Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

and final sanction”. 63 We therefore propose that the statute should require the
regulators to establish a system for imposing and reviewing Interim Orders.
9.82 As noted above, we have proposed to give each regulator a power (but not a
duty) to establish committees. However, we believe that Interim Order hearings
are an exception to this approach (in addition to Fitness to Practise Panels). We
therefore propose that the statute should require the regulators to set up a formal
panel hearing of at least three people for Interim Order hearings. This reflects the
importance of Interim Orders and their significant impact potentially on a
professional’s ability to practise. Moreover, Panel hearings in such cases are a
long established feature of the fitness to practise process and bring various
benefits such as expertise and efficiency. Regulators could decide to implement
this duty by establishing a dedicated Interim Orders Panel, while others may
decide to refer all cases to a Fitness to Practise Panel or another panel or
committee.
9.83 We also propose that the same requirements we propose in relation to Fitness to
Practise Panels (see provisional proposal 9-7) should apply to Interim Order
Panels. In other words, Interim Order panels must be appointed by a body which
is separate to the Councils and is responsible for all aspects of appointments,
there would be a prohibition on Council members and investigators from
membership of Interim Orders panels and each Interim Orders Panel must
include a lay member.
9.84 It would also be possible for the statute to prohibit Interim Order panellists sitting
on a Fitness to Practise Panel (either in relation to the same case or more
generally). We think there are arguments for and against such prohibitions. On
the one hand, prohibitions may ensure that both Panels are perceived to be
independent. On the other side, the Fitness to Practise panel often has access to
the same evidence as an Interim Order panel and so in practice the prohibitions
may make less difference. We welcome further views on this point.
9.85 At present the criteria for an Interim Order varies. At some regulators the test is
public protection, but others can also impose or maintain Orders in the public
interest or in the interests of the registrant or the person concerned. We propose
that in accordance with the paramount duty of the regulators (see Part 3) the test
for imposing an Interim Order should be to protect, promote and maintain the
health, safety and well-being of the public (and maintain confidence in the
profession). Whilst arguably this test may be narrower than is the case at some
regulators, it is notable that the equivalent criteria for Interim Orders in other
Commonwealth jurisdictions are far narrower than for the UK regulators and more
63 P Case, “Putting Public Confidence First: Doctors, Precautionary Suspension, and the
General Medical Council (2011) 19 Medical Law Review 3, 351.
178