Karen Gough, who is a Vice-President of the Institute, was introduced by the Chairman David Parker. Her subject for the evening was the transitional arrangements relating to the various categories of membership within the Institute. She stated there had been a number of changes to the Charter and the Institute's Bye-laws which were currently been considered by the Privy Council. The principle changes were in the membership qualification and grades. Details were on the website and she hoped that approval would be given within the next month.

The transitional arrangements, because of a slight delay in approval, had accordingly been delayed and were now envisaged to come into being on the 1st July for a six month period and would apply to all the grades under the old rules. The effect of the changes were that an Arbitrator would be entitled to call himself a Chartered Arbitrator if they were both a Fellow and on the Panel. In other words, they would have had to achieve Panel status. In addition to keeping a register of Chartered Arbitrators, the Institute were also proposing to keep a separate register of experienced Arbitrators. Once an Arbitrator had been Chartered, he would be Chartered for good. He could not be removed as a Chartered Arbitrator but he could be removed from the Panel of the Arbitrators if he did not keep up his practice and with continuing professional development. Rules providing for this were in the making.

From the 1st July l999 there would be three grades Associate, Member and Fellow. The qualification for membership was a middle ground and during the transitional period, those who were Associates could apply to become Members. The course was intended to be concentrated but simple and would be a one day course during which all those Associates who wished to become Members would have to attend. There would not be an examination at the end of the course, but having attended the course, one would automatically become a Member. For those who were not currently Associates but who are applying to become a Member after the transitional period there would be new examinations.

The standards to become a Member would be first a Paper A being concerned with the law of contract and tort probably to the same standard of about A-level. There would then be a second Paper relating to the general principles of arbitration, similar to the current situation.

To become a Fellow, there would be a third Paper and the standard would be very much higher. The knowledge of contract law and tort would be degree level, the knowledge required of arbitration practice would be very much higher and a reasoned Award would have to be prepared and accepted. In addition, there would be a personal assessment of the applicant's abilities.

As before, there would be a special Fellowship course which will still be available for what Karen called 'busy professional persons' who already had experience and knowledge of the law.On obtaining a Fellowship, one would also achieve Chartered Arbitrator status. They would have to continue, however, continuing professional development.

With regard to retirement, the current situation is that once you have achieved 72 years, Arbitrators are removed from the Panel. The new proposals, however, will remove that if the Arbitrator is still active and can show continuing professional development. An Arbitrator who had already been removed because of his age can apply to be restored.

Once on the Panel, there would be a review of the Membership every three years and Panel Members will also be expected to have kept up with their continuing professional development work.

The requirement of the pupillage will remain but the Institute acknowledge that it is difficult for many people to obtain pupillage simply because there are insufficient Arbitrators conducting hearings. Pupillage will still remain to be the preferred method but the Institute is considering alternatives where pupillage is not practical. There will be some flexibility and the alternative will probably be centred around attending and taking part in mock arbitrations with experienced lawyers and Arbitrators.

The questioning then started. In response, Karen clarified that for an Arbitrator over 72 to get back on the Register they had to be active in arbitration, and fit to act as an Arbitrator sitting from time to time and keeping with their CPD. The question of accreditation courses undertaken by University was also discussed and their effect on exemption from the Institute's courses and exams. There were several dispute resolution courses currently available and those who had done these were accredited.

Geoffrey King thanked Karen for her summary and suggested that there should be publicity to encourage Associates and Members, not only publicity in Institute journals but also in professional journals. He also suggested that if an Arbitrator was over 72 he should qualify his qualification by putting 'retired' after it. Geoffrey also objected to the 'back-door' way of getting into becoming a Fellow and a Member of the Institute by the Special Fellowship course, which he asked that the Institute reconsider. He also confirmed that he was keen to take pupils to hearings but hearings seldom took place. The only hope was to have more workshops which were generally regarded as of great importance. Another Member Jean Graham Hall, pointed out that many Judges retire at 72 and made themselves available as private Arbitrators. They were the best top quality Arbitrators and she was concerned that the Rule would preclude them or at least make it more difficult for them to act as Arbitrators if they have to have 'retired' after their name. Geoffrey Hartwell pointed out that the removal from the Institute's Panel did not mean to say that Arbitrators would stop arbitrating. Many distinguished Arbitrators who were practising were not on the Panel. Karen agreed that there was a certain amount of confusion.

After this bout of questions and answers, Karen continued with the next topic which was called 'Quality Control'. The Institute was spending a great deal of time to the consideration of quality control. Once the Membership Scheme is up and running there would be continuous monitoring of the schemes, Panels and the Arbitrators. They are considering and may well require Arbitrators who deal with an arbitration on a Panel appointment to produce their Awards for inspection and monitoring so that they can ensure that the proper quality is maintained. She recounted that at a recent meeting a senior Official Referee was suggesting that the Institute should issue annual practising certificates. The Institute is considering this and they are proposing to put forward some form of certification.

Karen also mentioned that a Code of Ethics was being introduced and that it is proposed that a breach of the Code of Ethics would give rise to disciplinary action.

The Institute is also proposing a separate Appeals system for scheme arbitration effectively extending the arbitral process before Appeals are made to the Court. It is intended that such an Appeals system would simply be a review of an Arbitrator's decision on a fairly speedy and straight forward basis. They were further considering a system for Appeals rules for non-institutional awards. Karen suggested that the improvement of quality could only benefit the Institute Members and the cause of Arbitration generally.

Finally, Karen had time to deal with the question of relationship between the Head Office of the Institute and the Branches. There was currently a working party on this subject and they were trying to get some structure or direction for liaising between Head Office and the Branches, particularly with regard to courses. The needs of different Branches were, of course, were entirely different but, for example, in Hong Kong they were able to provide their own qualification courses subject to being overseen by Head Office. They wish to extend this if they could. They had employed staff to look after this side of things and they were also now seeking staff employees to cater for overseas branches.

There was to be an increasing focus on Branches and firm proposals were being put before the Council in June 1999. They were looking to focus responsibilities of Branches and were looking for Branches to expand membership. Whilst courses were currently centralised, in future it could be that they would be farmed out to Branches, subject to supervision, as in the Hong Kong situation. They wanted the Branch to take over much more work and it was pointed out that they had the local contact with organisations and societies through whom arbitration could be spread. There had been a number of requests from Branches for funding of staff for this purpose and Head office appreciated that there were practical difficulties in the Branches carrying out this work without staff support. She said she would be interested to hear from the Branch as to what was required in this connection as to how they proposed to help in the courses.

Geoffrey Hartwell pointed out that if Branches did undertake the courses, they would be becoming involved in commercial activity and there was bound to be some competition. There was also the question of how the profits were going to be divided and the difficulties of a Charity being involved in such commercial activities. Karen acknowledged there was an issue here. She stated that Head Office had invited Branches to make comment on these proposals some time ago but no Branch had applied for approval of any of their courses and it was now too late. She emphasised that the liaison between Branches and Head Office needs improvement. This, to a large extent, involved more cash and they had to balance this requirement with any increase in membership fees. There was further general discussion on this subject before the talk was closed due to lack of time.