Ms Carole Pollard:

Senator Coffey made quite a few points. and if I do not hit on them all, he can certainly come back to me. The title "architect" has been registered since 2009. Some of the issues and difficulties referred to are legacy issues with origins prior to 2009. I am not saying we have had a clean slate since 2009, as we have not, but we have come a long way in the standards expected of an architect. The requirement to register as an architect is a stringent one given compliance and the requirement to undertake 40 hours of CPD per annum. An architect must also comply with the code of conduct. We have been actively involved in the training relating to BCAR. We have seen significant improvements and the feedback from members has been very positive.

Ms Meghen mentioned insurance as a method of redress. As a practicing architect for 30 years, I consider professional indemnity, PI, insurance to be an incredibly powerful tool for ensuring standards. One pays for one's PI insurance and if there is a very severe claim against one, one often cannot get PI insurance again. That is a financial burden on the professional practitioner. It acts both to provide redress for the consumer and to keep a check on professionals. PI insurance must be part of the CIRI Bill. Everybody involved in a construction project must have a similar level of insurance cover.

The mica and pyrite issues are incredibly serious and have huge implications for people living in affected homes. The mica investigation in counties Mayo and Donegal is ongoing. I understand that an incredible 10% of the population of Donegal, and more than that on the Inishowen Peninsula, has been affected by mica. To the best of my knowledge, the blocks which contain mica have CE markings. If a product has a CE marking, the contractor and the professionals on the job have to take that at face value. As such, latent defects insurance is the solution for mica and pyrite. Latent defects insurance provides for defects in materials. That is a really strong argument for the inclusion of that form of insurance in the CIRI legislation. Ultimately, it is the best recourse for consumers affected by building defects. It is a much faster solution. While there are concerns about the cost of these new regulations and of paying for latent defects insurance, the benefit for the consumer is enormous in the long run. It shortens the time to get redress and reduces the legal bills attached to it. In the larger scheme of things, it is far more cost effective than the current system.

As to the use of clerks of works, I concur completely with Mr. Cormac Bradley on the difference between supervision and inspection. Every layer we have is good. If there is a clerk of works, it needs to be clear who is employing that clerk and to whom he or she answers. Certainly, the architectural profession welcomes every layer of oversight and being part of a larger grouping protecting the consumer.