Members will be aware that the Building Control Bill 2005 is due before our select committee and we have invited presentations from a number of relevant organisations. To date we have heard from the chief fire officers, the Group of Independent Architects, the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland and the Competition Authority. Today we conclude these hearings with a presentation from the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, CIAT. I welcome the institute's officials.
Building Control Bill: Presentation.
Mr. Jim Kirwan
I am the first person from outside the UK to be elected president of the institute. It was a fine achievement for an Irishman to be elected president of a British body. The institute was formed around 1965 and represents more than 7,000 professionals working and studying in the field of architectural technology. The CIAT is recognised internationally as the qualifying body for chartered architectural technologists and architectural technicians. It has created a standard of competency for eligibility for full membership.
Chartered architectural technologists provide architectural design services and solutions for both public and private sector clients. They are specialists in the science of architecture, building design and construction and form the link between concept and construction on projects. They negotiate and manage these projects from inception through to completion. Architectural technicians are trained to establish the purpose, method and techniques for preparing detailed design solutions and achieve this through the preparation, co-ordination and communication of technical information, including drawings, graphic information reports and schedules. They contribute to meeting relevant statutory regulations, controlling projects and monitoring agreed quality standards. Architectural technician members are not permitted to offer services directly to the public.
The CIAT has 238 members in the Republic of Ireland with an additional 339 members in Northern Ireland. Many of our members operate as sole practitioners, partners or directors in practices. It is an increasing feature of the practice of architectural technology in Ireland that our members are in partnership with architects. In other instances CIAT members may be directors in architectural practices that also have architects on the board of directors.
To qualify as a chartered member of the institute, an individual must demonstrate a high level of education, training and monitored professional practice. The basic academic requirement is a degree in architectural technology or equivalent standard. The individual must then undertake a period of monitored professional practice covering all aspects of building projects, including contractual requirements. On successful completion of a diary of experience, the individual then sits a professional practice interview. This includes a review of the candidate's professional and occupational performance, a POP record, and an examination of his or her project portfolio.
If successful, the interviewee is awarded chartered status and may use the designation, MCIAT. The assessors who make up the interview panels are senior members of the institute. The interview process is rigorously monitored. Chartered members are qualified to undertake and manage projects from inspection to completion, signing all the relevant contracts, contract administration and certification forms. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, CIAT, is satisfied that its qualification is on a par with other professions in the construction industry and is universally recognised as such. For example, our members have been involved in many key construction projects in the State from inception through to completion.
All CIAT members are monitored to ensure they adhere to a professional code of conduct. Under the code, all members in practice are required to register their practice with the CIAT. It is mandatory for all members offering services directly to clients to obtain and maintain adequate professional indemnity insurance, a requirement which is policed on an annual basis. There is also an obligation to undertake continuing professional development, CPD, some of which is provided by the institute. The institute operates a comprehensive and efficient regulatory system with an appropriate disciplinary procedure in the event of any allegations of misconduct on the part of a member. It also provides an independent appeals procedure when required.
Many CIAT members hold senior positions in the public and private sectors. They are recognised as qualified to undertake all types of construction projects in their own name. Members may be involved in small sum to multimillion euro projects. Given the level of their expertise, the nature of the qualification they have secured and the level of professionalism employed in their work, it is imperative that their professional activities, including their ability to adequately describe the service they offer and sign options on compliance, are not impeded by any aspects of the proposed legislation.
Ms Denise Germaine
The CIAT welcomes the Building Control Bill 2005 and believes it will play a key role in helping raise the standards for protection of consumers involved in the commissioning of the construction of property. The CIAT believes a key criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the legislation is whether the prime beneficiaries of the legislation are members of the public who are obtaining architectural services rather than professionals providing those services. If the legislation operates to restrict a consumer's choice on the architectural professional he or she engages, either for the design and construction of a project or certifying compliance for work, it will not have secured its purpose.
The CIAT believes the committee must be cautious to ensure the Bill is not structured in a way that limits or excludes the involvement of professionals such as chartered architectural technologists from engaging in the provision of architectural services to clients. The CIAT notes the concerns expressed by the Competition Authority in its recent report on the architectural profession, about the role of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI, in the proposed regulatory system. The authority has expressed concern that the RIAI could experience a potential conflict of interest in circumstances where it represents the interests of architects, its own members, while having responsibility for the rules and practices designed to police the profession and protect the public interest.
