The Government has indicated its willingness to get involved in the regulation of self-regulating professionals by issuing a consultation paper on draconian new powers for the General Medical Council.
On March 24, the Government proposed that doctors who were struck off by the General Medical Council should have no expectation of ever being restored to the register other than in "the most exceptional circumstances". It also said that the minimum period of erasure from the medical register should be five years. Currently, doctors can apply for restoration after 10 months. There is also a proposal that two unsuccessful applications for restoration should preclude any further application ever being made by the same individual.
The consultation document proposes to widen the power of the GMC to impose interim suspensions on doctors in the public interest. This is expected to include cases where doctors are arrested on suspicion of having committed serious crimes, or on grounds of conduct, performance or health.
There would also be a requirement for the GMC to pass information to an employer once a doctor became subject to investigation for fitness to practise. This would make it impossible for doctors to continue in practice without their employers knowing that they were under investigation.
The Government proposes to bring the changes in through an Order in Council made under the Health Act 1999 (PJ, July 17, 1999, p75).
The proposals have been welcomed by the GMC.
The GMC president (Sir Donald Irvine said) on March 24: "Last November we put forward our own proposals for a more robust restoration procedure. The proposed legislation described in this document will allow us to put that into practice. Last August we alerted the Department to legal advice that we did not have powers to impose immediate interim suspension on some doctors - including those charged with a serious crime. The Government agreed with us that the law needed to be changed. These changes will provide us with greater flexibility and ensure that patients can be protected more effectively."
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Health Act working party is to consider the implications for pharmacy of the Government's willingness to change professional regulation.
Mrs Susan Sharpe (director of professional standards, the Society) told The Journal on March 29: "We need to consider the full range of penalties that is appropriate for the sort of misconduct committed by pharmacists. There are cases where removal from the register for life is appropriate."
Recognising that the imposition of a statutory minimum penalty could affect the threshold of guilt that a disciplinary committee would need to see crossed in order to impose any sanction Mrs Sharpe added: "I would be very concerned not to have a gap in the middle where a reprimand is inadequate but the consequences of the next stage up would be over the top. Doctors tend to appear before the GMC only in cases of professional incompetence or breach of trust, while we take a broader view of what constitutes breach of trust."