Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

the regulators to ensure that Panels are seen to be fair and impartial. These are:
(1) the establishment of a body which is responsible for all aspects of the
Panel appointment process (including terms of appointment and the
removal of Panellists) and which is separate from the Council – for
example an appointments committee or panel;
(2) a prohibition on Council members and members of the Investigation
Committee or any other individuals charged with the investigation of
cases (such as case examiners) from being Panellists; and
(3) a requirement that the Panel always has a lay member.
9.43 These matters were referred to expressly in Sadler v General Medical Council
(discussed earlier in this Part) in support of the view that the General Medical
Council’s fitness to practise adjudication was in itself Article 6 compliant. 40 Our
provisional view is that these matters are of sufficient importance that the statute
should require all the regulators to implement them. Indeed, most of these
measures have already been established by the majority of the regulators.
However, we welcome further views on whether these measures are
comprehensive and effective ways of ensuring that Panels are seen to be fair and
impartial, as well as any resource implications of this proposal.
9.44 On all other aspects of the constitution of Panels, the regulators would have
broad powers to establish rules. This would include matters such as the
appointment of advisers (including legal and professional advisers), deputising
arrangements, remuneration, additional prohibitions on membership and chairs.
So, for example, a regulator could require legally qualified chairs in all or some
cases, if it wished to do so.
9.45 Finally, it is important to note that under our proposed reforms the regulators
could implement the duty to establish Fitness to Practise Panels by entering into
partnership arrangements with other regulators to establish separate adjudication
systems. These arrangements are discussed in more detail in Part 12.
Provisional Proposal 9-6: The statute should require each regulator to
establish Fitness to Practise Panels of at least three members for the purpose
of adjudication.
Provisional Proposal 9-7: The statute should: (1) require the regulators to
establish a body which is responsible for all aspects of the Fitness to Practise
Panel appointment process and which is separate from the Council; and (2)
prohibit Council members and investigators from membership of Fitness to
Practise Panels; and (3) require that each Fitness to Practise Panel must have
a lay member.
40 Sadler v General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 59, [2003]1 WLR 2259 at [78].
168