Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals Consultation

harmonisation which could stifle innovation. Second, it might hamper the
regulators’ ability to respond quickly to the need for change and simply replicate
the existing role of the Department for Health. Third, the Council would require
additional expertise and resources than it currently possesses. The costs would
need to be passed on to Government and in the future, the regulators and
therefore the registrants themselves. 21 However, it may be the case that some
of these risks, to the extent that they are real risks, would not be insurmountable.
We welcome further views on this option.
2.34 A further alternative would be to establish a more targeted version of the existing
system of Parliamentary oversight. In effect, a small number of decisions could
be subject to approval by the Secretary of State and contained in a statutory
instrument. This could be limited to certain areas where there is a significant
public interest in the decisions of the regulators, such as for example their
constitution orders and fitness to practise rules. This has the advantage that the
relevant rules would be made by the regulator, and not by Government, but are
nonetheless subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
2.35 We also propose to abolish the separate power of the regulators to issue
standing orders. This would not prevent Councils adopting normal standing
orders to regulate the way that they conduct their business, as any organisation
might do. But statutory authority is not necessary for such a step. On the other
hand, if the statutory power to make standing orders is in fact being used to
implement measures which should really be in the form of rules, the wider powers
we are provisionally proposing should make that unnecessary.
2.36 Finally, we do not think it is necessary to perpetuate any distinction – if indeed
there is one – between rules and regulations in the new statute. In effect the
statute would provide that all the statutory powers of the regulators can be
implemented by rules, instead of by a mixture of rules and regulations.
Provisional Proposal 2-3: The regulators should be given broad powers to
make or amend rules concerning the exercise of their functions and
governance without any direct oversight, including Privy Council approval
and Government scrutiny (subject to certain safeguards).
Question 2-4: Would the perceived status of legal rules be less clear or certain
without Parliamentary approval? Should the CHRE be given an active role in
scrutinising new rules, or should a limited number of the rules be subject to
Secretary of State approval and contained in a statutory instrument?
Provisional Proposal 2-5: The power of the regulators to issue standing orders
should be abolished.
Provisional Proposal 2-6: The regulators should have the ability to implement
their statutory powers by making rules, instead of a mixture of rules and
regulations.
21 The Health and Social Care Bill 2011 proposes that the Council will in future be financed
through a levy on the regulatory bodies.
21