Guess which regulatory body Charges its registrants most: the GCC £1000 a year, Osteopaths charge £750 a year( £350 in the first year and £500 in year two) so when the Peter Dixon says they can not reduce charges for new graduates ( they charge them for a whole year when they are only on the register for four months in their first year) ask him why the Osteopath council could help their new graduates
Guess which regulatory body blew its budget because of the Chief Executives insistence on interpreting the Chiropractic Act in such a draconian manner rather than the way the osteopaths did it.
The Governments White Paper Enabling Excellence Autonomy and Accountability for
Social Workers and
Social Care Workers was Published in February.Reading Andrew Lansleys forward (below) I could recommend they use the GCC as “poster boy” for all that is wrong with the the regulatory reforms of the last government. It is difficult to see how Coats and Dixon can justify their position, bearing in mind much of whats gone wrong with the GCC is their failure to heed the warnings. If your MP is a Tory get in tough with him/her ASAP and explain how the GCC has lost the confidence of the profession and has spent millions investigating complaints that were dismissed and had little to do with protecting the public. http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/
Forward to the White Paper by the Minister for Health Andrew Lansley;
The Coalition Government shares the country’s trust in those who work in health and social
care. Their professionalism, skills, values and commitment are the critical underpinning for
safe, effective and respectful care in our health and social services. In England, as the NHS
White Paper, ‘Equity and Excellence’ puts improved outcomes for service users at the heart
of what the NHS does, it is essential that the regulatory arrangements for health professionals
continue to support that objective. The current system of professional regulation helps to
ensure this by setting high standards of education, training, conduct and ethics and by taking
action to remove unsuitable workers in the rare cases when things go wrong. Regulation
of healthcare workers and social workers therefore makes an important contribution to
safeguarding the public, including vulnerable children and adults.
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 initiated a series of reforms to the governance of the
health professions regulatory bodies which received cross-party support at the time. These
reforms delivered a fundamental change in the governance of the regulatory bodies ending
professional control over their governing councils and strengthening the contribution of lay
Delivering safe and effective care will continue to be the driving principle behind professional
regulation. Further, in the context of “any willing provider” being able to provide services to
the NHS in England, the role of professional regulation, providing a set of standards which
apply to all aspects of a health or social care professional’s work, whether within the NHS, a
local authority, or in a self-employed setting, will become all the more important in future, in
most sectors of care.
However, the regulatory framework is also complex, expensive and requires continuous
Government intervention to keep it up to date. More generally, reducing regulation is a
key priority for the Coalition Government. By freeing society from unnecessary laws, the
Government aims to create a better balance of responsibilities between the state, business,
civil society and individuals, and to encourage people to take greater personal responsibility
for their actions. The Government therefore believes that the approach to professional
regulation must be proportionate and effective, imposing the least cost and complexity
consistent with securing safety and confidence for patients, service users, carers and the wider
public. The current economic climate makes it all the more important to ensure that there are
no unnecessary costs in the professional regulation system.
This Command Paper therefore sets out our proposals for how the system for regulating
healthcare workers across the UK and social workers in England should be reformed to
sustain and develop the high professional standards of those practitioners and to continue
to assure the safety of those using services and the rest of the public. ‘Reducing Regulation
Made Simple’ sets out the wider Coalition Government commitment to reducing regulation
to encourage sustainable economic growth and increase personal freedom and fairness. The
reforms set out in this Command Paper will therefore give greater independence to those
who work in health care across the UK and social care in England, to their employers, and to
the health professions regulatory bodies, balanced by more effective accountability for how
they exercise that freedom. In doing so they will also provide more effective assurance of the
quality of unregulated staff.
The vast majority of healthcare workers, social workers and social care workers do not strive
to provide excellent care because they fear regulatory action if they do wrong or because they
are told to do things properly. They do so because they are caring people, who are well trained
and well motivated. They do so because they work in teams with people who share those
characteristics. They do so because the organisations they work in are well led, in touch with
professional values, and driven by a commitment to the individuals, families and communities
that they serve.
Effective regulation of healthcare workers and social workers can support and develop the
notion of professionalism by promoting self-regulation at an individual level. In the rare and
troubling circumstances when things do go wrong, the regulators can take action to prevent
or reduce the likelihood of instances of misconduct, or indeed incompetence, from being
However, it does not follow inevitably that compulsory and centralised statutory regulation
is the most effective or efficient way of ensuring high quality care. There is a wider system
for ensuring that there are adequate public safeguards in place in the health and social care
sectors. For example, in England most providers are subject to regulation by the Care Quality
Commission or Ofsted and most workers are covered by the Vetting and Barring Scheme,
which provides for the removal from the sector of workers who may pose a risk to people in
Centralising responsibility for the complexity of managing the risk of millions of daily
interactions between staff and those using services may provide an apparently neat and tidy
central solution. It can never realistically supplant the individual, team and organisational
commitment, harnessed to local people and local communities. This is what drives the routine
and day-to-day excellence to which good professionals and good organisations are dedicated.
