Brendan Ryan (Labour)

There is no profession in the list to which I object. I am not suggesting that chiropody should not be on the list but while the harm a chiropodist can do is quite significant, the harm a poorly-trained therapist can do when starting to explore people's subconscious and working into that area is significant for individuals, for their relationships and sometimes for society. The area of therapy, psychotherapy and counselling desperately needs regulation. Whether it needs as much regulation as this Bill contains at this stage I do not know but the nettle must be grasped to convince people that this is not a takeover by the medical profession, because that is how many people would see it, but is in their interests. There is a need for formalised recognition of who can call himself or herself a counsellor or psychotherapist and so on.

The psychologist is defined here quite precisely and correctly but as the role of the church in society declines, a profession is growing of replacements for the clergy who are being paid to do all the listening that good clerics used to do. Most priests, however, had a reasonable five or six years training and before the church would allow them undertake that sort of delicate work they were presumed to have some maturity. I am astonished at the number of people who, on getting stuck in a job they do not like, decide it would be more satisfying to be a counsellor and move from something utterly unrelated to counselling people, having completed a 12 month course. I worry about this. The capacity exists in the legislation to add other professions but apart from the reference to "well established" if one accepts — and I do — the criteria listed by the Minister, which includes "the potential for harm to the public", that area carries a considerable potential for harm.

I do not wish to go on at length about the Bill. I welcome the level of lay participation. Senator Feeney spoke yesterday about the importance of having a health committee as well as a fitness to practise committee. I accept her expertise on the matter as she suffered the Medical Council, which is probably a reasonable way to describe it. She knows it better than we do. I am always worried about the possibility of people being targeted for malicious complaints but that is the world in which we live. Those of us involved in politics do not have any reason to be too touchy about it. We live with malicious complaints. Anyone claiming to be a professional must do likewise. The balance in the legislation is reasonable in terms of protecting a person's good name while also protecting the public. With those reservations I welcome the Bill.