAG, C3 be OcSt,~~epee FH A H3D. Giory Shs AL CSL Kfrsrol- M4 yp OOLh ° ARK i awe ARnL£0GQ@ wv Moet J&G e£,@/. -+eme melrol Jae E2SkLo SfQrour SrAwA Qi Aa wr fe AK c _ :SL A so PFRPQLCS, © Of Wee isiPeCle. "oh HeeOhetc@ pow a Se WUC alewdsust, breve & OO Kn.. CL —) WHAmns Pour en romsnrthalQes Sa rrakwrtolr. Qt “cul, nS tKAnnr ‘Oo SS i “Mike OAL ASL QQ an Clee a, if) — G/ OL. LZ 7 Csiro — Qed, DR NAW werk. Ae Som Lone2 : Hy f Qhoi Cato Gre inte Ah AB ORStor. \P2Q Qe A — Cine. Gi , Qruook wed/ . . eae GrekPNA Fon nut Atae QO JP tnolefect Lb oO. Ka ko Be Jon Cn Kine? © Pubber/cshibsnbat NT Hon DORR YS yes Lo oe, 452 LOw 68% é¢QV .ey Aesoo,Chora&ULorCrrakaeALARA QRrUunrG 1 ZL. Wak - SToil oye HK HPAI ihe ole he Qk AQne Mem Von SD rb Qtr e eSleClrAA—~ en apron O€e, “yy Ue ae aleGateQO,f Hse Go Sean Or Sheh” Gum & LyQe wit ALAA dserwlol Z£OnW]0 S20. Ook AlOce | eo LrQIK Too. a ye ae Qh ConesGye bo Conn tste CAL GlOoroO TO a ian th, Obi Quercsw Ott thy &re@Qol LiUlanon —BaAY Jj~ < QL Puma ds Lo Aunsturca th» Av Qn 6& 5) er Adaw /o A ED) 5 fee Zeer poe oie, Sm Hes. Cay 1G RAWA roe —_———. (ostuis, P erie Kass) tea. f% “ark hak 25, oe) S Pr Gf LO Arr Qrerbecd 9 eyAcE YP24ny® & QkSKK Hr Que :oe a . a gn Bop, Ark Ole O20 2 orrh Cri “EOEHG) 69aOel Mes CenfERALO 2, H QvAGke Ze har DP Cau, UwhinPema Sr = bge ue i \ f x= so MA Le ay Ckrsrc, KOE S7Anyd ssowtel 3% 4a Gamk Gy|rrp Oe Corman ad KWLADA ; Goth rw pow ) pte S) hack mAslardruee to Ks aa etts. Osa 7 Olas (fo~ Poser’ *) Crew Be b.Gax7, Qn. ‘cae, bsskeLs ReAQAD ie/Prk of Abs. XGA Aty- / En PLA gasak/ ;ra ony OrndviOt Pore,Coan b & SS Bchensot’% ~~A fas tiny papa olQ& rk cha, Wrehih & UOL, LssprQrd, £Qvuws Rarer ars @. attrac AQ NP4uVP OCAske suid 2oe &ylurdushy Ae anlignad,grireat +f | fern COW, -oe ake ees, AQ ge Gq OW Cnn ; Q Uae Uctinte J Lan, Vor Aton Dsy, Qéswe 7Amd ~ Shien 7 oderk Nip ack. Ls L Dpr2. ARs Crook AnrEQ mace, ALL van Gre / . Not) Set he Mor Anny | AQO642teVourchkAreAQ x«, Quska Corel horQh KOK AL Dire ck Gy Gate Sfrrter! Co Aux ees T2rn%4QS CoMoe Basa, “Ka Uoneting GF tke CewithnAr fSrkd Srp eat a PERCE EN AO Oe lols IO ee ce Thx, Sth tink “hs 7 Pysol oO Olona, OtootiGs ag. <. MegAB DareFOXUsel Q4y 4a, G COAT. Safes the SS PreLANLO (b> ty, Arnaly GQ, FAQk ERQ #2 a / 4.:.} QO. enh |Dfpeorok CxianCagk Xo ourers \)a‘.: ay/Ch 6. TAK WerwerrceeCeal Lanny ,o& ) RALR “bD : bs22 GQecar.r cbflactas! OnsQy (Jour QLQ ARR oy “AQQKXQ % Prinarny NAM boes5k& ADL ; CoOcte, & «9 Chae. owl CSRACL QoQ Crise, fj 0Bhd4 , CYCeeCMe —wk ADae QA Arr Asbo bs22 ascot fo “42 RerniCial, /SleasBQe Gs Toyh SEQIC PAsttel AOur.9 Do Ke hse yee POT we Slack oO, On eres | & 5 , Aoe2l Ream cn APC, ke ~— Shrek, ,» Oe Ak KK, tro tp TEAS Ge GED Mo BS Ar ee Iie, LORE VO4H 5 Cok | ae uty Sh cg. AW reo & KWH as Hf Carnok ee” © atin QO, acaek pa oe, bsentel POS. / Ay Arce«pon SOPER le \ SEs hn (m. Y. iD’ pttee / i15LQoeSPQ os42. Qk Sees ABS OSAHL,OL7,feas4&nOCL.Q ADH QL2 eo /~mh a ostChk aoe HS SOnifon, we Kali Druk ofr AK Q ta3 na: wT). AGKETIAQ 10, Loss (J a ee & cacy Gy ol Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Allan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 24 April 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/e4e4cb6ccae2d8e9df0ca8632b5ed1a4.pdf 16f50cf91216d912ec894ddad11cbbe7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Adam Purser Subject The topic of the resource Letter & 8 side essay STAMP and NAM Description An account of the resource CNapOaNCTLAtUo,SUSIO1C No STAMPING THE CONCLUSION We have noted that STAMP is the natural choice for the development of NAM's ambitions in the building industry. We have outlined why one industry/one union points clearly to STAMP, We have pointed out the realities of the present impact of the economic climate and the need for architectural workers to join with building workers. through STAMP. We have not concealed the difficulties with STAMP but have shown how these difficulties are in essence only surmountable by a full appreciation of their historical roots and that ors REP Scirdee “Pf. the only way forward. We have shown how not to join STAMP is a short-term selfish solution that would set bach the socialisation of the building industry for many more decades, Therefore, in solidarity and with conviction, I call upon this NAM Unionisation Conference to whole-heartedly and unanimously endorse STAMPasthechoiceoftheNewArchitectureMovement. “or —- - ~— ~ ale SeraaeSerre¥ a +— Adam Purser 14,.5.77. ‘The approach of this paper has been to outline themany reasons why