The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010

John O'Donoghue proposed a private member's bill on July 8th 2010:

The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010

[broken link removed]

This Bill is intended to give recognition to those persons practising architecture in the State for more than seven years whose route to achieving competence was other than through the prescribed academic route as recognised in DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC.

Many of those terms "Grandfathers" have over twenty years providing competent services to their communities around the country.

Some have formal qualifications but not Part III's while others have been apprenticed to Members of the Institute and other qualified competent professionals.

Naturally this has excited some comment from the RIAI as you can see in this thread on Archiseek:

[broken link removed]

Go to the end of the thread - the newer posts are there.

The matter is by no means settled, but it shows that there is a case to be made and answered.

The RIAI's response has been vigorous, but this calls into question whether
That sounds like a Family fork, as my chess playing friends used to say.

ONQ

Current Link on the RIAI Web page stating their concerns.

Lovely to think that after 20 years competent practice I'm considered a threat to the profession.

http://www.riai.ie/news/article/ria...nal_grandfather_clause_in_building_control_a/

ONQ.

I see the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 as an answer to the problem of having a supposed regulatory authority with direct conflicting interests in preserving a workload for it's own members above the interests of the general public.

Its more complex than than that, and given that this was conveived in large part in 2005 and the preceding decades were spent lobbying, it may well be unfair to judge the intent based solely on one of the more obvious effects within the local timeframe.

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

The previous bill is surely not stopping anyone or their granny from continuing to offer building design and supervision services is it?
While I did not agree with many of the contents of the previous bill (as an RIAI Member), I fail to see how the public interest is being served by this ammendment.
Are we really going to revert to being the only country in Europe whose 'architects' can only be called so within our own borders? Really?

threebedsemi said:

The previous bill is surely not stopping anyone or their granny from continuing to offer building design and supervision services is it?
While I did not agree with many of the contents of the previous bill (as an RIAI Member), I fail to see how the public interest is being served by this ammendment.
Are we really going to revert to being the only country in Europe whose 'architects' can only be called so within our own borders? Really?

Click to expand...

The previous Bill does indeed prevent unregistered persons providing supervision services.
Such services are tied to certification of monies and there is no situation in my twenty years of experience where the twain occured seperately.

The previous bill prevents this because the inspecting designer cannot certify - as an architect - and many lending instutitions require this now.
AIB go further requiring certifiers to be MRIAI's even though this appears to exceed the legal requirements, may be discriminatory and thus possibly unwarranted.

My qualification [Dipl.Arch.DIT] is a prescribed qualification in both the Architects Directive DIR 85/384/EEC and the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC.
This entitled me to practise as an architect other EU countries from the day I qualified in June 1990 until May 2008.

Ms. Margaret Hynds O'Flanagan's response to the JOC about the EU Commission suggest that they said that; -
"The inclusion of the Graduate standard as the minimum standard throughout the EU as the minimum standard is erroneous".
This statement by her was itself erroneous (her private e-mail to me 19th May 2010).

FWIW

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

The existing Bill makes no mention of preventing unregistered agents from providing supervison services afaik, and this was not its intention. If it was, why not just propose a bill to state that anyone with PI and experience can certify works?
Some people may have problems now but this can surely be trashed out with the banks and legal eagles.

I feel that those with a B. Arch or a Dipl. Arch. in their back pocket and with some practical experience should be allowed onto the register, but the proposed bill does nothing to address this.
There should also be some form of 'qualification through experience' programme introduced, where people can work in an office and take a part time/distance learning course over a perscribed period and get their B. Arch that way. The proposed bill does nothing in this regard either.

I do not see how this bill addresses what my concerns with the original bill were, and I do not see how it can be seen to be in the broader public interest. It is purely in the interest of those who, for whatever reason, do not have an architectural education and dont see why they should have to do some 'worthless and expensive' registration process instead.

Should the registration process be cheaper? Probably.

Should people have to think about more than having designed a few housing estates in the past few years in order to call themselves architects? I think so.

In the meantime, let them work away. I have no problem with that. But this bill is the wrong way to solve that problem. It is a typically irish solution to an irish problem.

What were your original concerns with the original Bill, and why should this Bill address your concerns at all?

Did you have a hand in writing it?

Please also specify the legislation you are referring to.

The relevant Bills and Acts to date are few enough.

The Building Control Bill 2005

became

The Building Control Act 2007.

This disenfranchised Graduates despite their qualification being the European Minimum and failed to allow for a proper Grandfather Clause, as opposed to an invite to spend up to €13,500 once only assessment.

The currenct Bill is the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010, which proposes a genuine Grandfather Clause.

As regards the Graduate situation, there's no hurry, lets deal with one thing at a time.

But disenfranchising Graduates was designed solely to pander to the RIAI.

There were several layered approaches that should have been used.

Instead an ignorant guillotine was used, with a blind eye to MRIAIs.

MRIAIs are guilty of offences under the Act from May 2008.

They continued to use the Title without Registration.

