Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

Given the potential implications for a practitioner's livelihood, all decisions of the council in the disciplinary area are subject either to appeal or to confirmation by the High Court. It is clearly essential, in that regard, that the council behaves strictly in accordance with the principles of due process at all times. The fitness to practice procedures contained in the Bill are designed to differentiate clearly between the distinct and separate roles of the various constituent elements of the disciplinary process.

The role of the council is broadly twofold in this matter. The council initiates the investigations of a complaint and, following the substantiation of a complaint against a registrant, it dictates an appropriate sanction based on the recommendation of the registration board.

Conferring a broad power on the council itself to initiate a complaint, as proposed by Deputy Twomey, would circumvent the detailed fitness to practice system set out in the Bill and run the risk of rendering the disciplinary committees superfluous or, at least, confer a lower order of importance on them. It might also undermine the objective of the Bill to develop a more modern approach to the investigation of fitness to practice complaints through the introduction of a mediation route and allowing a practitioner to accept a complaint in order to preclude a full hearing in less serious cases. Moreover, there could be concern among practitioners regarding the scope for potential abuse of the complaints system in circumstances where an investigation could be commenced in the absence of a complaint being made.

I appreciate the Deputy wishes to allow scope for the regulatory system itself to initiate a complaint against a registered practitioner. This area is covered in subsection (3) of section 52 of the Bill, which allows the registration board to make a complaint to the council. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not accepted.

See this speech in context