Consultation on the GMC (Constitution) Order (2008)

General comments

We are supportive of the majority of suggestions set out in the draft Order. We broadly support the reduction in size of the Council, however would caution that this must not lead to a reduction in the level of expertise on the Council. 

Specific comments

Question 1. Do you agree that the GMC should consist of 12 registrant members and 12 lay members?

We strongly support the principle of professionally-led regulation and therefore strongly support the retention of a medical majority on the Council. At a minimum we would not want to see the balance between medics and non-medics reduced to less than parity. Patients are at the centre of the healthcare system and their involvement in the regulatory process is crucial and must be combined with the professional knowledge of working doctors. It is essential to strike the appropriate balance between professional and lay members on the Councils of professional regulators. The vast majority of doctors provide excellent care. All deserve to be treated fairly. Fairness requires that their actions should be judged by those with the necessary understanding and knowledge of clinical practice. The panel should also have sufficient medical expertise to fully understand the context in which healthcare is delivered and the challenges facing the profession.

Question 2. Do you agree that the Privy Council should determine the duration of the term of office of each GMC member, on appointment?

We are supportive of the suggestion that the Privy Council should determine the duration of the term of office of each GMC member on appointment. However, we advise a sufficient period of stability is provided for after the appointment of Council to ensure the cohesion and effective working of Council. 

Question 3. Do you agree that no member should hold office for more than an aggregate of 8 years during any period of 20 years?

We are supportive of the suggestion for the period of time a member should hold office.

Question 4. Do you agree that service as a member since 1st January 2005 should be included in aggregating a council member’s service?

We are supportive of this transitional arrangement.

Question 5. Do you agree that the GMC should have the flexibility to make arrangements for the provision of education and training of Council members with another body?

We are supportive of this suggestion.

Question 6. Do you agree with the reasons for disqualifying a person from appointment as a member of the GMC? If not, please specify which reasons you disagree with and explain why.

Whilst the disqualification criteria seem generally reasonable, we would suggest that 5(a) is too lenient. It provides that a criminal conviction involving dishonesty or deception, or where the final outcome is a custodial sentence (suspended or otherwise) of more then 3 months (or an offence overseas which would have been a criminal offence if committed in the British Isles) would disqualify a person from appointment as a member of the GMC. The standards that apply to registered medical practitioners should also apply to members of council, therefore we believe that any custodial sentence, or any conviction for dishonesty or deception ought to be a disqualifying factor.

Question 7. Do you agree with the reasons given for removing or suspending members from office? If not, please specify which reasons you disagree with and explain why.

We are supportive of the reasons given for removing or suspending members from office.

Question 8. Do you agree that the Chair of the GMC should be elected from among the members of the council?

We are supportive of the suggestion that the Chair of the GMC should be elected from among the members of the council.

Question 9. Do you agree that the term of office of the Chair should be determined by the GMC?

We believe that the term of office of the Chair should be a fixed term for reasons of fairness and consistency it is not clear why it is thought that this should be determined by the Council. 

Question 10. Do you agree with the reasons why a member should cease to be chair?

We are supportive of the reasons set out for why a member should cease to be chair.

Question 11. Do you agree with the transitional arrangements in respect of the first chair of the GMC in 2009?

Question 12. Do you agree with the deputising arrangements in respect of the Chair?

We would suggest that a member of Council should be elected as a deputy Chair, ensuring consistency of approach. 

Question 13. Do you agree that the quorum of the GMC should be 14?

We are supportive that the quorum of the GMC should be 14, however we would suggest that this should consist of a minimum representation of 5 lay and medical members. If not, a situation could arise where the lay or medical members could constitute a minority of 2, meaning that there is a significant risk of the Council not having the relevant expertise to make a decision. 

Question 14. Do you agree with the provisions that prevent GMC proceedings being invalidated?

Further comments

There are several other issues we wish to raise.

Maintaining confidence

Maintaining public confidence is referred to several times in the Order, however maintaining the confidence of the profession is not referred to. We highlight the importance of this and suggest that it needs to be referred to in the Order.

Health

The draft Order does not give specific mention to or provision for issues relating to health as a reason for suspension or removal from office.

Duty

We would suggest that there should be a clear duty imposed on lay members (as there is already on registered medical practitioners) to report any investigation into themselves or their affairs, otherwise the suspension/removal criteria may not be invoked in a timely fashion.

Should you require further information about any aspects of this consultation, please do not hesitate to contact me.