That is the offfence, not the RIAI's "interpretation".

And then there is a small matter of possibly inadvertently misleading the JOC about the AU Minumum = the Graduate standard, which I hope for the Registrar's sake MHOF has corrected by now.

Finally there is the unseemly posturing of the Registrar, supposedly an independent and impartial office, urging "its members" to lobby to undermine the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010.

The trouble is, the Registrar wears at least two hats, one as the Registrar, one as a Director of RIAI Ltd., and there seems to be some sort of conflict of interest going on at the moment.

The ironly is that the Registrar/Director of the RIAI is urging its Members to Act, when the RIAI will tell anyone that they don't represent their Members, they "promote Architecture".

It must come as a surprise to a guy or gal with a problem to find that the people they pay €450 to each year don't want ot represent them - that would annoy the heck out of me.

FWIW

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

I'm not here to defend the RIAI, but neither do I wish to get into where they are right and wrong. They are cetainly wrong about plenty, however I do not see the point of this bill being championed as a 'stick-it-to-the-RIAI' bill. And no, i didnt write the 2007 act .
If someone wants to stick it to the RIAI, they are welcome to as far as I am concerned, but this isnt the way to do it.

So I am not really interested in this thread turning into an anti RIAI tirade, there should be another thread (and a viable one could cetainly be started) about that.

As this thread is about the subject matter of the currently proposed bill, I will instead state that my problem with this bill is that I don't agree with catch-all grandfather clauses, period. I have no intention of putting anyone out of work, and as I said above the 2007 Act did not do this, rather the interpretation of it did.

I do think the 13.5k is expensive, but what should it cost? 5k? 200 euro? I dont know.
For comparison, my B. Arch. cost me more than 13.5k to do, back when 13.5k was money, and that doesn't even begin to allow for my 'loss of earnings' for the five years I was doing it.

I do think that the evaluation process, from what I have seen of it, is a useful tool.

I do not think that someone who qualified as, say, a civil engineer in 1995, and is now 35, and has spent the past 7 years working on his own designing houses, housing estates and warehouses, is an architect. He may be competent in terns of construction, up to date on Regs, Planning, H&S and so on, but he is an engineer, trained as an engineer, and I do not see why he should suddenly be allowed to call himself an architect. In my eyes he is not.

He can however, work away as far as I am concerned, and good luck to him.

threebedsemi said:

my problem with this bill is that I don't agree with catch-all grandfather clauses, period.

Click to expand...

The Ministers List was a catch-all grandfather clause. Those on the list are now Registered Architects & full members of RIAI.

Do you feel these new Architects are not worthy of RIAI or Registration?

I have argued for years that the Bill was unfair. I certainly do not want to knock RIAI in this thread.

The RIAI had a chance to resolve this with Technical Assessment but they decided to use TA to cull competition - they made TA excessively expensive at €6,500 (still to be confirmed by Minister Gormley 9 months after Registration was announced). Pilot TA had 50% fail rate after Appeal.

I am RIBA Part * yet my qualifications are ignored by RIAI. Technical Assessment does not recogise Degrees, Diplomas or Masters. Confirmation of exact grades / subjects from your University after 20 years can be difficult if not impossible - all designed to be difficult to do in the hope you won't bother applying!
I must work under an RIAI member for years before I can sit exams to enter - free slave labour in the hope of acceptance by my peers.

It is well known that Technical Assessment of Architects was far more detailed, difficult, intensive and expensive than TA for Q.S or Building Surveyors. Why is this & who gains?

RIAI & "The Legal Eagles" are unwilling or incapable of resolving these issues. Thankfully our Government writes the Law and this ammendment will rectify "mistakes" in the previous Bill. It will keep the playing field level and repair uncompetitive injustices.

threebedsemi said:

I do not think that someone who qualified as, say, a civil engineer in 1995, and is now 35, and has spent the past 7 years working on his own designing houses, housing estates and warehouses, is an architect. He may be competent in terns of construction, up to date on Regs, Planning, H&S and so on, but he is an engineer, trained as an engineer, and I do not see why he should suddenly be allowed to call himself an architect. In my eyes he is not.

He can however, work away as far as I am concerned, and good luck to him.

Click to expand...

Well, you see, in fact he may be an Architect in all but qualification, and there is the RIAI's problem.

SUch person's certs are accepted by banks for two reasons - 10 years and more providing technical services, plus his engineering degree - so its a moot point as far as certification is concerned.

But certifying "as an architect" is a different matter in law.

If you were to consider the onerous requirements that befall the architect in law you'd see that only a lunatic or a criminal would use the title willingly and accept all the responsibility that goes with it if they weren't an architect.

This is the only real assurance the public needs - that the person saying he is an architect will be held to that standard by the Court.

And no, having a qualification doesn't - in and of itself - mean someone isn't a lunatic or a criminal.

