Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

of working around their legislative framework in order to do so. However, we
welcome further views on this proposal particularly on any potential resources
implications.
8.17 We do not consider that the legislation should impose any formal requirements
for how allegations should be made. It is important that the legal framework does
not adopt a restrictive approach to the making of allegations and instead ensures
that a wide range of information can be considered by the regulators. It is also
important that the regulators are able to react to technological developments and
the changing communication preferences of the public. However, we remain
concerned that some of the regulators’ websites suggest that only allegations in
writing can be accepted. It is clear that complaints must eventually become
recorded, but this does not mean that the process must commence in writing. We
therefore propose that the statute should contain a clear statement to the effect
that there is no set format for allegations. The regulators would still be free to
develop policies and procedures to assist complainants, but they would need to
be clear that these are not a legal requirement. We believe that it is important that
the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence should continue to play a role
in this area by monitoring, amongst other matters, the accessibility of the
allegation procedures of the regulators for disabled people and other people who
may need special arrangements. The role of the Council for Healthcare
Regulatory Excellence in our proposed legal framework is discussed in Part 10.
8.18 Some but not all of the regulators specify that any allegation must be made within
a set period of time (except in exceptional circumstances). Our reforms could
give the regulators flexibility to set such a time limit if they wish to do so.
However, we think that on this matter the statute should establish some degree of
consistency. It is difficult to justify why for example most allegations against a
doctor may not be able to proceed if more than five years have elapsed, but
similar allegations against another professional could proceed. One possibility
would be for the statute to introduce for example a five-year time limit for
allegations across the regulators. However, this may be unnecessarily restrictive;
it is at least arguable that regulators should be able to consider all allegations no
matter when they were made. Indeed, some allegations may be so serious that a
regulator could not discount them merely on the basis of when the alleged events
took place. In effect, the decision whether or not to proceed could depend in all
cases on the quality of the evidence available and not on an arbitrary time limit.
On the other hand, the consequence of not specifying a time limit may be an
increase in the number of ill-founded and stale allegations. We welcome further
views on the issue.
Question 8-1: Should the new legal framework remove the concept of an
allegation entirely and instead give the regulators broad powers to deal with
all information and complaints in such manner as they consider just (subject
to a requirement that cases where there are reasonable prospects of proving
impairment must be referred for fitness to practise proceedings)?
Provisional Proposal 8-2: The statute should provide that all the regulators
will be able to consider any information which comes to their attention as an
allegation and not just formal complaints.
138