`cooperate wherever reasonably practical with
.i) employers of prospective registrants,
.ii) persons who provide, assess or fund education or training for registrants or
prospective registrants, or who propose to do so,
.iii) persons who are responsible for regulating or coordinating the regulation of
other health and social care professionals, or of those carrying out activities in
connection with the services provided by those professions or the professions
regulated under this Order.'Not, you will notice, users of the services of the Council's registrants. They do, at
least, get a mention in clause 3.13). This requires that:
`Before establishing any standards or giving any guidance under this Order the
Council shall consult representatives of any group of persons it considers
appropriate including, as it sees fit. ..'.The list of examples of those to be consulted as the Council sees fit, places
registrants first, their employers second, and only then do users of services find
mention. I accept that it is not presented in a ranking order, but it perpetuates an
unfortunate image of precedence to be given to those within the profession. I find
that disappointing.
And what of the intended membership profile? The limitation in the size of the
Council membership, allied to its capacity to engage persons who are not members
in various aspects of its work, is to be welcomed. Much less welcome, however, is
the determination to hold on to an arrangement that places the `lay' members of
Council in a minority of one in a 23 member Council. The means by which these
lay members will be appointed is set out in Clause 4 of Schedule 1of the Order.
This states:
`Having consulted such persons as it considers appropriate, the Privy Council
shall appoint lay members from among persons who are not and never have
been on the register and who have such qualifications and experience as, in the
opinion of the Privy Council will be of value to the Council in the performance of
its functions.'It therefore remains possible, for example, to appoint medical practitioners as lay
members. I hope that the Privy Council do not travel that road.
The draft Order is silent about the means by which the Privy Council will
identify persons for appointment in this category. Since, with effect from April
2001, chairmen and non-executive directors of Health Authorities and NHS Trusts
are to be appointed, following personal application and a rigorous process, by the
new publicly accountable NHS Appointments Commission, it would surely have
been logical for the Government that introduced that process to adopt similar
procedures for lay members of statutory regulatory bodies.
What about the expressed concern that reasons should be give for decisions by
committees empowered to remove registration? The fact that the person who made
the allegations that have been heard in public must be notified of the decision and
the reasons for it is welcome. Since the committee will have to be clear about its
reasons to do that, surely those reasons should be stated publicly when the
The Professional Dimension 45