Response to consultation on the Health Care and Associated Professions Order 2008

Overview

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2008 and are supportive of the standardisation between regulatory councils. 

Question 1. Do you support having, as a main objective for all the regulators, a provision giving greater emphasis to the importance of public protection?

We are supportive of the main objective, set out for all regulators, of emphasising the importance of public protection. However, the focus of the objective should still include reference to “cure”.  While we agree that the objective needs to include well-being, it is important to still emphasise the full range, ie, cure.

Question 2. Do you agree that these standard duties will improve the co-operation and co-ordination between professional regulators and key stakeholders?

It is not clear at present whether or not these standard duties will improve co-ordination between the regulators. However, their introduction will be a fairer way to regulate healthcare professionals across the board.

Question 3. Do you agree that Parliament should play an enhanced role in relation to the monitoring of regulatory bodies, facilitated by improved arrangements for notification by the bodies of information relating to their past and future activities?

To ensure public and professional confidence, professional regulators must be independent and be seen to be independent. The improved arrangements for notification to Parliament by the regulator, about their past and future activities, can only act to increase accountability and increase public confidence. 

Question 4 Do you agree with the new, more flexible arrangements for establishing constitutions for the regulatory bodies?

MPS strongly supports the principle of professionally-led regulation. Patients are at the centre of the healthcare system and their involvement in the regulatory process is crucial, but this 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 and they deserve to be treated fairly. They have a right to have their actions judged by those with the necessary expertise and knowledge of clinical practice. We are particularly concerned about the effect of these clauses, in light of the diminution in the standard of proof.

Question 5. Do you agree with adding appearance on a barred list to the grounds for which a health professional’s fitness to practise should be considered to be impaired?

We have serious reservations that, unless an appearance on the barred list is the result of a criminal conviction, there may not be adequate safeguards in place for an appearance on the list to automatically mean that fitness to practise is impaired. 

Paragraph 3.31 states that, in cases where it is necessary for the regulator to investigate a case, this may mean a delay in the action against a professional who is a known risk to others. We do not agree with this, as regulators already have powers to impose immediate interim conditions, which can properly address any such risks.

Question 6. Do you agree with the strategy for standardising the order and rule making powers of the regulators, and with the move towards giving them greater flexibility over internal process issues while increasing Parliamentary scrutiny of outcomes?

We would support the co-ordination and streamlining of process and consistency in the types of Order made, and the process of making the Order. We believe that this will add to greater transparency and consistency, which in turn may act to increase public confidence.

We would raise the importance of defining the “process” issues that will no longer need to be laid before Parliament, to prevent the perception that Regulators can make their own “rules”.

Factors such as the setting of fees are issues for the Regulator and it is important that they have the autonomy to do this, but equally important that they will be answerable to Parliament.

Question 7. Do you agree that all regulators of health care professionals should be under a legal duty to maintain registers of the private interests of their council members?

We are supportive of this suggestion as it will increase and encourage transparency and openness. Questions are often raised about what should be declared; we would recommend clear guidance on the information that should be declared.

Question 8. Do you agree the regulators should have the option of engaging other bodies to assist them with their appointments functions?

We are supportive of this suggestion as we agree that it will give the regulators greater flexibility in appointing committee members.

Question 9. Do you agree that the General Medical Council should be given reserve powers to register suitably experienced people to help out as doctors during an emergency?

We are supportive of this measure and recognise the importance of giving the GMC powers to register suitably experienced people during an emergency. We would state, however, the need for clear guidance for the Registrar as to who would be considered a suitably experienced person. Such an individual would need to have kept up-to-date professionally, or may otherwise need to act in a limited capacity.

Question 10. Do you agree that the list of bodies that can provide primary United Kingdom medical qualifications should be an administrative list kept by the General Medical Council, and for which they are responsible, rather than being set out in statute?

The GMC is already responsible for maintaining the list of bodies that can provide primary medical qualifications in the UK and assuring the quality of the bodies that are on the list. It would, therefore, seem sensible for the GMC to hold an administrative list of the bodies rather than being set out in statute.

Question 11. Do you agree that these UK trained osteopaths who have been working overseas should have their earlier qualifications recognised when they return to the UK, provided they apply within the stated time limits?

All returning practitioners should be able to demonstrate that they have kept up with their CPD to a UK standard. Induction courses for medical work in the UK should also be provided which cover, for example, any regulatory or legislative changes, or changes to the ways of working.

Question 12. Do you agree that these UK trained chiropractors who have been working overseas should have their earlier qualifications recognised when they return to the UK, provided they apply within the stated time limits?

Please see the response to question 11.

Question 13. Do you agree that the NMC should be given reserve powers to annotate their register so that suitably experienced persons without the relevant qualifications will nevertheless be able to act as prescribers of prescription only medicines during an emergency?

This measure will only be appropriate if training is given to and maintained for those likely to act as prescribers of prescription-only medicines during an emergency.

Question 14. Do you agree allowing the NMC to determine who should sit on its practise committees?

This should be in line with other healthcare regulators.