Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Bill provides that for all of the regulated professions, the minor sanctions of advisement, admonishment or censure will now require confirmation by the court before they come into effect. This provision is considered appropriate in light of evolving case law which is increasingly concluding that it is the adverse finding arising from a fitness to practise proceeding rather than the specific sanction which often has the most significance for registrants. It is appropriate, therefore, that such a finding goes before a court before a sanction is applied on a registrant. The Bill, as drafted, will provide for all sanctions to be subject to confirmation by the court. This will result in greater equity of treatment for registrants who are the subject of an inquiry.

I recognise the concerns expressed by Deputy O'Reilly on this issue, particularly in relation to how a registrant may feel he or she will be negatively impacted in the process. However, I must balance that, to use a phrase we keep discussing and with which the Deputy and I both agree, with the public interest in maintaining a transparent, fair and robust system of professional regulation. Under the current legislation, for example, a censure with a fine requires confirmation by the court before it comes into effect, while a censure alone does not. Clearly, the current position is not equitable. Confirmation of all sanctions will ensure that all registrants are subject to the same treatments and protections of the court.

I also remind the Deputy that, in accordance with the definitions discussed earlier, a threshold of seriousness applies to the events giving rise to a fitness to practise complaint and these are cases that have been deemed to meet a threshold of seriousness. In appropriate cases, a regulator may invite a registrant to give an undertaking or consent to a particular course of action and, if given these, conclude the matters and not require the confirmation by the court.

The issue of costs was raised on Committee Stage. It is important to state that in future, as is the case now, it will be the courts which will determine who bears the costs. The determination by the court in these matters cannot be presumed in favour of either party in advance.

Deputy O'Reilly's amendment would relate only to nurses and midwives. I am sure that is unintentional but I need to point that out. For the reasons of equity I have outlined, I do not believe the Deputy wishes to treat one group of registrants more favourably than another. For these reasons, including the technical matter I outlined, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context