Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)

I am in agreement with the majority of speakers on the amendment. My understanding, which is based on discussions I have had with members of the profession, is that there is a desire to have both titles, chiropodist and podiatrist, included and that the issue arises from the qualifications. I understand that until the mid-1980s the entry requirement to the profession was a diploma in chiropody and since then the entry requirement has been a degree in podiatry. However, a person who qualified with a diploma in chiropody in the mid-1980s and is practising would have the capacity to work for 30 to 40 years in the profession before reaching the standard retirement age. In view of this it would be unfair that the title associated with their profession is not in line with their qualification at the time. The fairest and most reasonable way of dealing with those in the profession would be that both titles be recognised.

It is widely recognised there is a difference in regard to the meaning of the terms. Nowadays there is a greater level of scrutiny of those who deliver a service and understanding, from a consumer point of view, of the service provided by the practitioner. We need to ensure that a person who has a qualification in chiropody is not disenfranchised at a later stage by the use of the word "podiatry" only. As consumers consider the CVs of those they expect to work on their behalf — it is part of the way they operate — both titles should be recognised. While the amendment seeks to change the term from "chiropody" to "podiatry" I am in favour of including the two terms. I am not sure if that is possible but if it cannot be considered in this House perhaps it can be debated in the other House.