decision is announced. The decision to introduce an Appeal Tribunal as a first
stage in the process of appealing against decisions of the same committees is also
welcomed. Sadly the right to appeal, both to this level and the courts, is provided
for the aggrieved practitioner only ± not the aggrieved complainant.
These are some of my negative reactions. Unequivocally good, however, is the
introduction of an overt authority to deal with the practitioner who puts vulnerable
members of the public at risk by being incompetent.
Earlier I expressed the hope that, notwithstanding the constraints it had
imposed on itself, the Government would do more than tamper around the edges
of the existing system. I have to concede that my worst fears have not proved
justified ± it is not all bad, though I feel it creates a system of fiendish complexity. I
must, however, record my disappointment that the approach taken has not been
truly radical and fundamental. I suspect that, before many more years pass,
another Government, faced with further waves of public dissatisfaction about the
health professions, will find it necessary to revisit the subject of regulation.
Perhaps ± just perhaps at this stage ± the prospect of real progress becomes more
likely as a consequence of Recommendations 39 and 71±74 of the Final Report of
the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry [22]. The first of these recommends that the
Council of Healthcare Regulators' referred to in the NHS Plan [18] should instead become aCouncil for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals'. Although
leaving in existence the range of separate regulatory bodies that the NHS Plan lists,
and seeing the addition of an additional one for managers, this overarching' Council would have some genuine authority and the opportunity to create a more unified system of regulation. Specifically, it would be required to. .. ensure that
there is an integrated and coordinated approach to setting standards, monitoring
performance, and inspection and validation'. That, if accepted in principle and
implemented in practice by the Government and its agents, would present the
prospect of a twenty-first century model of professional regulation becoming a
reality. The big question is, will what emerges from Government and Parliament
match this template?
3.6 Notes and references
- Professional Conduct Rules, Statutory Instruments No. 893, 1998 No. 1103 and 2001
No. 536. - Stacey, M. .1992)Regulating British Medicine.John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
- GMC Minutes, CX .1973) p. 179.
4.Report of the Committee of Inquir yinto the Regulation of British Medicine,1 975
Cmnd.6018. HMSO, London. - Davies, C. .2000)Is Professional Self-Regulation Sufficient?.Web publication http://
http://www.humanvalues.swan.ac.uk - Hansard. House of Commons, 28 November 1972, Vol. 846, pp. 464±5.
- Robinson, J. .1988)APatient Voice at the GMC: a la ymember's view of the GMC.Health
Rights, London. - Government response to the Review of the Nurses, Midwives & Health Visitors Act.
Health Service CircularHSC 1999/030. - Health Act 1999, Schedule 3, clause 7.
46 Nursing Law and Ethics