David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

146. To ask the Minister for Health if he will address a matter raised in correspondence by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3660/22]

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

175. To ask the Minister for Health if his attention has been drawn to a case (details supplied); his views on the policy which prohibits the investigation of complaints against medical practitioners who have withdrawn from the register of medical practitioners; if he plans to amend the legislation to permit the investigation of medical practitioners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3803/22]

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 146 and 175 together.

The objective of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 is to better protect and inform the public in its dealings with medical practitioners in the State. Pursuant to the Act, the Medical Council is the body responsible for the regulation of registered medical practitioners. The Minister does not have a role in relation to individual complaints received by the Medical Council and you will appreciate does not comment on specific cases or take a position on matters before the courts.

Section 52 of the Act provides for the procedures for a registered medical practitioner to apply to have his or her name removed from the register such that that person may no longer practise in the State. Section 52 prescribes the circumstances under which that removal can happen. The Regulated Professions (Health and Social Care) (Amendment) Act 2020, includes a provision which is yet to be commenced, amending section 52(3) to state that the Council may consider applications by registered medical practitioners who are the subject of a complaint which has not been disposed of or otherwise dealt with under the Act, “if the Council is satisfied that the removal of the practitioner’s registration would not be contrary to the public interest”.

The rationale for this amendment was to deal with a small cohort of cases where the Council is satisfied that the removal of the practitioner’s registration would not be contrary to the public interest – this might include, for example (but is not limited to), a registrant against whom a complaint has been opened due to the fact that s/he is subject to disciplinary proceedings in another jurisdiction, who may have never practised in this jurisdiction and may never intend to practise in this jurisdiction.

Department officials are considering the High Court Judicial Review decision ([2021] IEHC 776) referenced in the Deputy’s correspondence and any implications arising from that judgment, including whether any additional measures are required for the protection of the public.