That sounds like a 1950s Legion of Mary solution you're looking for there teak.
I didn't pay enough attention to Registration at the time, not that it would have made any difference.
There is a counter argument that if you can design buildings and you do it for a living, you're an architect, in common speech. Registration of the title architect, under the administration of the RIAI, imposes pre-conditions that undermine that commonly held understanding. Supposedly this was to be for the benefit of the public, to protect them from some poorly skilled practitioners who haven't passed as many exams as the RIAI guys, but actually it was for the benefit of the membership of the RIAI, many of whom are probably equally poorly skilled, to judge from much of what has been built in recent years.
Ironically, registration probably will benefit the public in the long run, by propelling the RIAI down the same protectionist road that the trade guilds went down in the 18th century, into oblivion. The more the Institute attempts to ring fence the architectural profession, the more that ring-fenced profession will be by-passed by the consumers it is professing to protect, many of whom just want a competent design and planning service at a reasonable cost.
I became an architect to design buildings, I didn't become an architect to join a closed shop. The guild system ultimately failed because the guilds were closed shops adrift in an sea of technological advance and because innovation was conspicuously happening in the centres of growth not controlled by the guilds. The same will happen to the RIAI. By making the title 'Architect' more precious, it is inevitable that the practice of architecture will become more expensive to sustain and that will open the door to other professionals, who can also design and plan buildings, to offer a comparable service at a more attractive rate. We're living in the android era, the days of the premium brand are over.
The Registration debate may be over, but in making its Faustian pact with the legislators to become the sole custodians of the coveted title 'Architect' the RIAI now finds itself conjoined in a deadly legislative embrace that has been represented as aiming to compel the designers of buildings to be legally responsible for what is actually being built under their guidance, which is a prospect that is both perfectly reasonable, and terrifying.
Even though that is not actually the case, the RIAI is now tearing itself apart along this fault line, which is frankly not what I want for my €450 a year.
The vista of seven past presidents of the RIAI shaking their walking sticks at the current incumbent is unedifying to put it mildly, and needs to stop.
S.I. 80 of 2013 does not demand that the architect for a given project himself self-certifies the work, it provides for an 'Assigned Certifier' to verify the compliance of building work with the Building Regulations, which, as with the practice that has emerged to deal with BER certification, will doubtless end up with the creation of a new pool of professions to fulfil this certification role, practitioners [many of whom will be architects] with the appropriate training and P.I. insurance who will take on this new responsibility for a fee.
The past-presidents group propose an independent inspectorate that will be, effectively, exactly the same thing, but with a half-assed Local Authority inspectorate layer above that to carry out spot checks on random, or suspect, developments. That would only have the effect of deflecting responsibility off into some grey area between the two where everyone involved can sleep soundly in the knowledge that no one will ever be effectively pinned down for any involvement they may have had in any new revelation of dodgy buildings practice.
The RIAI has no choice now, registration is a done deal, now it needs to get its act together and embrace the notion of actual accountability, in partnership with anyone else who wants a piece of that action, or retreat deeper into its protective shell and get ready for irrelevance.