James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contribution. I accept Senator Humphreys's bona fides on this. The second part of the amendment relates to "a person who has been permitted access to pursue the profession of planner pursuant to Article 5 of S.I. No. 139/2008 - Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC) Regulations, 2008." That includes very specifically the Royal Town Planning Institute, RTPI, and others.

I have consulted widely with the IPI and have spoken to the president of the RTPI who does not have any particular problem with this. The issue of EU equivalence can be covered off under that SI.

There will of course be problems. There always are. I accept fully what the Minister is saying about architects and the fact that anyone could use that term up to a couple of years ago and that problems arose subsequently. Unfortunately, to make an omelette one has to break a few eggs. We cannot continue to run away from it on the basis that we may discommode certain people. No one rule will always be fair to everybody but the greater good demands that we do something about this, that we have protection for the public and that we protect the name of planners as well. It is not a case of pulling the ladder up after them but there are the IPI, the RTPI and our European brethren with whom in many professions we have equivalence of certification and acknowledgement of their degrees. The one I know most about is the medical profession. That is not without its problems. People may have the required professional capacity but not the language, which can be a big problem in medicine.On the issue of regulating, policing and funding, we are not trying to reinvent the wheel. Again, we have plenty of precedence among the professions who are regulated by their council, who pay for that regulation by their subscription to the council, of which they must be a member in order to conduct their profession. Obviously the council polices the matter. The cost to the State will be negligible. I do not believe the Medical Council get any subsidy from the State that I am aware of, as it is funded by doctors themselves, even though there is a lay majority on the council now. I do not think any of those problems are insurmountable. I hear what the Minister is saying and I fully acknowledge it. At the outset, I said we had an opportunity in the Bill which has a specific purpose, to consider a different end. I reserve my position until Report Stage. I will consult further with the planners to whom I have been speaking as to whether we need to bring this amendment back.

Failing that, I am putting the Government on notice that I will bring forward a Bill, which I will seek to publish in due course, if we cannot make progress in the foreseeable future because I cannot think of a more important time for this to be done. As I have already outlined, and without reiterating what I said already, with so much building and development coming down the track and a wonderful opportunity to get things right, let us make sure the planners who are planning it are properly qualified and right.

I propose to withdraw my amendment and reserve the right to submit it on Report Stage.