Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

y alternative agencies or processes.
8.12 An alternative approach would be to remove the concept of an allegation entirely.
The regulators would instead be given broad powers and discretion to deal with
all the information and complaints they receive or that come to their attention, and
deal with this in such manner as the regulator considers just. This is the approach
specified in the Pharmacy Order 2010 in relation to its legacy cases. 12 Depending
on the individual case, the regulators could for example decide to refer the matter
to another agency, mediate, initiate a full investigation or refer the matter directly
to a Fitness to Practise Panel. However, we believe that it would need to be
made clear that cases where it appears there are reasonable prospects of
proving impairment must be referred for fitness to practise proceedings.
Otherwise, there is a real risk that such cases will not be referred. It would not be
necessary to specify requirements in statute law concerning the format of an
allegation or time-limits for making an allegation. Each case would be dealt with
on the basis of the quality of evidence available. We welcome further views on
this approach.
8.13 If the concept of an allegation is retained in our statute, then its definition will
depend on how the statute approaches the concept of impaired fitness to
practise. In Part 7 we have put forward for discussion three options for reform.
Under options 2 (consolidation of the existing framework) and 3 (the Shipman
Inquiry proposal), an allegation would continue to be defined as being made to
the regulator in question against a registered practitioner that their fitness to
practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, deficient performance, convictions
and determinations, or health.
8.14 Under option 4 (risk to the public/confidence in the profession approach), the
statutory grounds which form the basis of an impairment would be removed. An
allegation would be defined as being made to the regulator in question against a
registered practitioner that their fitness to practise is impaired on the basis that
they are a risk to the health, safety and well-being of the public (and that
confidence in the profession has been or will be undermined).
8.15 We do not propose that the definition of an allegation should refer expressly to
cases where an entry in the register has been fraudulently procured or incorrectly
made. In our view these cases should be dealt with separately through the broad
powers given to the regulators to establish and maintain registers (see Part 5).
But where such a case raises concerns about a registrant’s fitness to practise, it
could be referred for fitness to practise proceedings.
8.16 It is also our provisional view that the statute should enable all the regulators to
allow information which comes to their attention to be treated potentially as an
allegation. This appears to be a useful and often important provision which
encourages regulators to adopt a proactive role towards allegations.
Furthermore, even those regulators that do not have this express power have
recognised the importance of adopting a similar approach and have found ways
12 Legacy cases are those cases which were active prior the legislation coming into force.
See, Pharmacy Order 2010, SI 2010 No 231, sch 5, para 12(2)(b).
137