Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

enable the regulators to deliver many of the efficiencies identified by the Council
for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (see above).
9.59 We did consider whether the statute should require that hearings must take place
in the UK country in which the registrant is situated or resides. On balance, we
think that this should be a matter which is left to the discretion of the regulator,
but we welcome further views on this point.
9.60 In Part 4, we propose that the regulators should have broad discretion to
establish their own governance arrangements. Accordingly, the regulators would
have powers (but would not be required) to establish a Health Committee.
Provisional Proposal 9-9: All regulators should be given broad rule-making
powers on most procedural aspects of fitness to practise hearings.
Question 9-10: Should the statute require that fitness to practise hearings
must take place in the UK country in which the registrant is situated or
resides?
9.61 There are four exceptions to the approach set out above where due to the
importance of the relevant provision it is our view that the statute itself should
provide for greater consistency across the regulators. These exceptions relate to
the rules of evidence, standard of proof, hearings in public and vulnerable
witnesses. We welcome views on whether there should be consistency on any
other procedural issues across the regulators.
Rules of evidence
9.62 As noted previously, some regulators apply criminal rules of evidence, while
others apply civil rules. There is also variation in the rules that govern the Panel’s
discretion to admit evidence whether or not such evidence would be admissible in
a court of law. In our view, the rules of evidence are an important aspect of
fitness to practise procedures and it is in the interests of the public and
professionals that a consistent approach is established. We believe that the civil
rules should be the starting point in all cases, given that disciplinary hearings are
by their nature civil in character. This would also be more consistent with the
move to the application of the civil rather than criminal standard of proof. The
relevant civil rules would be those that apply in the part of the UK in which the
hearing takes place.
9.63 The various existing rules enable Panels to admit evidence which would not be
admissible in court proceedings, although the reasons for admitting such
evidence vary between the regulators. This appears to be a useful provision for
ensuring that a wide range of evidence can be admitted (for example, to admit a
witness statement when the witness is unable (or unwilling) to attend). Most of
the regulators who use the civil rules of evidence refer to the tests of fairness and
relevance. The exceptions are the General Dental Council, whose rules refer to
such evidence being “helpful” and “in the interests of justice”, and the Health
Professions Council, whose rules refer to such evidence being “necessary to
protect the public”.
9.64 In our view, the tests of relevance and fairness are relatively straightforward and
easy to understand, and in practical terms is the same as the criteria used by the
172