Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

In this respect, we have gone for a position that is a half-way house. Much lobbying, particularly from patient groups, was engaged in for everything to be heard in public. I very much take the point made by both Senators in the case of complainants. Many people want to remain private citizens but want to do their duty by themselves as patients and by other patients by making a complaint and having it investigated. They should be entitled, if they wish, to have their case heard in private. Equally, a doctor should be able to make his or her case. The fitness to practise committee will comprise a lay majority of reasonable men and women who, in the first instance, must be objective and fair-minded and, for the moment, we should leave it to them to decide on this issue.

With all the new committees being established, such as the health committee, the preliminary screening committee, the mediation process and so on compared with there being only the fitness to practise committee and no other option in the past, it is to be hoped that only serious matters where there is a prima facie case will go before the fitness to practise committee and many health related issues can be dealt with elsewhere. The proactive power given to the council to intervene at a much earlier stage will help greatly in ensuring that only serious matters go before the fitness to practise committee. Although it is provided for that the norm will be for cases to be heard in public, the fitness to practise committee has discretion in that respect. On balance, this is a half-way house between a hearing being either fully public or fully closed. The committee has been given the option in that respect.