The authority is also concerned about the composition of the proposed board and committee that will scrutinise and regulate the architectural profession under the Building Control Bill. The CIAT suggests the Bill should define the quorate composition of each of these proposed boards to ensure an equitable ratio of architects and non-architects is always present. The CIAT shares some of these concerns in circumstances where under section 11, the RIAI, as a registration body, could be involved in adjudication on whether a person who is not its member should be entitled to registration.
For example, it is conceivable that members of the CIAT could seek admission to the register. Under the legislation, as drafted, they would have to have their application for registration assessed by a registration body comprising their professional competitors. Safeguards need to be put in place to ensure the registration process is fair, transparent and operates in the public interest and is seen as such. This is vitally important if members of the public and those involved in the practice of architecture can have confidence in its integrity and operation.
The CIAT is aware of concerns expressed that only architects should be in a position to assess the competence and experience of applicants for entry in the register under the technical assessment process. Whereas lay members of the proposed technical assessment board may not be architects, there is no reason there may not be other professionals in the construction industry, such as engineers and architectural technologists who work alongside architects on a daily basis. Such professionals should be sufficiently knowledgeable to assess the competence of architect applicants for registration. The CIAT also notes that certain matters concerning the registration of architects are not specified in the legislation but will be required to be prescribed following its enactment.
The CIAT notes that the regulations to be made under the Bill shall be made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is important that the Minister is as inclusive as possible in the making of these regulations to ensure they do not have unnecessarily discriminatory aspects. The CIAT believes any regulations made by the Minister on the registration of architects should be subject to the review by the Competition Authority. This may require an amendment to section 60.
The CIAT notes the Bill operates the regulatory system on the basis of registering the title "architect" in section 15. The CIAT believes it is important that the prohibition on using the term "architect" is not extended to other professionals involved in the provision of architectural services, particularly in circumstances where their qualification and inspection abilities are on a par with those of other professionals in the construction industry. Any attempt to apply a more restrictive regime should involve the express recognition of the title "architectural technologist" and "architectural technician" to avoid any doubt that such activities and titles are also deserving of recognition and statutory protection in the public interest. The wording in the Bill is such that the prohibition extends to the use of the title "architect", either alone or in combination with any other words, letters, name or title, description, implying the person is so registered. That could be interpreted to mean that the use of the title "architectural technologist" might be prescribed or restricted in some form.
The CIAT is particularly concerned by section 15(3) which effectively prevents any firm from carrying on business under the name or title style containing the word "architect" if the business, in so far as it relates to architecture, is not under the control or management of a registered architect and in each of its premises is not carried out by or under the supervision of a registered architect. Many CIAT members operate in partnership with architects, some in instances where the partnership contains a majority of CIAT members. The legislation, as drafted, would make it illegal for such practices to describe the firm as an architect's practice because the structure of the company is not under the effective control of the architect member. This is not the legislation's intention. In its current form, the Bill would create serious difficulties for a significant number of well established and recognised architectural practices consisting of architects and architectural technologists.
CIAT also agrees with the Competition Authority's concerns about the limits on the Law Society's list of who is deemed suitably qualified to provide opinions on compliance with planning and building regulations. Clearly, if the Law Society was to use this registration legislation to restrict the list of persons who can provide opinions on compliance with planning and building regulations to architects registered under the Building Control Act, this would operate to exclude a significant number of suitably qualified professionals and practices who are both competent and experienced in providing such opinions. The CIAT believes that the legislation would benefit from a provision to prevent the restriction of certification in such a manner. Many architectural technologists with significant professional education and considerable experience frequently provide completion certificates or opinions on compliance for projects they are associated with. It would be nonsensical if they were prevented from certifying compliance on projects they have undertaken in circumstances where the law precluded them from doing so. In addition, the member with the best knowledge of a project may be forced to engage another professional to sign off on work with which he is less acquainted for no good reason.
