Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

Provisional view
8.84 The current powers of the regulators to review investigation decisions are limited
to a small number of decisions. We think this should continue to be the case in
our new framework. But to ensure the appropriate degree of legal certainty, it is
also important for the review powers to be included in the statute itself.
8.85 First, we propose that the ability to initiate a review should apply when a decision
is made following an investigation:
(1) not to refer a case for an investigation following initial consideration;
(2) not to refer the case to a Fitness to Practise Panel;
(3) to issue a warning; or
(4) to cease consideration of a case where undertakings have been agreed.
8.86 The right to a review would not extend to decisions to refer cases to a Fitness to
Practise Panel, as provided for at the General Dental Council. This is on the
basis that the Fitness to Practise Panel provides an appropriate forum for such
cases.
8.87 Second, we propose that the grounds for review should be that:
(1) new evidence has come to light which makes review necessary for the
protection of public; or
(2) the regulator has erred in its administrative handling of the case and a
review is necessary in the public interest.
8.88 Third,, we propose that anyone else who has an interest in the decision should
be able to initiate a review including but not limited to the Registrar, registrant,
complainant and Council for Regulatory Healthcare Excellence. However, to
protect the registrant from vexatious review requests, the ability to initiate a
review would not be of right but would require an application to the regulator who
would consider the merits of the request.
8.89 Finally, we propose that the statute should give the regulators broad powers to
make rules on all other aspects of the review process. This would give the
regulators flexibility to decide, for example, who must carry out the review, such
as the Registrar or a formal panel/committee. However, we welcome views on
whether any aspects of the review process would benefit from greater
consistency, such as a time-limit imposed by the statute beyond which decisions
cannot be reviewed (except in exceptional circumstances).
Provisional Proposal 8-22: The statute should provide for a right to initiate a
review of an investigation decision in relation to decisions: (1) not to refer a
case for an investigation following initial consideration; (2) not to refer the
case to a Fitness to Practise Panel; (3) to issue a warning; or (4) to cease
consideration of a case where undertakings are agreed.
156