STAMP is the only union that NAM should decide upon. JOIN STAMP AND Gell IN SOLIDARITY Adam Purser 50 Sargate Roed Belner Derbyshire DES INF Dear Adam, The New Architecture Movement 9 Poland Strest London '!1 20th April 1977 I am writing on behalf of the NAM Liaison Group, the (Unionisation) Organising Committee and va London Group es cheirnerson of the London Seminar which is beingheld this Saturday, fAnril 23rd. Each of these threr croups has aoread that the basic nurnose of the Loncon Seminar is to build up NAM's strength by recruiting as well es by positive publicity and to further the work of the +hree “issue oroups" piven (unionisation, NARCUK" and education), by encouraging interest sand discus- sion on those subjects in a context defined by each of the Miesue groups" and agreed unon with the London Group, which is resnonsible for the Semi- Narre The Liaison Groun, the (Unionisation) Croanising Committee and the London Sroup ate in complete agreement that an the subie unionisation, eli activity at the London Seminer should he restricted to the need for orgeni- sation and the neec for s collective decision on one union within which to organise. The Seminar should aim to convince asmany neonle aS S thet. unionisation is important for architecture now and that they should attend the special Unianisation Conference on Mey 14th ahd particinate in its deliberations. It is felt very strongly by the Liaison Group, the (Unionisation) GSroanising Committee and the London& roun that any discus- sion or making available of literature (or other aiepiay) about a partic- ular union that might (or might not) be appropriate for architecture : workers should not occur et the London Seminar but should be reserved for the .Unionisation Conference specially organised purpose. The Londen Seminar is an event onen to the public, including press and architectural management. Many architectural workers who will attend are not yet convinced of the need for unionisation. We are certain that any activity for or egainst a particular union, or otherwise lisble to result in such discussion at the Seminar, will divert attention fromthe main issues of the Seminar and cause an unpleasant scene which wild not only sour the whole Seminar (and the Senefit Party which follows) but will turn many peonle FF untionisation and vill be picked un by the employers and treads union movement to the 9 jeopardy the great efforts and committmen self, have out into building it um over t! We are writing this to you because the (Unionieation) Orqenising Committee understands that you heve pranared some literature about one of the unions which the Organising Committee has been researching and anparently have the intention of distributing this before the special Conference on May 14. The Liaison Committee and the Organising Committee mare that it is impor- tant at this stage that all uork on py EEee On in the private sector which would be nublicly associet fed with NAM should be the work of tha (Unionisation) Croanising Committee. ° et oresat effort for that On the other hand, individual NAM members like yourssilf who wish to lobby for the choice of a particular union should do so on May 14th at the Special Conference set aside for that purnase. On any literature you circulate you shovid indicate clearly yourself as the source and make clear that the literature is not produced or circulated by the (Unioni- sation) Oroenising Committee. (This will help avoid a repetition of the confusing situation which occurred concerning unionisation literature at the Blackpool Congress-) If you wish the (Unionisation) Organising Committee to send out any such literature with their final mailing, they would be willing to do eo if they could have it by the 23rd. (Please inelecs ip mer A4 sheet for addition-} nostages and packing.) In this case, the Orpaganising Com- mittee would probably include an additional cover note making clear the source of the literature. We are confident that you will acree with us that this policy is in the best interasts of the unionisation campaign and of the New Architecture Movement, and in that confidence look forward to your active nparticinpa- tion in both the London Seminar and the Unionisation Conference. Yours fraternally, ec: Liaison Group (Unionisation) Organising Committee London Group a»hoNodALfiorAMN INTRODUCTION "We believe that this conference should recommend that STAMP is the union architectural workers in the private sector should be encouraged to join, in accordance with the