CIAT generally welcomes the other provisions in the Bill which amend and expand the existing building regulations to include disabled access certificates and revised fire safety certificate arrangements, strengthen the enforcement provision and introduce a building energy rating system. These significant advances should improve the quality of buildings and the level of compliance with building regulations.
The legislation has the potential to contribute significantly to consumer protection in the provision of architectural services. It must, however, be focused on consumer interests and not the interests of the professionals involved. On that basis, CIAT would be concerned if the legislation was operated in a restrictive manner that unnecessarily excluded the services of its members to the public. This is particularly the case in circumstances where their qualifications and experience are on a par with those of other professionals, including architects within the construction industry. CIAT has identified a number of areas where it believes the Bill could be improved and hopes the legislation will be further refined before finally being enacted.
As the committee is aware, I am taking this legislation on behalf of the Labour Party. My senior colleague on this committee is Deputy Gilmore. I should declare that I am a member of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland.
I welcome the submission. The points made in the critique of the Bill raise serious questions for us and this process of engagement is constructive and informative. We all want to arrive at a system that protects the consumer, regulates the industry and establishes standards to the benefit of all professionals operating within it, without making distinctions between one group and another.
Sadly, however, we have been informed that Committee Stage, which was scheduled for 25 May, will not now take place. We are into the last year of this Government. It may be re-elected but in terms of competition for scarce floor space on the legislative stage, we are into a scramble. I would like CIAT and the institute's members to lobby Government backbenchers to give this priority. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, we will facilitate this legislation. If we miss the tide this side of June, we can kiss goodbye to this Bill being enacted in 2007. If in 2007 there must be an election, we can kiss goodbye to it being enacted before 2009. That is not acceptable to many of us. As the man responsible for Committee Stage — I am focusing on timetabling and not the Bill itself — I ask the Chairman to put pressure on the Minister to make time available for this. A one-day session on Committee Stage would deal with many concerns.
This Bill must still go through the Seanad and if that does not happen before July we will miss the boat because the Department is seriously challenged with other priorities and there are no votes in this. Time is tight.
I welcome the delegation. I am also a member of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland.
I welcome the detailed presentation. It is heartening that architectural technologists have over the past ten years found themselves a voice and representation through Colm Allen, in Dublin Institute of Technology, and others. They are making a strong case for greater recognition and they are showing architects and others their value. I would still argue that an architectural technologist more often than not does different work from an architect.
This Bill is designed to protect the word "architect" and to ensure that a member of the public who sees someone styling himself an architect can be sure of his or her strengths. That is not to say architectural technologists should not achieve recognition in their own right. The Bill offers statutory recognition to quantity surveyors and building surveyors. I see no reason the Bill should not be extended to include architectural technologists. It boils down to a member of the public knowing he or she is getting a particular professional service.
The delegation made a good suggestion about quorums on the registration body. There would be a genuine worry that a small group might make major decisions on a person's future and I would be happy to look at amendments that would reflect the group's concerns in that regard.
I fully support Deputy Quinn's remarks. It is in everyone's interests that Committee Stage of the Bill be taken as soon as possible. I will make every effort I can make as a Government backbencher to secure time for the Bill.
Ms Germaine
I am disappointed to hear that we may have missed the date of 25 May. We were working towards that. I will hand over some background information on the CIAT that did not accompany the submission. We would welcome an opportunity to work alongside the RIAI in developing modifications to the wording of the Bill that might be proposed. We want to be involved in any discussions that may affect the livelihoods of our members.
Unfortunately, the Minister is not available on 25 May. I have taken on board what our members and the delegation have said and will press for a date this side of the summer recess to take Committee Stage of the Bill. I will report back to the committee on that.
I thank the witnesses for coming in this afternoon. It is part of a process of consideration of the Bill and suggestions made today were most constructive. We will send a copy of the presentation to the Minister, while spokespersons will take on board some of the amendments requested.
I understand that the Dáil will deal with the Bill on Committee Stage at the appropriate time. However, will the Bill return to this committee for scrutiny when the Seanad has completed its debate or will that House complete the dealings on it?
The Seanad will deal with all Stages.
I was just seeking confirmation.
Our input will be through the select committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 4.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 May 2006.