John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

Following the raising of these issues by Deputy Upton on Committee Stage, the Minister undertook to return to this matter again when the legislation came back into the House. She has given further consideration to it and had consultations with the Office of the Attorney General. She believes the Bill as drafted strikes the correct balance. An example by way of illustration is a practitioner who steals €500 from a client. Such an offence could be tried in the District or Circuit Court. However, if proceeded with in the lower court, this should not of itself prevent the council from looking into the matter since, taken in context, it is a serious matter. The current provision does nothing more than give the option to the council to proceed. If, having considered the matter, the council decides to do so, the normal procedures will kick in, including a full right of appeal to the High Court.

While I fully understand the concern for the rights of the accused underpinning the amendment, balance is required. I emphasise that this is a "may" provision and, as such, does not imply that a person will be automatically struck off because of such conviction. The council will be required to examine the matter thoroughly and reach a view on whether the person's ability to practise has been compromised and whether the profession might be damaged by virtue of the person remaining registered. For this reason, I remain of the view that a reasonable balance has been struck and, in light of the Minister's consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, it is not proposed to accept the amendments.

See this speech in context