Bridlington Agreement, "' Unionisation of architectural workers was first discussed at NAM's first congress at Harrogate in November, 1975, but little development followed this discussion, The spur to the formation of policy on unionisation came at the London Seminar last May, basically asa response to the talk given by Peter Carter, a member of the Union of Construction and Allied Trade Technicians (UCATT), calling for strong links between building and architectural workers. After the London Seminar there have been two developments on this idea: the formation of papers and policies for unionisation; and the links between NAM and the Green Ban Action Committee. A paper in favour of STAMP for the NAM Unionisation Conference, The papers presented to NAM's Blackpool Congress gave an excellent understanding of why architectural workers should unionise, but they did not explain one convincing argurnent as to how this might be achieved. The amount of work done on the first part of the paper did an excellent job which resulted in NAM's Blackpool Congress giving priority to the unionisation of architectural workers, The Unionisation Organising Committee's Task The mandate of the Unionisation Organising Committee (UOC) was to prepare a conference at which the membership of NAM could decide the best way of unionising architectural workers. This involved two main studies, (1) what is the best way for NAM to benefit from unionisation, and (2) what is the best way for architectural workers to benefit from unionisation, The rest of this report is, therefore, split into two main parts: 1 .NAM forSTAMP 2 STAMP forNAM eB NAM for STAMP At the Blackpool Conference NAM endorsed the drive for Unionization of architectural workers for three main reasons: to protect architectural workers from lay-offs, redundancies etc. in these hard economic times. To provide architectural workers with the muscle to negotiate for better pay and conditions of work. To provide NAM with muscle to promote its aims of socialising the built environment. The arguments for the first two reasons are ones of organisation, solidarity and the traditional role of trade unionism in this country. Ihope they need no further elaboration here. The third reason is the most important relationship as regards NAM and unions, ‘and one that needs emphasising to bring home its importance. At the Blackpool Congress and elsewhere the call for NAM to endorse unionisation was evident in the papers and proceedings: a NAM would need union support for the implementation of a national design service. ._(NAM Blackpool Paper: A National Design Service, page: 17.section 7. 2) jon the implementation of office Eemcusaeys NAM would require union support. (NAM Blackpool Paper: Private Practice -Progress Report, page 5, section i) the reform of ARCUK would not be possible without union support. (NAM BeSeypeey Paper: Private Practice _- Progress Report, page 8): the, use of schools obarkhiven wit as a community design centre would have to have the support of trade unions, tenant and community organisations, (NAM Blackpool Education discussion) © «0 5. ot: to alter the fixed-fee level of the RIBA will need the support of unions to ensure adequate public accountability. (NAM Monopoly Commission discussion, May 1976) to reverse the government cuts in house building NAM must support the demand for an end to cuts, especially with regard to the 220, 000 unemployed building workeis. (NAM Nottingham discussion) = etrararomeahe Bi 2k as He ag 3s 2 oe 2c he 2 9 2 2K STAMP for NAM ‘. Fromthis,onecan-seeNAMhas-manyissuesfowwhichitneedsunion support. ThecollectivedecisionofNAMWillbearinmindinits choice’ of-aunion that to implement NAM's policies they need to be fully understood by that union. The union will, therefore, have to have a broad ana fully-developed understanding of the building industry, The only choice on these grounds is STAMP. What sort of union should architectural workers bein ? Looking to the long. term Eats ei one can visualise with the development of NAM and the strengthening of architectural workers in STAMP a situation where the development of the building industry truly begins to respond to the progressive ideas of all sections of the conpmunity, The long-term prospects for the combination of NAM and a strengthened STAMP hold out many opportunities for the development of a socially- organised building industry. . This long-term aim is one of the major incentives that recognises the benefit of STAMP. The purpose of unions in this eougtra