providing, in such manner as it thinks fit, advice for nurses, midwives and health
visitors on standards of professional conduct'.
Given the responsibility and authority described, the UKCC has provided, since
its birth in 1983, to each registrant, a statement of its expectations of them and,
coincidentally, a template against which they can be judged if they are the subject
of a complaint alleging misconduct. This is provided through the Code of
Professional Conduct for the Nurse, Midwife and Health Visitor. The Code is also
of value to the public and those who employ the practitioners, since it is a means
by which they are made aware of the Council's standards. This brief but immen-
sely important document has been supplemented over subsequent years by a
number of other documents that offer guidance generally or promote standards in
respect of specific aspects of professional practice.
3.2.2 Proceedings concerning the registration of individuals
Section 12 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act requires the Council to
determine the circumstances in which and the means by which ... a person may, for misconduct or otherwise, be removed from the register'. A related passage of text provides the Council with the power formally to caution a practitioner or to suspend their registration. These powers are a natural and logical consequence of an Act of Parliament which .even if it does not state as much in explicit terms) is concerned with the interests of members of the public who depend on professional practitioners, often when those members of the public are at their most vulnerable. Those wordsor otherwise' in the quotation above, provided the basis in primary
legislation for the development .in 1983) of procedures whereby, in the public
interest, it is possible to suspend or remove a person's registration on the grounds
of their unfitness to practise due to illness. It is surprising, given that this power
has been used effectively and without legal challenge for several years, that the `or
otherwise' opportunity has not been used by the Council to develop procedures to
protect the public from intractably incompetent practitioners.
It is important to provide practitioners with guidance and a statement of
expectations, but without specific sanctions underpinned by law the degree of
protection provided for the public would be frail.
The procedures that must be followed to consider allegations of either mis-
conduct or unfitness to practise due to illness are set out in subordinate legislation
in the Professional Conduct Rules [1]. These procedures provide for consideration
of a complaint alleging misconduct, by a committee of the Council named the
Preliminary Proceedings Committee. This committee, after considering the
documentary evidence, can:
. decline to proceed and close the case;
. issue a formal caution;
. refer the case for hearing by the Professional Conduct Committee with a view to
removal from the register;
. refer the case to the panel of professional screeners where it believes that the
conduct complained of is indicative of illness.
The Professional Dimension 33