Ms Kathryn Meghen:

My name is Kathryn Meghen and I am chief executive officer, CEO, of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI. I thank the committee for its invitation to come before it, and wish to introduce Ms Carole Pollard, who is president of the institute. The RIAI, which was founded in 1839 and now has 3,380 members, is the support and registration body for architects in Ireland and is the membership body for architectural technologists. The RIAI works to ensure the safety of the public through the efficient and effective administration of the register of architects and the maintenance of standards within architectural education. We welcome the publication of the CIRI Bill 2017 and believe the register of contractors in Ireland is an important step in strengthening consumer protection and achieving higher standards in construction. We believe the proposed Bill as structured can deliver a robust and transparent system. The requirements for the independence of the admissions and registration board, as well as for those on the register to have appropriate training and experience and that they participate in continuing professional development, are all to be welcomed.

The RIAI recommends two additions to the proposed Bill and a small number of operational changes. The additions we ask the committee to consider would enhance consumer protection and specifically provide appropriate redress for consumers if things go wrong. The issue of most concern to the public is the quality and safety of their homes; it is imperative that homes are built to the highest standard and that they are safe, durable and enjoyable places to live. While delivering high standards in construction is vital, the committee will be aware the registration system is designed to ensure that those using a specific title are competent to do so. If a person, or a company in the case of the CIRI Bill, does not meet the standards of knowledge, skill or competence, a fitness to practice complaint can be made against them. The purpose of fitness to practice is to sanction or remove from the register those who are found to have breached the registration requirements or have been found guilty of poor professional performance to prevent them from continuing in the profession or trade for the future protection of the public. However, this procedure does not provide financial redress for the consumer who may have been affected by the contractor's poor performance. The RIAI suggests that this deficiency can be addressed by amending the Bill in two areas, namely, in respect of professional indemnity insurance and latent defects insurance.

Professional indemnity insurance provides clients with protection if, following an error or admission in professional advice or service, they suffer a financial loss. For instance, where a contractor needs to adjust the design provided to fit the actual work, they create a contingent exposure and should carry insurance to protect the end user. As a rule, contractors do not carry professional indemnity. The RIAI believes all parties in the building process should be responsible, liable and insured for their own work. Architects are required under the RIAI code of conduct to carry an appropriate level of professional indemnity insurance and the RIAI recommends that contractors are similarly required. We believe this could be accommodated in section 7 of the code of conduct in the proposed legislation.

The RIAI's second recommendation is for mandatory latent defects insurance, LDI. Notwithstanding the existing registration and regulatory systems in place, the complexity of building means things can still go wrong. In order to further protect clients and homeowners, the RIAI recommends that LDI becomes a mandatory requirement for all new build residential requirements. LDI is taken out in respect of specific new build premises or building works to provide cover in the event of an inherent defect in the design, workmanship or materials becoming apparent after practical completion. Latent defects insurance cover is generally provided for between ten and 12 years after a building is signed practically complete. It provides a quick remedy for the consumer in the event of a defect arising. LDI is common in many developed countries and mandatory in some, such as France. LDI provides the quickest and most cost-effective remedy for home and building owners should a problem arise and we believe it is in the interest of the consumer that it is legislated for.

There are also a number of specific operational suggestions that we believe would lead to more expedient decision making under the new Act. The first relates to sections 4 and 24 of the admissions and registration board. The CIRI Bill provides an admissions and registration board consisting of a chairperson and ten ordinary members, five industry nominees and five ministerial nominees. The board must sit with the majority of ministerial nominees and has a quorum of six. The chairperson does not appear to be included in the majority, as this person is a ministerial appointee and not a nominee. We suggest that the quorum provided in section 24 be reduced or that the number of ministerial nominees in section 4 be increased. Similarly, under section 12, the appeals committee, where there is a chairperson and four ordinary members, of whom two are industry nominees and two are ministerial nominees, the committee must sit with a majority of ministerial nominees, with a quorum of three. In this case, we suggest an increase in the number of ministerial nominees.

The RIAI supports the need for standards in consumer protection in all areas of the construction sector. The introduction of CIRI is an important step in continuing to improve the standards of the built environment and one which the RIAI supports. We believe that our recommendations as outlined will further strengthen the consumer protection intentions of the Bill and ask that the committee consider their inclusion.