is to organise the working population in to a force canable of gaining a decent standard of living in return for their labour. This has been achieved by three main types of union. Firstly, there is the industrial-based union, NUM, NUR, UCATT etc, are good examples of applying the ideal one industry, one union, Secondly, we have the general unions, Transport & General Workers! Union, General and Municipal Workers Union, ASTMS, etc., which fulfil a useful role by combining lots of small groupings of workers into large and powerful organisations, Thirdly, ‘we have special unions, those that combine the principle of both, NALGO, NUPE, etc., who combine all sectors of the industry government, The fact that our besses! “organisation, the RIBA, works jointly with other bosses' organisations in the building industry through a Joint National Council, highlights our as yet unorganised position, As part of the building process architectural workers should join the union that is creating the one industry/one union organisation, STAMP/ UCATT. CoAampisTtTAMP IS THE BYILDING INDUSTRY'S UNION A REVIEW OF ASTMS, EPEA, TASS, T&GWU ASTMS has suggested an adequate response should they be chosen to recruit architectural workers in the private sector. The Movement would have two main problems in joining ASTM3 a ASTMS as a general union would only be able to give support to architectural issues based solely on architects’ opinions. ASTMS itself would not be capable of gaining ’fundamental support for architectural policies in its member-~ ship. There would, therefore, be a large degree of to) os support. b © ASTMS is the general union most representative of the ' white collar worker. This would continue to perpetuate the myth that separates architectural workers from building workers, In addition, ASTMS has an overwhelming desire to incre: < its numbers and operate as the professional man's profes s:anc4 union, This tendency mitigates against active participats 1. by the membership in the running of the union and would, therefore, make it more difficult for architectural workers «2 pursue architectural policy through the union. The EPEA, Electrical Power Engineers' Association, is currentiy attempting to expand its membership outside its traditional base They see themselves as recruiting the higher levels of manageri«1i and generally only highly paid employed people. They are not tniaros*eu in recruiting the whole office staff, only the top brass, For the-< reasons and their lack of contact with the rest of the building indu:'TM,. one can rule them right out, TASS, the technical and supervisory section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, has offered an adequate response oe Ae the needs of an architectural workers recruitment campaign. Ts... operates for the engineering workers in offices in exactly the wa, STAMP can be made to for the building industry. Clearly the c.vi’, engineering side of TASS and the AUEW are closely related to the © building industry. The main reason for not joining TASS is the existance of STAMP aa UCATT. However, we know that there will be adequate opportun: for liaison and co-operation between STAMP and TASS in offices wheres both can expect union membership. “5 Those who favour the T&GWU will point out that it does have many members as labourers on building sites and alarge share of the’ membership in the building materials supply section. Whilst this- istrue,itdoesnothavethe .ofcoverage|ofUCATTapdSTAM It is also interesting ts note the publicity ;given to the T&GWU's ACTS success at campaigning to recruit all workers in solicit’ firms. The analogy is obviously if they can do it for solicitors, they can do it for architectural workers too. One need hardly point out that the author of the "Clericals & Clerks" article in NAM'+> SLATE is also one of the two on NAM's UOC in favour of the T&GWU The lesson is a good one though for it reinforces my point. Solicito: area small group of people not directly related to any large industry, therefore, they need their own section within a large general union. The case’ for architectural workers is totally different because we a- deeply related to the building industry. — ASTMS, TASS & T&GWU_ CONCLUSION All these unions have been most helpful in the UOC discussions with then and all have agreed that it is essential to avoid a destructive carve up of architectural workers. None of them offer a’broad understanding of the problems of the building industry and it is clear that they are not adequate to the