BDA calls on Government to act over GDC
- Details
- Published: Thursday, 18 December 2014 16:10
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 4035
The General Dental Council (GDC) has been found to have acted unlawfully in a landmark judgement this morning (18 December). The BDA was awarded costs, and has now called on government to act on inadequate health regulation. PEC chair Mick Armstrong said: “Today a judge singled out a ‘gaping hole’ in the GDC's arguments. The regulator demonstrated it wasn't clear 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.”
The GDC has been defeated in landmark legal case
- General Dental Council deemed to have acted unlawfully on setting professional fees, but gets to keep its “ill-gotten gains”
- Judge slams "gaping hole" in regulator’s argument
- Judgement follows critical failings at regulator, and Fitness to Practise cases that cost £78,000
- Verdict comes as MPs single out "bunker mentality" at failing regulator
- Dentists' union calls on government for wholesale reform of regulation
The British Dental Association (BDA), initiated Judicial Review proceedings to prevent the regulator implementing a staggering £15 million pound increase to the fees levied on the dental profession. The consultation behind the fee rise has been deemed unlawful, but the judge declined to reverse the fee rise, their counsel citing the risk of “administrative chaos” at the GDC.
The troubled regulator has been taken to task by the Professional Standards Authority and parliament. In a parliamentary debate Health Minister Dr Dan Poulter, confirmed that he had "not been presented with compelling evidence to justify the increase" and called on the GDC to make "significant improvements." Sir Paul Beresford MP, who called the debate, accused the regulator of operating a "bunker mentality".
Mick Armstrong, Chair of the British Dental Association, said: "We regret that it came to this, but there was so much more at stake here than just fees. We've seen patients and practitioners left in limbo for over 18 months when complaints are raised, and hearings with an average price tag of £78,000. We had to take action because health professionals should not have to subsidise failure at their regulator.
"Today a judge singled out a ‘gaping hole’ in the GDC's arguments. The regulator demonstrated it wasn't clear 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 written to the Department of Health to outline the worrying implications of this case.
General Dental Council
The mere fact that this matter was taken to a Judicial Review in the first place highlights the incompetencies of the GDC.As a Solicitor representing dentists in all aspects of their professional lives and in matters concerning the GDC, I cannot help but feel that the credibility that the GDC now has amongst members of the profession that it seeks to regulate has been irreparably damaged.
Whilst surprised that Mr Justice Cranston chose not to reverse the decision of the GDC to increase the ARF, the logistics of correcting what was clearly a policy decision that was not well thought out nor the subject of proper consultation, were outweighed by the costs and time that would be involved.
Maybe it is time for the regulator to take an inward look at itself and re-model for the 21st century.
The profession will soon be undergoing a material change and it is perhaps time that its regulator moved with the changes.
I am happy to provide legal advice to any practitioner who feels aggrieved by the decision but please bear in mind that unless the decision is appealed, the judgement of Mr J Cranston stands as law.
Jonathan Jacobs
Carbon Law
0161 792 8142
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report