Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House and commend him on bringing this Bill before it because this issue has been going around for some time. It was left on the backburner for a long time and not given great priority, although European directives were involved. The Bill involves more than the registration of architects because it is a building control Bill. It is essential that a number of its features are introduced.

The feature which has created the greatest degree of interest is the registration of architects. I will declare an interest. I am a member and fellow of the Irish Architects Society. The RIAI has decided to bring the society under its umbrella when this Bill is passed. It is important for me to put this on record. Although I am not involved in it, I am still in the registration system in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I am concerned about the fact that the registration system for architects will be administered by the RIAI, which I expect to be a member of after this Bill is passed. I would still prefer if it was administered by an independent organisation, as opposed to one group. This concern has been expressed by many.

I have some concerns with aspects of this Bill which will affect certain architects who currently practise in this country. I refer to the section of the Bill which outlines the procedure for the registration of architects. There is a fear on the part of some architects that this Bill may put them out of a job. This is a matter of deep concern to them. They are recognised as architects, have a number of buildings behind them, have a proven track record, have been practising for more than ten years, are successful in their trade and have made a major contribution to the economy. However, under the terms of this Bill, they may have their livelihood taken from them, which is their great fear.

I regard it as unconstitutional to deprive someone of their livelihood, irrespective of European rules and regulations. If people who have been practising in the architectural profession up to the time of the enactment of the Bill can prove they have practical experience of architecture and have been working as architects, they should not be deprived of being registered as architects under this proposed legislation. Proof of their case could be the use of the word "architect" in a letterhead or in signing documentation. It would be a great injustice if we were to deprive people of their livelihood. Following enactment of the Bill, to use the title, "architect", it will be necessary for people to have qualifications and apply for registration. That is a fair warning to anyone who wishes to practise in this profession in future. If a person wishes to practise as an auctioneer and valuer, he or she must apply to the courts for registration.

The independent group which represents professionally trained architects without formal qualification who have been practising for more than ten years has voiced concerns about the method of assessment to be used to assess those seeking registration. The new registration body to be set up as a result of this Bill can choose its own assessment procedure. This may mean an academically focused test could be put in place and this method of examination may not be the best way of examining practically trained architects with years of experience behind them. It would be preferable for them to be judged on the quality of the buildings they designed.

There was a closing date for registration of architects in 1997, and many were informed soon afterwards whether they had made it on to the list of eligible architects. However, many architects were not informed by the Department of the closing date or even that there was such a registration process. I expect the Minister will reply that advertisements were taken out in the national media to give people adequate warning. I have sought to get a list of registered architects from the Department. I do not know whether the Minister intends to make that list available on the Department's website or elsewhere. It does not appear to be available currently. I would like to know how many names are on the list and I also want to check whether my name is on it.

People have been left out in the cold on this issue and it is important that we remedy it. To apply rules retroactively to a group of people who have been practising architects for many years is a costly and time-consuming business. It is also unfair and puts undue pressure on professional practising architects. In general, when introducing a new rule, it was thought wise to apply the rule to all future situations, while letting existing situations carry on as they were. This has come to be known as the grandfather clause. While I do not like the name, I agree with the sentiment behind it. It is a question of acknowledging experienced practitioners of the architectural arts. Many successful practices have great track records and employ other qualified architects. A commonsense approach is required.

The Minister is a practical politician with vast experience. I do not think it is his intention to put anybody out of business but this may be a consequence of enacting the Bill as it stands. People are concerned. I have received numerous representations, as I am sure has the Department, from the group concerned that represents approximately 60 architects. These, and the list of people who were excluded, may constitute the maximum number of individuals who will be affected. If somebody without qualifications wanted to practise as an architect from today, it would be difficult for him or her to justify the case for registration. I do not intend to table an amendment to the Bill and I accept it may be difficult for the Minister to have to bring it back to the Dáil but I urge him to examine the views put forward by Members of this House who are being fair and reasonable about the approaches made to them.

I met a practising architect yesterday who is very concerned about the future. We are all facing a test in a few weeks. The Minister will face the general electorate and I will face the Seanad electorate. That is our profession and we must put our names before the people for ratification. I hope the Minister will be successful and will return to Government again. When people have been practising architecture daily, rearing a family, paying debts and making a contribution to society, they should not be deprived of their livelihood by legislation enacted by this House. That is my concern and I hope the Minister will devise some procedure to ensure the recognition of those who have accumulated years of practical experience working as architects and who can put forward a portfolio of the work they have executed over a number of years as architectural technicians, draftsmen or architects.

In fairness, an appeals system, the details of which the Minister outlined, will be in place. Ultimately, I hope nobody will be deprived of a livelihood and I know that is also the wish of the Minister. I urge him to recognise the experience of architects who have been practising for years as opposed to academic qualification alone.