long term aims of unionising architectural workers, HEie8k 3g2fea2saisikISys2g3ae2ee 22sIe223k2I STAMP - THE OBVIOUS CHOICE STAMP as the Supervisory, Technical, Administrative, Managerial and Professional section of UCATT: obviously has the closest possible links ‘ with the building industry, Itis eager to recruit all the sections-covere? by its name. By joining STAMP, architectural worker: will increase the base for a one union/one industry organisation. We will be able to tackle all our policy issues with the best possible understanding from all the workers in the industry, we will develop policy in conjunction with the rest of the building workers and thus ensure that they begin to relate to th« 4 T&GWU, the Transport & General Workers! Union, has offered the~ most in terms of resources for a recruitment drive. I suspect this is because of their difficulty in adequately and meaningfully realising the task. ”. The T&GWU is roughly the blue collar equivalent of ASTMS and so it ‘has all the same problems as ASTMS, Again, the major problems’ would be isolation and tokenism. ' ~6- ’ STAMP - THE HISTORICAL DIFFICULTY - Critics of STAMP will say that there is an inadequate response from STAMP to ensure that architectural workers will be unionised. The facts of the case are different from this simplistic statement and need to go beyond the problems of personalities to explain the situation and reinforce the very fundamental reasons why architectural workers should join STAMP. A Short History of Architects and Building Workers Until the Renaissance, the architects of Europe were mainly highly- developed and skilled stone. masons. The advent of the Renaissance led to the growth of styles of architecture learnt from books and study rather than from practical building experience. From the Renaissance to the start of the Industrial Revolution two processes become apparent, Firstly, the acceptability of ''architectura! design" as a cultural pursuit worthy of gentlemen, and secondly, the traditional development of master craftsmen to architects. These two tendencies were in constant struggle against each other and that they reflected a clear class struggle between tradesmen and gentlemen, a classic class division of the Victorian era, is obvious for all to see. With this perspective, it is clear that the forraation of the RIBA was not only a means to make the practice of architecture respectable, but also a class weapon in terminating the possibility of a tradesman rising to the ranks of the gentry. A study of the development of capitalism reveals that it is beneficial to capitalism if the differences between different sectors of an industry can be exploited. The use of class rivalry has in fact been the mainstay of perpetuating the myth that architects are something special and separate from the rest of the building industry. Naturally, then, if we are to socialise the building industry and the role of architectural workers within it, we must break down in a truly funda- mental way the barriers between building and architectural work. The best answer to this is by architectural workers joining STAMP. BUT this history of separation and mutual distrust reveals still more about our present situation. whole of the building process and not just the architects! elitist position. STAMP istherecentamalgamation ofthe .old-ArchaindtBeuciltdisng Technicians’ union and the supervisors sections etc. already in UCATT.— The formation of STAMP was not an easy process, the basic force restraining its development is the very mistrust that years of separation has created between builder and architect or supervisor. This mutual mistrust of each other is, I believe, still reflected in the attitudes of progressive and active members of UCATT and STAMP. For thern, STAMP is the obvious and only choice for architects, but they are cautious. What they fear mostis that architectural workers will so upset the bulk of their membership because of our hangover elitist ideals, that the whole set up will suffer. Itis, therefore, not surprising that STAMP is not prepared to pull all its strings on our behalf unless we totally endorse the need to join with building workers for the fundamental reasons already «tated. In the light of this, STAMP's response has been quite clear: they are only too willing to have NAM favour STAMP, but only if we fully realise why we snould do so. Its all there, all you have to dois join. They are honest enough, and sensible enough not to hold out any carrots to NAM, In these