Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

own consumer complaints service. But the ability to fund a consumer complaints
service is arguably different on the basis that the service is run by another
organisation. However, the arguments may be more finely balanced in the case
of the General Dental Council which is organisationally responsible for this
service albeit on an arms length basis. We welcome further views on this point.
Question 11-5: Should the regulators have powers to finance or establish a
complaints service?
EXTENDING BUSINESS REGULATION
11.33 Many of the provisional proposals contained in this Part are aimed at
consolidating the existing legal position. However, the discussions contained
therein raise a more fundamental question, namely whether the same legal
framework for business regulation should be made available to all the regulators.
11.34 It would be possible to give all regulators a power to implement a regime similar
to that given to the General Pharmaceutical Council, if they wished to do so.
Furthermore, the regulators could be given powers to implement a system of
registration of bodies corporate similar to that of the General Optical Council. Any
new system could build in some flexibility by allowing the regulators to pick and
choose which elements of the business regulatory framework they will implement.
For example, regulators could issue standards for premises but not undertake full
premises inspection powers. Others may wish to introduce teams of inspectors
who would be tasked with giving advice and working in partnership with
businesses, but without the full legal powers of rights of entry or compliance
orders.
11.35 Of course, it is unlikely that many regulators would want to introduce such a
system. Premises regulation would not be suitable for most regulators, especially
those where a majority of registrants are working in a NHS setting. However, for
some there may be advantages to implementing a form of premises regulation.
One of the key benefits is that it allows for a holistic approach to regulation and
enables the regulator to consider the many issues which put the public at risk but
not the responsibility of an individual registrant for say the design of the premises,
lack of training or poor handling procedures.
11.36 Despite the regulatory overlap identified at the beginning of the Part, there may
also be gaps which arise which some regulators may wish to fill. For example, in
the context of dental laboratories, while the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency has responsibility for medical equipment (such as sterilisers
and x-ray machinery) and the Health and Safety Executive and local authority
has responsibility for occupational hazards, there is no premises regime which
ties these systems together.
11.37 A key challenge in developing such a regulatory framework would be to ensure
that the regulation of individual registrants dovetails with the regulation of
registered premises. Moreover, it is important to ensure that any framework does
not lead to duplication of the regulatory requirements of other regimes. As noted
previously, the potential regulatory overlap in the private sector includes but is not
limited to the Government, systems regulators and other regulators. However,
these challenges might be addressed, at least in part, by the development of joint
working protocols between the regulators. For example, in England the Dental
211