Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Minister, Deputy Donnelly, is very welcome to the Chamber as always and I realise that many of my points have been covered by previous speakers.

I confirm that the Green Party grouping will support this legislative initiative. The Bill is fundamentally about health practitioners. It contains a welcome development in response to Brexit in respect of UK medical graduates because since Brexit, UK graduates have been unable to avail of intern positions in Irish hospitals. This Bill allows for graduates of UK universities and colleges to take up positions in Irish hospitals. That is to be welcomed because we understand the crisis in the health service. We have an excellent relationship with our professionals across the water and, in turn, they have a very good reputational track record in the area of professional education in this sphere.

In respect of the registration of medical professionals, the Bill addresses a number of registration issues that people may often encounter when seeking to register with the Medical Council, and CORU, which is the regulating body for health and social care professionals. This Bill is of particular relevance to social care workers when registering in Ireland following the acquisition of international qualifications. The amended registration process will provide for those who seek to work in Ireland with international qualifications.

One aspect of the Bill concerns changes in how complaints are dealt with. The Bill proposes changes to how complaints by or against medical practitioners are managed and handled. Typically, investigations take quite a long time, which can cause distress for both complainants and doctors. The changes are intended to make investigations more efficient and faster and have been welcomed by the Medical Council. One of the most significant changes is that complaints will now be made to the CEO rather than the preliminary proceedings committee.

I am on record in this House as flagging an issue that concerns the Medical Council. I am sure that the Medical Council does a good job. However, I am concerned that certain professionals who appear before the council's inquiry can face a barrage of daily publicity because the proceedings are in public. In the end, the person might be vindicated but the damage to his or her professional reputation cannot be undone. I am thinking, for example, of the Supreme Court decision made in 2015 after a professor surgeon had to take judicial review proceedings in connection with a complaint in respect of lip surgery. The late Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman said that the surgeon was subjected to extensive publicity which at times lacked fairness and moderation. It is very hard for a person when a member of this sensitive profession features in the news day in and day out. Eventually a judgment is published and a person may have his or her claim vindicated or challenged under judicial review proceedings regarding the hearing process. However, all that is forgotten about and irreparable damage can be done to the reputation of a professional. I believe in the transparency of a public hearing but wonder whether it is possible to anonymise the name of the professional and then, if there is an adverse finding, the name can be published. It is the one area of professions where negative publicity can do a lot of reputational damage. I am told that it is speculated that some of these professionals who came through the process have left the country to seek professional work elsewhere due to the damage done to their reputation. What I have said is not a criticism of the media and I know the Medical Council does its best but I urge sensitivity in these cases. I do not call for private hearings but for a redacted or anonymised version of the hearings. This is a matter that the Minster might consider in the long term. This issue has not been addressed in this Bill but I have raised it from time to time in this House.