Diary dates p17 | Interview p24 | Clinical p50 |
News
on its own powers and claimed it was facing ‘administrative chaos’. And that utter confusion has allowed it to escape the full weight of the law. “This super-sized fee rise
still stands, and now serves as a monument to the failures of health regulation. This case has revealed that a regulator, unaccountable to government, can be found to have acted unlawfully but still walk away with its ill-gotten gains. We are now looking to the government to act. “The chaos at the GDC serves
as a warning to all healthcare professionals. The Prime Minister once called for action on the ‘outdated and inflexible’ laws applied by our regulators. It’s time for the government to honour that pledge, in full.” The BDA has now written
to the Department of Health to outline the worrying implications of this case. One incensed senior
Edinburgh-based practitioner, said: “If ever there was a case for the GDC to be disbanded, this is it. It’s been clear from the very start, they ignored the profession all through the consultation. It’s shocking.” In its full statement, the GDC
said: “The GDC recognises that Mr Justice Cranston found that there was a procedural error in the ARF level consultation. “However, we are pleased
that he also recognised that the GDC has to be properly funded in order to carry out its duties to protect the public and that the error was not serious enough to require him to quash the consultation and the new fee. “Throughout this process
the GDC has tried to be as transparent as possible and this was noted by Mr Justice Cranston in his judgment when he stated, ‘However, and to its credit, a constant theme of the GDC’s public announcements has been a commitment to a transparent consultation.’ “We acknowledge the court’s
view that we could have provided more information to explain our projections for Fitness to Practise hearings. It is for this reason that the consultation was deemed unlawful. “We welcome the fact that
the judge decided to confirm the fee regulations for 20ı4 which means that the ARF of £890 remains valid. We would remind dentists that the dead- line for payment of the 20ı5 ARF is 3ı December.”
Evlynne Gilvarry Chief Executive
General Dental Council 37 Wimpole Street London W1G 8DQ
Dear Evlynne
We have been alerted to your press statement with regard to today’s judgment by Mr Justice Cranston. You quote, highly selectively, from paragraph 36 of the judgment, which credits the GDC for its public announcements on a commitment to transparent consultation. However, that specific paragraph goes on to outline that ‘a transparent consultation meant that consultees had to be put in a position to test the validity of the assumptions purporting to underlie the suggested fee increase’.
Elsewhere in the consultation, Mr Cranston is unambiguous that, whilst the GDC may have made these public announcements, it did not live up to them. For example:
• ‘In my judgment…there was a gaping hole in the GDC annual retention fee consultation’ (paragraph 37) • ‘The GDC’s answer to the freedom of information request…was distinctly unhelpful’ (paragraph 37) • ‘In my judgment this substantially increased projection of the number of Fitness to Practise hearings clearly required a transparent explanation and adequate information as to how it was calculated. […] None of the key information as regards closure rates and Fitness to Practise trend information was disclosed as part of the consultation (paragraph 38)
• ‘The gap [in information] was fundamental to the whole edifice. As a result, the consultation was not transparent’ (paragraph 40)
I don’t care about the money, I care what the money is being used for, which is the increase in Fitness to Practise cases and the fact that they wouldn’t reveal in their very poor consultation on why they want to have an increase in FtP cases. There is a massive hole in that.
I wasn’t surprised but I was very disappointed. I didn’t ever think there would be a change in the money, but I was disappointed that the judge
wasn’t very interested in looking at the flaws in the consultation process. Certainly from a Scottish perspective, we need to be pursuing an independent Scottish healthcare regulator.
The GDC was forced to pay costs, but that just means we will be paying them next year. But it was totally predictable that this would happen.
Practice owner West of Scotland
Therefore, to highlight this extract from the judgment, without recognising the context – that the GDC has been found not to have lived up to its public announcements on transparency, which is the basis for the finding of unlawfulness of the consultation – is enormously misleading.
It is also interesting to note that today’s release sits just above the GDC’s position statement on the duty of Candour and Honesty. In light of the fact that a High Court judge has today handed down a judgment that finds the GDC to have acted unlawfully, I would be interested in your views as to whether your reportage properly accords with the underlying principles of such duties.
Yours sincerely Peter Ward Chief Executive
British Dental Association Scottish Dental magazine 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84