I'd like to revise my comment and say that protection is absolutely necessary for domestic clients who are still prone to using cowboy designers and builders with horrible and heartbreaking results. That said, I'd ask whether commercial clients really need protecting from pretend architects.
The title should be protected even if it is difficult to protect the function, after all we don't have a monopoly on creativity or technical know-how. There is confusing culture difference between the ARB and RIBA and they need to work with each other if they want to help both Architects and Clients by setting out the value of using an Architect. The ARB website is clear and public friendly with helpful links to find an architect and complaints procedures. However, it's a bit like a 'Trust a trader' type website, I don't think design is even mentioned. As design is our key skill this is a big oversight. The RIBA website is more design orientated and is aimed at Architects themselves, showcasing exhibitions and reports. Personally, I find the small white on black script at the top hard to read and a Client would need to do some navigating to get the information they might be looking for in regard to how and why they should hire and Architect. (When they get there, the guides are very good!).
Comment on: The Diary of an Anonymous Architect #7
Stephen and Diana Yakeley gave a very informative CPD seminar 'How to stay out of trouble and get paid' outlining exactly why the SFA was a minefield to architects not least because of the issue of a set-off clause which could encourage an unscrupulous client to "set-off" a "negligence" claim against an invoice until claims have gone through. The ACA forms are a better choice.
Affable middle class chaps from a good school are always going to be seen as the safe bet for promotion. When they get to board level, the cycle repeats itself.