I move amendment No. 6:
In page 27, paragraph (i)(ii), line 10, to delete “and” and substitute the following:
"(iii) in subsection (9), by substituting "4 months, and" for "2 months", and".
I propose to discuss amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together, since they both refer to aspects of the disciplinary procedures applying to veterinary practitioners and nurses. In summary, No. 6 proposes to extend one of the time limits associated with the preliminary stage of investigations, while in No. 7, I am proposing to further amend the definition of professional misconduct.
The common thread running through these two amendments, and indeed the totality of the amendments under section 9(i) and (k), as well as section 4, is to improve the operation of the disciplinary procedures under the Act, taking account of provisions in more recent legislation governing the professions. The amendments also reflect submissions made by the Veterinary Council in light of that body’s practical experience of implementing these provisions over the last five years. While my Department has not been made aware by the council that the existing provisions in the Act governing disciplinary procedures have unduly hindered that body in dealing with the complaints that have come before it to date, the council has put forward the case that the periods allowed under the Act for aspects of the preliminary stage of investigations are, at two months in each case, too short. Hence, I am proposing, in section 9(i)(ii) and in amendment No. 6, to double from two to four months the time limits associated with the preliminary stages of investigations.
More specifically, the stages involved are as follows: first, the time allowed for the preliminary investigation committee to consider a complaint and decide whether, in its view, a full inquiry should proceed; second, the time allowed for the council to make a decision, following from a failure of the PIC to make its preliminary decision, as to whether or not a full inquiry is to proceed - this change arises from the need to allow due process to be followed in all cases by affording those concerned, including those complained against, adequate time to consider the issues raised and provide responses; and third, in amendment No. 6, I am proposing to increase from two to four months the period allowed to the council to consider what to do in specific cases in which the preliminary investigation committee has recommended that a full inquiry should not proceed. I should point out that it is open to the council in such cases to overrule the preliminary inquiry committee and decide that a full inquiry should proceed.
I believe the increase in these time limits is appropriate. While we do not want any undue delay in dealing with complaints, it is also necessary to give sufficient time for complaints to be fully and properly examined and for persons complained against to make submissions.
Amendment No. 7 relates to professional misconduct as a whole and also defines it in the legislation. In section 9(i)(iii), as adapted by amendment No. 7, I am proposing to amend the definition of “professional misconduct” currently set down in section 76(10) of the Act. This amendment responds to concerns expressed by the council, based on advice from its own legal advisers, that the current definition may be too narrow in scope. The council’s particular concern is that the existing definition unduly limits the council in investigating complaints relating to behaviours which, while not directly impinging on professional performance as such, could nonetheless bring the profession into disrepute. Following publication of the Bill, however, the council expressed the view that the amended definition in the Bill is still unduly narrow and does not sufficiently take account of the principles deriving from case law in this area, particularly the High Court judgment in the case of O’Laoire v. the Medical Council. In this High Court judgment, it was found that, in addition to behaviour which is “infamous or disgraceful in a professional respect” or which involves fraud or dishonesty, a medical professional’s conduct could be assessed to determine whether it fell seriously short of the standard of conduct expected amongst medical professionals. Having taken further legal advice, I am proposing to remove the reference to the code of conduct and replace it with a form of words which relates more closely to principles enunciated in the ruling in the O’Laoire v. Medical Council case. This is reflected in amendment No. 7.
In other words, we have taken legal advice about how to give the Veterinary Council the broadest legal base possible to undertake investigations into professional misconduct, and we do not want the definition of "professional misconduct" to be so narrow that it allows people to escape the net in investigations that are taking place. That is the thinking behind it.