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

I feel that we need to define what an Architects’ role in our society should be, and let this then guide our definition of what an Architect is in our legislation. To my mind, being ‘technically competent’ is only half the battle.
This link sets out what our European brethren feel that an architect should be aware of, before being able to use the title.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2005L0036:20090427:ENDF
Scroll down to Page 43 for the ‘Training of Architects’ section.

What I find of note in this is that a good number of the points outlined in the document refer to the ‘theoretical’ or ‘aesthetic’ functions of the role. I feel strongly that an Architect should have a solid grasp of these aspects of practice. If a practitioner doesn’t have some appreciation of these factors, he will find it difficult to design anything above the level of a dormer bungalow.

Thus I do not accept ONQ’s point that our friend referred to in my earlier post is necessarily ‘an architect in everything but qualification’.
I wish to state again that these people should be fully entitled to work, and if they have the technical competency, should be allowed to certify the buildings which they design.

What I would like to see is that anyone wishing to call themselves an architect, would have to display, in parallel to showing the required technical competence, what the EU Directive refers to as:

(a) ‘ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements;

(b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and the related arts, technologies and human sciences;

(c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design;

This of course might be getting a bit too ‘airy fairy’ for some people, and there is in this general debate, like in every other facet of Irish life, a deep distrust of ‘intellectuals’. A look around at our current crop of politicians is ample evidence of our general ambivalence to those who theorise.
It might well be argued that the people of Ireland are not in the least interested in the aesthetics of design. Fine, they should be able to appoint their local engineer/planning consultant/etc to design their buildings, and should not be forced into the arms of an RIAI architect who will ‘fill their head with nonsense’.

If this Bill is the result of an argument over being able to certify works, it is the wrong way to go about solving the problem.

I would be in favour of a Bill which allows anyone who can show 'Technical Competence' to get their insurance and certify away, without having to call themselves 'Architects'.

I would be in favour of a Bill which allows anyone with a B Arch. or equivalent (and therefor having a grasp of the points a,b, & c above), and with some practical experience, to be allowed onto the register without having to go through quite so many hoops.

I am not in favour of practioners without any aesthetic knowledge, or indeed any interest in gaining any, being able to use the title of 'Architect'. It is too central an attribute to be ignored.

I've thought about this for a couple of days before responding.

The problem with the existing legislation is that it ignores both practical experience and prescribed qualifications.
It places undue emphasis on academic studies, while ignoring empirical evidence that these can blunt talent.
Look at the quality of Japanese designers, who like us until recently, could put up the name and practice.

The BCA 2007 sets the bar at the Part III level, when the bar is set in Europe at the Part II level.
There is an argument that more qualifications equals better design.
That's all it is though - one argument.
There are contrary arguments; -

• The previous post-modernist witticism has dissappeared up its own ironic, iconic references.
• The current neo-modernist debate has run onto the rationalist reef, stripped of meaning or context.
• The almost anti-design, anti-aesthetic offerings from the likes of Rem Koolhaus does nothing for many people.

With results like these, what benefit is more education producing stuff like this to the vast majority of the general public, who like the occasional design "boot in the bum", but prefer to live under pitched roofs?
Is there not a reason why 30-40% of people were building their own homes in the boom years and few of these used an architect, preferring an engineer or technician, not only on price but also because they listened?
[The numbers of persons self-building are higher in proportion now, even if overall they amy be down, and yet they still don't use too many architects]
What kind of indictment is that for our profession, when we are regularly accused of being egotists who prefer to push our own design agenda rather than respond to the client?

Does this not in fact point out that there is a maket segment uniquely suited to people of lessr or limited design ability specifically to address traditional design in a harmonious way?
A market that Grandfathers or newly minted Graduates would be ideally "qualified" to service?
A means of survival for the former, and a means of cutting their teeth getting rounded RL experience for the latter.
As opposed to them becoming subsumed into a big office but not learning the spectrum of abilities an archtiect requires.

Any third level design course divorced from an apprenticeship route runs the risk of fostering an élitist mentality.
Its oto easy to see a profession where service to architecture is placed before service to the client
Where the architect knows best even when the opponent is a qualified planner or engineer.
Where those who provide technical knowlege are looked down on by designers.

But there are no easy answers or put downs.
I agree with you that the design element is of absolute necessity.
I however broaden my palette to include the various traditional, classical, fantasy and romantic design ethos.

Modern architects are like the human race after the fall of Babel.
Each talking a different language, where there are no common reference points, each inventing a new language with each utterance.
This results in the discordant city, fine for tempremental mentlers like Koolhaus, but not necessarily the kind of place I want my kids to grow up in.
I don't need the American post-modernist cartoonists taking the mickey but I do want a palette where referential and traditional can co-exist with the modern.

I don't think the talented should kow tow to the over-qualified and I certainly don't think people who pass professional practice exams should lord it over competent technicians.
There has been too much specialising and division in the profession over the past 100 years and the schools are to blame for much of it - after all, they set the agenda, which centres on design.
But despite the broadened palette, I have to agree with you that even if the varied references and competent detailing is there, if the rest of it isn't guided by design then the public loses, and we all lose.

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.