And should it be the architects' own body, the RIAI? The Competition Authority is concerned about a proposed new registration system for the profession. Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, reports

How the professions are regulated in the public interest has long been a contentious issue - not least among the professions, whether they be doctors, lawyers or architects. The public increasingly demands openness, transparency and accountability - and it has a notable champion in the Competition Authority (CA).

In its final report on the architectural profession, published in March, the authority was more benign than it had been in its preliminary (2003) report.

Indeed, the CA said it now had "only a small number of concerns" about the profession, and concluded that consumers "are largely benefiting from competition in architectural services".

Unlike some other professions reviewed by the authority, as its report acknowledged, architects "are not restricted by layers of unjustified or disproportionate restrictions on competition".

How could it have possibly found otherwise, when their own professional institute frequently organises competitions among its members?

"Competition seems to be working well for consumers of architectural services and the economy as a whole. Where the Competition Authority has identified unnecessary or disproportionate rules or restrictions, the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) has been pro-active in addressing the authority's concerns."

Rules which restricted advertising by architects were removed in May 2004 and the RIAI no longer publishes a set scale of fees.

There has also been a significant increase in the number of architecture training places with the opening of new architecture schools in Waterford and Limerick in 2005, and another due to open in Cork later this year.

However, the CA remains concerned about the impact of a proposed new registration system for architects, outlined in the Building Control Bill 2005 - now before the Oireachtas - which would give the RIAI the responsibility for maintaining a register of people in Ireland who will be entitled under law to call themselves architects.

According to the authority, this creates the potential for conflicts of interest between the RIAI's role in representing its members (currently 2,600) and its proposed statutory roles of protecting consumers and regulating architects, including those who are not paid-up members of the august institute, which was founded in 1839.

"The RIAI represents the vast majority of architects in Ireland. If these proposals are implemented, they will establish in law a conflict of interest where the RIAI will represent the interests of its members while it will, at the same time, be responsible for the rules and practices which are designed to protect the public interest."

The CA is also concerned about the composition of the various boards and committees that will regulate the architectural profession, saying appointments to these decision-making bodies should not be made by the RIAI.

It also recommends that a number of safeguards be put in place regarding the proposed code of professional conduct.

Alternatively, it has proposed that an independent "Architects' Council of Ireland" should be set up to regulate the architectural profession. The CA said this would bring the regulation of architects into line with other professions in Ireland, such as doctors and dentists, and with other sectors of the economy, such as financial services.

Its report points out that Britain has an Architects' Registration Board "with a clear consumer protection mandate" that operates independently of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Neither does the Royal Australian Institute of Architects have any role in registering architects - that's done by independent boards in each state.

One disgruntled former member of the RIAI has made a submission to Minister for the Environment Dick Roche suggesting that architects here should be registered by an independent body, "at arm's length from vested interests within the professional business/construction sector and be fully transparent and accountable in its work".

The former member, who does not wish to be publicly identified, claimed that members of the RIAI only contributed 10 per cent of the institute's income of €3.8 million last year. "Where does the other 90 per cent come from? What strings may attach to this money, implicit or explicit? Can a body so funded act impartially?" he asked.

But RIAI director John Graby said that members' subs account for 25 per cent of its income, with a further 7 per cent from voluntary practice subs, and the rest comes from rent, publications, seminars and joint ventures.

"It's the way most modern professional bodies fund themselves. If you were to rely on subs, you'd do very little."

He denied that the institute was involved in "empire-building" by insisting that it should be the registration body.

In 1999, a task force set up by the Construction Industry Forum proposed that the RIAI should have this role and that the standards for admitting architects to the register would be those acceptable to the institute.

Graby said the RIAI had "no problem" with the proposed majority of lay people on the admissions and appeals boards or professional conduct committee, as envisaged by the Building Control Bill. But it does have an issue with giving non-architects a majority on the board that will decide who is, or isn't, qualified to be an architect.

"We're saying there should be some specification of qualifications or skills [ for the lay people involved]; they shouldn't, as Ruairi Quinn said in the Dáil, just be cumann members from Donegal coming down for the mileage. But architects should have a majority on the technical assessment board because that needs specific expertise."

Apart from these misgivings, the RIAI has given a broad welcome to the Bill.

It had, after all, been pressing for such legislation since 1886, the year of Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill. One of its selling points is that the registration system now proposed can be run at no cost to taxpayers, whereas setting up a new body would need funding.

"We said to the Competition Authority: 'You show us where we can covertly influence the system for benefit of members, and we'll deal with that.' They haven't responded to that challenge," according to John Graby. "In the Netherlands, they don't even have a code of professional conduct. You just get on the list and that's it."

He also stressed that the RIAI "can't artificially manipulate the numbers coming in [ to the profession]. We've got 160 applications for the next professional practice exam, and another 80 from UCD. There is no financial benefit whatever to the RIAI. It's all about consumer protection and improving the quality of the built environment."

In its submission to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment last week, the institute said the definition of professional misconduct should be broadened from "gross negligence" to include "what really matters to the consumer - poor professional performance, professional incompetence and poor standards of service".

Graby described the system now proposed as "co-regulation, rather than self-regulation" - a sort of public-private partnership whereby the State devolves the function of registering architects to the RIAI and "stays involved to ensure transparency". If a separate, independent body was seen as necessary, "it's back to drawingboards".