Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

No, I may not.

The Bill is broadly welcome. From our point of view, it is more notable for what it does not do rather than what it does. In concentrating my points on the bits that are not in it, it is no reflection on the bits I favour that are in it. I will begin by echoing by the points made by some of the other Deputies earlier on the concerns that have been highlighted to us today and yesterday by the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists which, as other Deputies have said, has raised a number of concerns and suggests putting forward minor amendments to protect physiotherapists' professional title. From the bits I have read on it, it would appear to be to be eminently reasonable that we would accede to these amendments. No doubt they will be dealt with at a later stage.

One of the issues not dealt with, which is something I have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions, is the gap in the law around section 47 on family law reports, which are compiled by psychologists and psychotherapists. The Bill could have addressed what is a gaping gap but did not do so. It probably addresses the deficit in terms of psychologists because when the psychologist registration board is established and the members appointed in the coming weeks it will bring the profession under full statutory regulation, which is obviously very important and will allow CORU to be empowered to investigate complaints which, to date, we have not been able to do. The gap with regard to psychotherapists is still wide open, and the Bill is disappointing in that we are speaking about legislation which is designed to increase regulation and oversight in the health sector but we are not doing anything about it with regard to psychotherapists.

Section 47 reports are an incredibly important element of family law and custody cases. The reports are carried out by either a psychologist, a psychiatrist or a psychotherapist, with a view to determining the best interests of the child in separation or custody proceedings. Obviously, it is an incredibly delicate and stressful situation for all involved. The outcome can be decisive in terms of a child's life and whether it is joint custody, full custody or visitation rights. The potential for upset is vast, like everything in family law, and everything has to be transparent. The problem is that it is not. I have had a huge number of complaints from parents with regard to the lack of professional behaviour by people who are supposed to be professional in dealing with these section 47 reports.

I will not go on about it too much, but one parent wrote to me about how she was relieved when she started the process because she thought that at last someone would listen to her children. She stated the first meeting took place in December and she felt from the beginning the therapist had taken an instant dislike to her and made no secret of it. It continued to Christmas and she explained the difficulties experienced and how, by the end of the assessment, she felt extremely vulnerable. She stated she was walking on egg shells, afraid to speak and afraid to say something that would annoy her. She said her devastation was set to continue as the report issued, as it was unbalanced, biased, completely inaccurate and highly critical of her as a mother. She stated the trauma and manner in which the report was conducted will remain with her for a very long time, and that she is beyond words to describe how she feels. She stated the psychotherapist failed her and her children.

Obviously, as none of us was there, we do not know what happened and cannot comment on the details of the case, but we know that despite this woman's deeply traumatising experience, there is no one to whom she can complain and nobody to investigate it, which is appalling. There is a missed opportunity to regulate psychotherapists under this legislation.

In the absence of regulation and as an interim measure, it would be possible for complaints about psychotherapists producing section 47 reports, for example, to be investigated through a minor amendment to a statutory instrument. Like Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, I note the Minister's comment last Tuesday that he will examine this issue, but it is past time for examining it. The reality is that anyone can set up as a psychotherapist without qualifications, experience or training. It is good that we are considering this legislation and I welcome the Minister's statement on Tuesday about his decision to proceed with the designation of two distinct professions under the 2005 Act, counsellor and psychotherapist, but it is a question of how long we will have to wait for this. The Bill is a missed opportunity to do it. I should balance my remarks by pointing out that there are thousands of brilliant and dedicated psychotherapists who have undergone extensive training. It is also unfair on them because the hard work they have done is not recognised by statute; they are, therefore, on the same footing as the man or woman who undertakes a six week programme online and puts up a plaque stating he or she is a psychotherapist.

There is incredible urgency attached to regulating this area. A woman who had suffered a miscarriage of a much wanted pregnancy rang my office recently. She was distressed and upset at the loss of her baby. The counsellor to whom she had gone had actually told her it was her fault, that she obviously did not want the baby enough and that that was the reason the baby had died. One can imagine the trauma that caused. We have heard about so-called therapists telling people to do their garden or clean their house as therapy. There were the scandals at Roebuck Counselling Centre where management tried to scalp money from clients and their families. One farmer from County Mayo whose wife was an alcoholic and being treated there was asked to hand over €200,000. There is no regulation. While I acknowledge that the Minister has said he will address the issue, the reality is that if we do not do something in this legislation, it will probably be years away. It is urgently required.

To emphasise how dangerous it is to leave professions unregulated, I will refer briefly to the case of Joseph Maskell, a defrocked priest who was accused of sexually abusing young girls while working as a counsellor in the United States. He fled from America back to Ireland in the 1990s and set himself up as a psychologist in Wexford. He was employed by the South Eastern Health Board for a time before setting up in private practice in Wexford. As well as being an alleged serial child abuser, he was also allegedly involved in the murder of a nun who had exposed some of his activity in America. What is interesting about this case is that it was the diocese of Ferns, rather than the health board, that first rang the alarm bells after he had said mass one day in Curracloe. The Ferns diocese had been alerted by the diocese in America about him. However, it is worse than that. The diocese tried on several occasions to warn the health board to stop this individual from practising, according to a file disclosed by the diocese which we have seen. Despite this, it was two years before the health board received an undertaking from him that he would not work with children under 18 years of age in his practice. It is incredible to note that the health board did not make him stop practising but just accepted an undertaking.

That is what happens when professions are not regulated. If the registration of psychologists had been compulsory in the 1990s, would it have been as easy for a paedophile priest to be employed by the State and work as a psychologist with children? These are the consequences. The dysfunctionality of the South Eastern Health Board is well known and perhaps it might not have made a difference, but we must hope it would have. The desired impact of regulating professions which the Bill seeks to do is laudable. In that sense, I support it and believe it is urgent. However, there are still substantial gaps that must be addressed and I am keen to examine how we can address them.

Again, I support the proposals for amendments on a later Stage relating to chartered physiotherapists.

See this speech in context