and 27 members with a professional majority and a minimum of one third lay
members. The Government stated its acceptance of the recommendation.
Similarly, neither document contained anything to suggest that more radical
thinking had been undertaken ± thinking that might possibly result in a suggestion
that professional practitioners .albeit from different occupational groups) who
work together as members of the same team might be regulated by the same
regulatory body.
3.3.3 A new approach to the law
In its response to the J.M. Consulting recommendations, the Government con-
firmed its intention to include a clause in the new Health Bill enabling it to effect
changes to primary legislation concerning the health professions by Order, thus
avoiding the need for Parliamentary time and reducing delay in bringing about the
changes the Government of the day consider important. The prospect of such a
radical change as the various health professions being joined in some form of
shared regulatory structure even being considered was confirmed as remote by the
wording of the relevant clauses in what became the Health Act 1999.
This Act, in its Miscellaneous' section, under the headingRegulation of health
care and associated professions', declares that:
`Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision .a) modifying the reg-
ulation of any profession to which subsection 2 applies so far as appears to Her
to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing or improving the reg-
ulation of the profession or the services which the profession provides or to
which it contributes; and .b) regulating any other profession which appears to
Her to be concerned .wholly or partly) with the physical or mental health of
individuals and to require regulation in pursuance of this section.'This would seem to herald the prospect of something potentially radical. It
certainly opens the door to regulation which is no longer quite as arm's length' from Government as has been the case, and is more exposed to the risk of inter- vention. While the use of the wordnecessary' in the passage quoted is logical, the
inclusion of expedient' is worrying. Might this, for example, lead to ill considered and rushed changes in legislation by Order in response to press reports that the Government finds unhelpful in an election year? The Act, having declared the new position concerning modifying professional regulation, then clarifies that the professions it is referring to are those regulated by the Pharmacy Act 1954, the Medical Act 1983, the Dentists Act 1984, the Opticians Act 1989, the Osteopaths Act 1993, the Chiropractors Act 1994, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 and any other professional groups that may, in the future, be brought within the regulated circle by Order in Council. It goes on to make it clear, however, that the latter two Acts are .from dates to be determined)to cease to have
effect', to be replaced by new regulatory bodies established by Order for those
respective groups.
Since the Act also indicates [9] that it will not be permissible by Order to abolish
the regulatory body of any profession named, whether it exists by virtue of
38 Nursing Law and Ethics