Madam, – Brian Montaut’s letter (September 1st) is misleading. He attempts to create the impression that the Building Control Act 2007, which provides for the registration of architects, has no provision for those working in architecture who do not have specific qualifications, that registration is in some way limited to Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland members, that non-RIAI architects are being excluded from the register and that EU directives are being misused.
The Act does provide “grandfather” processes for people without formal qualifications, so that they can be included in the register. The sexist, ageist and imprecise “grandfather” term is avoided in the legislation and the neutral term “technical assessment”, defined in the Act as “practical experience assessment procedures”, is used instead. One route is the register admission examination for people with seven years of experience but no architectural qualifications. This examination is available on a permanent basis. Another is the independent technical assessment process, overseen by a board with a lay majority and independent chair appointed by the Minister for the Environment. This process requires 10 years’ experience working at the level of an architect, the submission of four projects, verification of experience and compliance with minimum EU standards.
The second misleading element is the impression given that registration is only open to members of the RIAI. The Act does not make the membership of the RIAI a prerequisite for registration.
Of particular seriousness is the allegation that EU directives are being incorrectly cited and that State registration does not confer rights of access to the European market. State registration does confer rights of access to the EU market through the Services Directive, on the basis of mutual trust between member states that standards are being applied consistently as set out in the professional qualifications directive. How can Ireland say the standards are being applied if it hasn’t independently assessed professionals to ensure that they have met them?
Mr Montaut draws comparisons with doctors and nurses on the basis that the titles of their professions are not protected. He is missing the point. Both professions are regulated by law and people included on their professional registers have had their competence independently assessed. It’s worth pointing out that at EU level only seven professions – doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, pharmacists, vets and architects – have “automatic” rights of recognition on the basis that these are occupations with a significant public interest and public safety remit and responsibility.
However, the key point is the original purpose of registration: consumer protection. This demands that a common standard of competence be put in place and that professionals are independently assessed to that standard. The proposed Amendment to the Building Control Act 2007 involves no independent assessment of competence whatsoever.
The issue of consumer protection is no academic matter. Unfortunately, hundreds of unsuspecting members of the public have suffered due to the activities of people calling themselves architects but not competent to offer architectural services. .
Any regulatory body must act in the public interest. The integrity of a register depends on an independent assessment of competence. No regulatory body could have other than grave concerns if people were to be admitted to a register without their competence being assessed.
The RIAI, in its role as a competent authority, has a responsibility to other EU member states to provide evidence for migrant architects; this documentation is issued and accepted on the basis of mutual trust. If there were architects on the register in this State who had not been assessed to EU minimum standards, then the competence and access to EU markets for all Irish architects would be called into question.
The proposed amendment serves only those who, for whatever reason, are not prepared to have their competence independently assessed. – Yours, etc,