views I fully concur, for there is no point in architectural workers merely joining STAMP to protect their own position at this time of recession in the whole building industry. Architectural workers must join STAMP because they see it as the starting point for breaking down the barriers and building a socialised building industry, OPPORTUNISM EXPLAINED The present desire of architectural workers to become unionised is obviously in part a response to the economic situation. Ido not remember there being any interest shown in the subject in the haydays of 1972. So we have two desires, one to unionise architects, and two, to breakdown the elitist myth. These desires can have a variety of different results depending on their success rates. Thus, to join TASS, ASTMS, or T&GWU would be opportunis¢, To join STAMP would be truly constructive. If you agree with me that NAM's aims are to socialise the built environment, then it follows that vou disagree with the perpetuation of the architect as an elite in society. Clearly it is not possible to break down the elitist myth if we do not join with building workers, The best solutio.1is then to JOIN STAMP. If we take advantage of the desire to unionise in a selfish way, whish perpetuates the architects' separatist role, we will have been found guilty of taking a short-term gnin at the exnense of others. That is politically regarded as an opportunist move. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Douglas Smith Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 20 April 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/b0fcfac9e6f139e2e8ac17ce0cd5fed5.pdf 577a944c78106f7b1940ce6d30175673 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to AJ re more equitable forms of architecture from John Murray and DR NAM Central London Group Description An account of the resource The Editor The Architect's Journal 9 Queen Anne's Gate London SWI 9BY @ Sir: We welcome Hellman's letter arguing for more equitable forms of architectural practice. This contrasts with the findings of a report sponsored by the Association of Consultant Architects which conludes that the ills of architecture are @aused by there being too manyarchitects. Amoresearchinganalysismighthaverevealedthattherearenot enough patrons. The fact that the present patrons of architecture are rich and powerful individuals or organisationsisreflectedinourarchitecture. Thepeoplewhoarenotpatronsof architecturecompriseover80%ofthepopulation. Theremedyforthiswillnotbe architectural. Itwillonlybeachievedwhensociety'svalueschange. A paper was given on this subject at the Harrogate Conference of the New Architecture Movement. One of its conclusions was the need for a National Design Service. Since ; then the North London Group of NAM has been studying the practical implications of such ‘® a service, in conjunction with methods of achieving cooperative office structures. Any changes in existing practice must be set in the context of the need to expand resourcesinvestedinhousing,educationandhealth. Therecentexpenditurecutsseem torepresentanattempttoreducepermanentlysuchprovision. Forpeopleinclearance areas the question of redevelopment v. rehabilitation Is being replaced by the fear that they will never secure a decent home. The current direction of resources into non-resident controlled housing associations is no substitute. Itmaybringworkandprofitstoprivatearchitectsandotherprofessional groups, but it is at the expense of working people. We believe that any new form of architectural service must include a formal mechanism of local control through which architects are accountable, not only to thelr clients, but tothosewhoareaffectedbytheirdesigns. Onlyinthiswaycancompetenceandquality of service be measured. Although we would encourage co-ownership in architects offices, it is clear that without local accountability such a development would merely extend professional elitism and allow a wider distribution of profits within the profession. The New Architecture Movement Central London Group 10 Percy Street London W | Tel: 01 580 2621 4 March 1976 pee The Editor The Architect's Journal 4 March 1976 In our opinion, the basis of a National Design Service already exists, albeit in a very inadequate way, in the service provided by local government offices. At present access to local authority architects is restricted to the spending committees whoselinktothepeopletheypurporttoserveistenuous. ThearchitectsInvolvedare solelyresponsibletothesecommitteesandthenonlythroughtheirchiefofficer. This