You reported me as saying in last week's AJ (19.10.00) that I would, if elected RIBA president, 'allow nonarchitect professions such as clients, developers and estate managers to use the suffix RIBA'. It is important to correct this inaccuracy: indeed, I would oppose such a move, which would breach rules on registration.
I do, however, think there is a case for considering whether people who have passed RIBA Parts 1 and 2, many of whom move into specialist careers outside general architectural practice, could have a more formal relationship with the institute. It seems both strange and unsatisfactory that despite having five years'of architectural education, and often further post-graduate degrees to their credit, such people have no proper place within the RIBA.
Many, including educationalists and researchers, fall within this category. But any move in this respect would have to be fully discussed and approved by the membership.
For the record, I fought hard during the latter days of ARCUK to maintain protection of the title architect for only those properly qualified to practice - that is with Parts 1, 2 and 3 to their name. My views have not changed since.
So, while other building professions whose training lies outside architecture are, and always should be, welcome into our institute, there can be no question of extending the use of suffix RIBA to them.
Paul Hyett, Hyett Salisbury Whitely