Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)

As the Senators will be aware, given the potential implications for a practitioner's livelihood, all decisions of the council in the disciplinary area are subject either to appeal or confirmation by the High Court. It is essential in this regard that the council behaves at all times strictly in accordance with the principles of due process.

The fitness to practise procedures contained in the Bill are, therefore, designed to differentiate clearly between the distinct and separate roles of the various constituent elements of the disciplinary process. The role of the council is broadly to initiate the investigation of a complaint and dictate an appropriate sanction based on the recommendations of a registration board following the substantiation of a complaint against a registrant.

Conferring a broad power on the council to initiate and carry out an investigation into a complaint, as proposed by Senators Browne and Henry, would circumvent the detailed fitness to practise system and run the risk of rendering the disciplinary committee superfluous or at least confer a lower order of importance on the committee. It could also undermine the objective of the Bill to develop a more modern approach to the investigation of fitness to practise complaints through the introduction of a mediation route and allowing a practitioner to accept a complaint to preclude a full hearing in less serious cases. Moreover, there could be concern among practitioners regarding the scope for potential abuse of the complaints system in circumstances that an investigation could be commenced in the absence of a complaint being made.

The requirement that there be scope for the regulatory system to initiate a complaint against a registered practitioner is reflected in section 51(3), which allows the registration board to make a complaint to the council. The proposed amendment is, therefore, not accepted.