The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7476 p488
3 November 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Overarching regulator proposes new set of sanctions

Consultation on harmonising the sanctions available to the nine UK health regulators is about to start. At its October meeting, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence decided that an online consultation, which is expected to run until February 2008, would be launched in November 2007.

The possible set of sanctions on which the CHRE wants to gather views is:

• Erasure from the register

• Suspension from practice

• Conditions on practice

• Cautions or warnings

• Fines

The consultation says that there is a general expectation that when a practitioner is struck off that this will be for life and that the practitioner will never again be able to practise in the UK.

However, it adds, that former registrants can currently apply for restoration after varying periods of time, ranging from a minimum of five years for former pharmacists to 10 months for former chiropractors. It asks whether there should be a standard minimum period across all the professions.

Currently only two regulators — the General Optical Council and the General Dental Council — can impose fines after disciplinary proceedings. The consultation asks whether fines should be available to all regulators.

However, it adds that fines would introduce a punitive, rather than deterrent, element to disciplining professionals that is not consistent with an emphasis on protecting the public.

The consultation will also ask whether regulators should have the power to impose interim orders to suspend or restrict the right to practise while investigations are taking place and before a final disciplinary decision is taken. It also asks whether final disciplinary decisions should take effect instantly, rather than be subject to a period during which an aggrieved practitioner can launch a legal appeal.

Mandie Lavin, director of fitness to practise and legal affairs at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “We have worked collaboratively with CHRE in identifying areas where harmonisation could be possible, for example, regulators having common terminology around striking off, removal or erasion from the Register, and we are convinced that harmonisation is in the public interest and will make regulation more easily understood by the general public.

“There are areas where, quite rightly, regulators will retain diversity; however the harmonisation project should in no way inhibit this.”