In a society that trusts and values its health and social care workforce, obliging more of them
to pay for regulation should be a matter of last resort.
Every day millions of health and care decisions are made by people themselves and an
increasing number of people are taking direct control over how their support needs are met
through personal budgets and direct payments in social care. Over time, with the focus on
individuals having greater choice and control over decisions about their health and wellbeing,
people will make even more decisions for themselves with support, where needed, from
appropriately trained healthcare workers, social workers and social care workers. In a system
that is truly responsive to local people, the way we assure the quality of healthcare workers,
social workers and social care workers needs to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the
way people relate to health and social care services and to different local circumstances and
to enable innovation and improve productivity. The Government’s role is to establish a system
which enables local commissioners and employers, serving local people, to ensure the most
effective local systems for ensuring excellent care. That means that more responsibility and
accountability is placed locally.
The proposals in this document move power away from the centre and place trust in local
people, the professions that serve them and the good local leadership which enables excellent
care, whilst sustaining effective national safeguards where that is necessary. At a national
level, this paper also seeks to constrain the growth and costs of the regulatory system at a
time when health and social care professionals are facing pay constraints and sets out new
alternatives to statutory regulation which enable both the public and employers to use a wider
range of more proportionate approaches to ensure good care. It also sets out proposals to
simplify the regulatory structure in order to deliver a more flexible system offering better
value for money for both registrants and the public.
Although health professions regulation is devolved to Northern Ireland and, in respect of
some professions, to Scotland, our system of health professions regulation is currently
delivered (with the exception of pharmacy in Northern Ireland) through a UK-wide regulatory
machinery. In social care, regulation of the social care workforce is devolved to Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Coalition Government recognises the need for the system for
regulating healthcare workers and social workers to continue to be sensitive to the needs of
practitioners and those using their services in all four parts of the UK.
Detailed proposals are being actively discussed with the administrations in Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales in view of devolved elements with a view to reaching four
country support for all aspects of the proposals. Ministers in all four parts of the UK remain
committed to a UK-wide approach to regulation of the healthcare professions.
Given that social work and social care regulation is and will remain a fully devolved matter,
this paper makes no reference to reform of social worker regulation or social care worker
regulation in Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales. All references in this paper to social
work regulation and to regulation of the social care workforce should be read as referring to
regulation of those parts of the workforce in England only.
Secretary of State for Health
Paragraph 3.2 is particularly interesting in the document and why I believe Coats and Dixon are stuffed, if the associations play their cards right:
Whilst these reforms have clearly had a beneficial impact, there are two important
unresolved issues. First, the ending of the practice of most council members being
elected by registrants may have reduced the amount of scrutiny over regulatory bodies
by the professions themselves. In law, the health professions regulators are accountable to Parliament, through the Privy Council, for the exercise of their statutory duties. Each regulator is required to present to Parliament an annual report on the conduct of their business and on the efficiency and effectiveness of their fitness to practise arrangements, and the CHRE conducts
a thorough annual performance review of the regulators. However, the suggestion
has been made that, given the considerable responsibilities that the regulators have
for assuring patient and public safety, even more parliamentary scrutiny would be
- F#*K off. Margaret and I are doing a great job. General Chiropractic Council Chair Peter Dixon responds to the associations.
- Surely the Danes did not leave the European Chiropractic Union because of General Chiropractic Council chairman Peter Dixon ?
- “Regulators like the General Chiropractic Council have different and inconsistent methods of engaging with patients”
- Did BCA finally find its spine and tell the General Chiropractic Council, its not fit for purpose?
- Unfortunately Peter Dixon and the General Chiropractic Council are 3 years and 700 complaints too late.
- Former General Chiropractic Council member, Dana Greens letter to new council members in December 2007. “GCC is not fit for purpose”
- Department of Health plans for Regulatory Reform of GCC
- If Peter Dixon cares about the chiropractic profession as he claims, he should go now and take Coats with him or risk Self Regulation for chiropractors.
- Communication between General Chiropractic Council’s Peter Dixon and the associations after they made the case that Coats position as Registrar was untenable
- The associations have come together. First thing they need to say to the General Chiropractic Council; Margaret Coats must go.