Roight then, here we go:
Arb faces challenge to part II ‘injustice’
A legal precedent allowing those qualified to part II to call themselves architects could be set following an application from an architectural assistant to join the Arb register
Paul McGrath’s action was prompted by the Arb’s “discrimination” in forbidding UK-trained part IIs from calling themselves architects while admitting European architects with the same kind of qualification.
McGrath, who was awarded his part II in 1984, has set up The Association of Part Two Architects (Tapta). Tapta’s first official act was to write to Andrew Stunell, the minister in charge of the Architects’ Act, calling for an end to the “injustice”.
At the same time, McGrath applied to join the Arb register. British people need part III to do this, but an EU directive allows most Europeans to join with the equivalent of a part II qualification.
“My motive is to correct an injustice,” said McGrath, adding that it was ridiculous that those with master’s degrees are forced to call themselves assistants.
Should Arb reject his application – as he expects them to – he is prepared to challenge the board in the High Court. However, he would also accept a compromise two-tier system. Under this, part IIIs would continue to be classified as “registered architects” but a new “certified architects” category would be created for part IIs.
Prominent Arb critic Ian Salisbury said he was delighted by McGrath’s challenge.
“Clearly countries in the EU are coming out of recession at different speeds so it’s a great shame that young British people with part 2 are unable to fully qualify and thus go abroad for work as architects.
“It is unfair that those in Britain have to do a whole extra year of study to call themselves architects. If Arb was to turn down McGrath’s application, he could challenge this on the grounds of irrationality,” he said.
Arb and CLG said they were looking into the matter before responding.
Arb 'threat' to new association of Part II architects
The founder of the newly created Association of Part Two Architects (TAPTA) has complained to a minister after receiving a “threatening” letter from the Arb.
Paul McGrath, an architectural assistant, applied to join the Arb register last week in a move which he hopes could create a legal precedent for thousands of professionals trained only to part II.
He also wrote to Andrew Stunell, the minister responsible for the Architects’ Act, urging him to end the Arb’s “discrimination” in forbidding UK-trained part IIs from calling themselves architects while admitting European architects with the same level of qualification.
The only response was a letter from Arb chief executive Alison Carr warning him about the use of the term “part two architect”.
McGrath said some of his members were “scared out of their wits” by the letter.
In his reply to Carr, he wrote: “As our purpose is to campaign for the part II qualification to be formally recognised in its own right it seems undemocratic not to be able to freely use the phrase ‘part II architect’ in any debate.”
He also wrote again to Stunell questioning whether the Arb should be threatening TAPTA when its members had not broken the law.
Association of Consultant Architects president Brian Waters said part IIs could be “fobbed off” no longer and described the Arb’s letter as “intimidating”.
He said: “The system has to acknowledge the inequality and either raise the bar for everyone else or, if they can’t do that – and they’ve had long enough – find a means to recognise the part II qualification on its own terms.”
The RIBA’s Richard Brindley acknowledged the anomaly but said a two-tier system would be confusing. The solution was to develop qualifications that were transferrable across the EU, he said.An Arb spokesman said McGrath’s application was being considered. He added it would be illegal to use the term “part two architect” in a business context.Letter to TAPTA from Arb November 4TAPTA letter to Andrew Stunell November 9TAPTA letter to Arb November 10
I have added the emphasis in bold.
I would support the suggestion by Paul McGrath for recognition for Part II Architects and this was the substance of my submission to the JOC on 18th May 2010
However, the facts as reported suggest that the Registrar here seems far more amenable to discussion and resolution than the ARB in Britain, so why is everyone clamouring for an independent ARB as opposed to the RIAI.
It could make everything a heck of a lot worse for Part II's and Grandfathers alike.
To those of you familiar with this thread I refer you to the Poll above.
Once again I am struck by the irony of making a post which seems to show the Registrar in a positive light.
After all, I am supposed to be John Graby's nemesis according to one poster here.