is unsatisfactory. The New Architecture Movement will press for the principle of a national design service In the form of small scale collectively organised offices, coupled to local accountability and control. Our initial work will be sufficiently advanced for this to be the main subject of our next conference in London at the beginning of May. Yours faithfully David Roebuck and John Murray Central London Group New Architecture Movement 10 Percy Street London W | Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DR/John Murray Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 04-Mar-76 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/97dd0b8d4098459b30107f7adbb827b5.pdf 8d80a1c1558937c28ed2e4b38dab80d9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to D Waterhouse Subject The topic of the resource Letter to D Waterhouse re different versions of Advice to Architects (4 pp total) Description An account of the resource The following suggestions for improving the draft Advice have been made : -- Draft as agreed 10 April All registered persons have equivalent recognition from ARCUK and architects concerned with the selection of other architects for appointments should not without demonstrable justification make any requirement or preference other than registration if to do so would put their integrity in question by unreasonably limiting choice . line 3 after " appointments " add "or advancement. line 4 delete "other than" : substitute "in addition to " These seem to me meritorious and unless I receive objections will be included in the draft for discussion by PPC. D B WATERHOUSE CONVENER c.c. Registrar . Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Norman Arnold Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11.4.85 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/bf945e8de1cad65e3822c69bdf4d06cb.pdf 038c691166fd6e9d0acda709d289ff2a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to E Walker Subject The topic of the resource Letter to E Walker re Private Certification vis-à-vis Unattached Architects + Update (2 pages) Description An account of the resource Dear Mr Walker DESIGNATION OF BODIES AND APPROVAL OF INSPECTORS ETC Thank you for your letter of 6 May addressed to the Secretary of State . I have been asked to reply. The parliamentary Under -Secretary of State answered a question on I April to the effect that the bodies which the Secretary of State has in mind to designate are those suggested in the Consultation letter of 17 September, ie CIOB, FAS, IAAS, IBCO, ICE, 1StructE, RIBA and RICS. At least 3 of these bodies have said that they will consider applications from 'Unattached architects There will be further consultation before final arrangements are made, and I repeat the undertaking we gave you at the meeting on 18 April last year that your representatives will be invited to the next meeting with the professional institutions. It is intended that the new building regulations and the approved inspectors regulations will come into operation before the end of the year. The extent to which individual approved inspectors will be able to operate at that stage will depend on acceptable insurance arrangements being made, and at the moment there are difficulties in that are.a . This is another matter which is likely to be discussed at the next meeting, to which, I repeat you will be invited. In the meantime you may be interested to see a draft of the new building regulations and of the proposed manual, copies of which I enclose. Yours sincerely J GIBSON UNATTACHED ARCHITECTS PRIVATE CERTIFICATION FOR BUILDING CONTROL ENGLAND AND WALES Building Act 1984 Update 16 March 1985 . DOE response to our letter of 18 October 1985 — None. Reminder sent 20 February 1985. Verbal report — see Eddy. . Institutions Willing to Offer U Arch Approval Service? See DOE paper 17 September 1984 page 3 para 12. RIBA . SAAT is waiting to see what happens next. 14 . Next? Final consultation soon? Then Parliament approves. Printing delays — masses of documents including New Regs and Approved Documents. New system will not come into effect before October 1985. o d) Note the Scots are not going to have Private Certification. If no joy from DOE I'll ask my MP to ask as Question in the House (l ) — that '11 shake em. 5 . New System Launch? Article in AJ/BD advising U Arch how to get approved? Leaflet/Adverts paid for by IBCO? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DoE Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 20.5.85