Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome this progressive and necessary legislation. Other Members have referred to the difficulties that have arisen in many different parts of the country in recent times as a result of people putting themselves forward as being medically qualified in certain areas.

I should have done so already but I welcome the Minister of State. This is my first engagement with him since his promotion. Following many years of engagement with him in the bar lobby, I am glad we will be able to deal with him in more superior lobbies in the future. I congratulate him and wish him good luck with his work.

I compliment those who drafted the Bill on their up-front attempt to protect the various titles of the professions. Titles are crucially important and in the past we failed to protect them on a number of occasions. There was a Bill before the House last week which changed the title of "veterinary surgeon" but also protected it. However, we failed to pass a Bill to protect the title "accountant" on a previous occasion. Given his background, the Minister of State may snigger at what I am going to say. The accountants could not get that legislation through because there was a danger people might confuse chartered accountants with turf accountants. I must admit that I do not see any great difference between the two.

I wish to raise the issue of those who practise alternative medicine. Senator Ulick Burke referred to a number of such people. He spoke, in particular, about bone-setters, of whom there are still a number operating throughout the country. There are also acupuncturists, whose activities must be quite well regulated throughout the world and who operate to a strict set of rules.

The list contained in the Bill does not refer to psychotherapists. There must be some good reason they are not in the list. I assume that as they are fully functioning and qualified and are part of the system they should also be included. I note that Oireachtas Members are not precluded from membership of any of the boards and that is a welcome recognition that Oireachtas Members can be trusted to sit on boards. I note, however, that Oireachtas Members may not be employed by a board. I regard that provision as being in breach of equality legislation. I wish the drafters of the Bill to know that I find it highly offensive that this legislation discriminates against Members of the Oireachtas and debars them from applying to work for these boards. I await a reasoned, logical and rational explanation why this provision is in the Bill.

I know people hate politicians and think they cannot be trusted to go anywhere or do anything at any time. I regard it as offensive when the only group in the whole country who are precluded from doing a particular job are Oireachtas Members. I promise that before I leave Leinster House I will take an equality case on that issue to prove that it is both illegal and unconstitutional. It is invidious discrimination and I believe it is illegal under the equality and equal status legislation. Members of the Oireachtas, whether Deputies or Senators, are of no lesser status in society than other citizens. I ask the Minister of State to bear that point in mind when dealing with this legislation. I know the drafters will be keen to indulge me on this matter and I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's response.

I can find no reference in the legislation to the issue of the mutual recognition of qualifications. I read carefully the references to education and the need for agreeing qualifications, with which I agree. I would like to see that provision fleshed out. On the question of the recognition of various qualifications in different member states of the EU, the directive on the mutual recognition of third-level professional qualifications was passed 20 years ago but it still has not been implemented.

Senator Lydon referred to the case of psychologists. He explained that psychologists are divided into psychologists and registered psychologists. I understand him to refer to professionally recognised people as the registered psychologists, those whose qualification in psychology is a qualification which is recognised as a fitness to practise qualification. To put it in educational terms, one could have a BA in education which is a qualification but one would not be a qualified teacher. One could also have a doctorate in psychology but one would not be a psychologist, as the Acting Chairman, Dr. Henry, will be aware.

The question of registration is dealt with once a person is recognised on the list. I would like to hear Senator Lydon develop his references further. He spoke about the Psychological Society of Ireland and the British Psychological Society. The British Psychological Society refers to chartered psychologists and the Irish society refers to registered psychologists. However, the interesting point is that the British Psychological Society does not recognise the same people as are recognised by the Irish psychological society. That is where the system is wrong. In terms of mutual recognition of qualification, this makes life very difficult. On this small island, people North and South are recognised by different bodies. If a person comes to this State, having qualified in Queen's University, Belfast, which has a highly regarded school of psychology and is recognised professionally by the British Psychological Society, would the Minister of State envisage that person to be automatically recognised in this State? I do not mean any automatic recognition in the sense of merely pressing a button. The councils in this State should have a relationship with their equivalent council in the UK for a start but also in all of Europe.

The Good Friday Agreement had both a North-South and an east-west dimension. Every time legislation such as this is passed, division is being sowed. It is only a matter of taking a decision in principle and allowing the new council to ensure it works. I do not envisage a problem because there is no great difference. The only problem is the internal politics of the different registration councils. This is not to say that the qualification from Queen's University is better or worse than a qualification from any other university or third-level institution on either island. There should be an agreement to do this.

Some groups, such as accountants, do so already. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland is at this moment making a presentation to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. It recognises chartered accountants from England and Wales. I would like to see that happen in the case of psychologists. I ask the Minister of State to address that point in his reply.

I also wish to raise the issue of complaints. The complaints procedure outlined in the Bill is probably the best I have seen. It is far more extensive and far closer to the tenets of natural justice than that in the legislation dealing with veterinary surgeons which the House dealt with last week. In fairness, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has informed me she has taken on board the problems I have raised and she intends to change that provision.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a number of items which are regularly missing from legislation. I compliment the Department of Health and Children on its correct drafting. Section 52(3) refers to the preliminary stages of a complaint. The preliminary proceedings committee shall notify the registrant, the person about whom the complaint is made, of the complaint, of its nature and the name of the person making the complaint. That is a provision for natural justice which should be in every complaints procedure. I applaud the drafters of the Bill for including it. I think this is the first occasion I have seen it in a Bill, unless it was in the Bill dealing with complaints about accountants.

Section 56 contains a small niggling item. When the complaint is being processed details of the nature and the matter that is to be the subject of the inquiry, including the particulars of any evidence, are made available to the person being complained about. It is not good enough nor is it judicially sound for the person to be given the particulars of the evidence; they should be given access to all the evidence against them. The use of the word "particulars" seems to imply it is qualified in some way; it cannot be qualified. If someone makes a complaint against me, I am entitled to see all the evidence.

One aspect of the hearing is missing, namely, the right of the person about whom the complaint is being made to cross-examine and to examine and test the evidence. I know people will not like that but unfortunately the principles of natural justice will allow for that to happen. If a complaint were made against me and were to go through all the processes and I did not agree with the complainant, I would want the opportunity to question that person and to test the evidence. If that opportunity were not afforded me and I were to challenge it on that point of law to the High Court, I believe it would be sustained. That should be included in the provision just as any kind of domestic procedure or redress allows for this, albeit that it is very cumbersome, not very attractive and very legalistic.

I compliment those who drafted the Bill on their anticipation of that point by inserting into the complaints procedure at a very early stage the importance of bringing in a mediation or other informal process. It shows great thinking on the Department's part. An informal mediation followed by a preliminary hearing and then a complaint procedure is precisely the way it should be done. I hope the few points I have made are not regarded as narky or niggly but rather as improvement to the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to consider them. This is fine legislation. I will support the Bill and I look forward to Committee Stage where I hope the issues raised will be taken on board.