Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- General Medical Council
- Name of policy document:
- Reform of the fitness to practise procedures
at the GMC: The future of adjudication and the establishment of the
Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
- Deadline for response:
- 13 June 2011
Background: This consultation sets out the GMC's
proposals to increase confidence in the independence of decisions made
by fitness to practise panels at hearings and to modernise the adjudication
procedure. They set out a possible new governance structure to further
separate adjudication from our other fitness to practise work as well
as steps to streamline and speed up the hearing procedure and introduce
greater efficiency.
Summary -
-
The GMC is consulting on proposals for repositioning and modernising
adjudication within the GMC following the Government’s decision
not to proceed with the establishment of the Office of the Health
Professionals Adjudicator (OHPA).
-
Reform of adjudication remains
a key aim of the GMC and until recently involved preparation to
transfer its adjudication function to OHPA in April 2011; a recommendation
of the previous Government’s
2007 White Paper, Trust, Assurance and Safety – the Regulation
of Health Professionals in the 21st Century.
-
Following consultation
which ended in October 2010, the Government has confirmed that it
intends to repeal legislative provisions relating to OHPA and, in
separate legislation, take forward steps to enhance the independence
of adjudication and modernise existing processes at the GMC.
-
The
Health and Social Care Act 2008 contains the provisions to establish
OHPA. The Government has included provisions repealing this legislation
in the current Health and Social Care Bill, which is expected to
become law by the end of 2011.
-
Meanwhile, the GMC believes it is
time for it to consult on proposals for repositioning and modernising
adjudication within the GMC. This will help the GMC to develop
the proposals we set out in its response to the Government’s
consultation last year (see Annex A).
-
The consultation document is in two sections:
the first considers proposals to reposition adjudication within the
GMC and how this might be achieved; the second explores proposals
for modernising our adjudication work.
COMMENTS ON
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
REFORM OF THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE
PROCEDURES AT THE GMC:
THE FUTURE OF ADJUDICATION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS TRIBUNAL SERVICE
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (the College) is pleased to respond
to the General Medical Council’s consultation on the Future of Fitness
to Practise Adjudication and the establishment of the Medical
Practitioners Tribunal Service.
The College has the following answers and comments on specific consultation
questions:
Question 1. Do you agree with our proposal to create a new tribunal
service for fitness to practise adjudication?
Yes. The service proposed is reasonable and proportionate.
Question 2. Do you agree that the tribunal service governance
should be vested in a new statutory committee? If not, please give reasons
and any alternative suggestions.
Yes, with the proviso that all proceedings of the Committee are entirely transparent
to ensure separation of the GMC’s investigation and adjudication work.
Question 3. Do you agree with the specific responsibilities
of the tribunal service as set out in paragraph 55? If not, please give reasons
and any alternative suggestions.
Yes.
Question 4. Do you have any views on what the new tribunal service
should be called?
No.
Question 5. Do you agree with the proposed membership of the MPTS
governance committee? If not, please give reasons and any alternative suggestions.
Yes. However, it is important that there is an appropriate mix of medical
and lay members on this Committee. It is important to include the input
of lay members to increase public confidence in the Committee.
Question 6. Do you agree with our ambitions to appoint the Chair
and the other members of the MPTS through an open, transparent and independent
recruitment process? If not, please give reasons and any alternative suggestions.
Yes.
Question 7. What skills, qualifications and experience do you think
should be required for: (a) the Chair of the MPTS? (b) the other members
of the MPTS governance committee?
-
The Chair should be legally qualified and have a wide range of experience
in this area.
-
There should be an appropriate mix of medical members and lay
members who can demonstrate experience using judgment. For example,
a lay member might have been a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate.
Question 8. Do you agree that the proposed reporting arrangements
for the MPTS are appropriate, if agreed by all necessary authorities? If
not, please give reasons and any alternative suggestions.
Yes, however, clear guidance needs to be developed which outlines the action
that, for example, Parliament or the proposed joint forum could take if they
were not satisfied with the report provided by MPTS.
Question 9. Do you agree with our proposals for establishing
close liaison between the GMC and the MPTS? If not, please give reasons and
any alternative suggestions.
Yes, to an extent. There is a definite need for liaison, but there must
be a clear demonstration of separation and independence. Minutes of any
meetings must be published openly to allow scrutiny of the proceedings. The
implementation of paragraph 71 might give extra assurance that arrangements
are working effectively and transparently.
Question 10. Do you agree that, in principle, if feasible, the
GMC should have a right of appeal against decisions of the MPTS on the same
grounds as CHRE has? Please give reasons and any alternative suggestions
No comment.
Question 11. Do you agree that, where possible, Chairs should
have a role in pre-hearing case management? If not, please give reasons and
any alternative suggestions.
Yes. This would enable a faster case management process.
Question 12. Do you agree that there should be provision for
case management hearings to deal with procedural or administrative matters,
where Chairs are involved in the pre-hearing stage? If not, please give reasons
and any alternative suggestions.
Yes.
Question 13. Do you agree that medical practitioner tribunals
should have a power to exclude evidence which is sought to be introduced
in breach of directions without good reason in order to encourage reasonable
behaviour? If not, please give your reasons and any alternative suggestions.
No comment.
Question 14. Do you believe legally qualified chairs should
be used in (a) certain cases? If so, do you have any views on what criteria
should be applied in deciding whether to appoint a legally qualified chair? (b)
in all cases? Please give reasons for your answer and any alternative
suggestions.
There should be a legally qualified Chair in all cases, as it would be difficult
to establish the criteria that would distinguish between cases that require
a legally qualified Chair and those that do not.
Question 15. Do you agree with our proposals to introduce powers
for sanctions imposed by a fitness to practice or interim orders panel to
be extended, varied or revoked when both parties are in agreement without
the need for a review hearing? If not, please give reasons and any alternative
suggestions.
Yes.
Question 16. Do you think the power to extend, vary or revoke
sanctions in these circumstances should be exercised by (a) the Registrar,
or (b) the Chair of the panel which imposed the sanctions acting alone? If
not, please give reasons and any alternative suggestions.
The Chair of the panel should make these decisions.
Question 17. Do you agree that, taking all factors into account, we
should explore moving to a single hearing centre in Manchester? If not, please
give reasons and set out alternative proposals indicating their (cost and
other) advantages and disadvantages.
Yes, there appears to be a sound business case to move to a single centre
in Manchester.
Question 18. Do you have any views on the suggestions made above to
make the current hearing process more efficient?
No comment.
Question 19. Do you have any other suggestions for making the
hearing process more efficient that we might explore?
The proposed changes are already extensive, and time is needed to develop
new working practices around these before further changes are explored.
Question 20. Do you think that any of the proposals will further one
or more of the following aims:
a. eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimization and any other
conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010?
b. advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and persons who do not share it?
c. fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it?
If yes, could the proposals be changed so that they are more effective
in furthering those aims?
If not, please explain what effect you think the proposals would have
and whether you think the proposals could be changed so that they do further
those aims?
No comment.
Question 21. Do you think these proposals will impact on the confidence
in our procedures of any particular groups of people? If so, which groups
and why?
No comment.
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[6 June 2011]
|
