Someone had been advised by the HPC that the only means of redress open to them after a decision had been made by the HPC was via a judicial review. They duly set one in process, and hired a solicitor. Only then did they discover that they were not in a position to put such a process into play.
This case involved an NHS manager who had been sacked. The HPC tend to trawl these cases and bring them into their own net to re-play the scene and ring out the surplus value. The upshot of this is that the HPC then becomes the complainant in the HPC Process. People who had been involved in the original case might be forgiven for thinking that they still had a part in this second playing of the scene, but in fact they don't. The HPC take over the show - in this way they act on behalf of an imaginary public and take a local sacking into a national misdemeanour.
There are two threads - one is the way a local event is passed to a central court (local difficulties acquire national status), the other is the question of self interest. The original professions were attacked on the grounds that they couldn't be trusted to keep their house in order as they were likely to be biased in their own favour. This inconvenient truth, however, also applies to any new body set up to keep order, it is part of life and must be dealt with by each of us as we act. The idea was that the HPC would always be objective because it has no interest in the professions it manages. However, this completely ignores the interest it has in maintaining itself - it is a naive, puerile view. The HPC is left with no other purpose than to maintain a register and police it - it is administrator, law enforcer, law interpreter, law maker. In the case of the original professions they were also interested in the work itself, and the knowledge pertaining to the work. In fact they were more interested in the work itself for without it they would cease to exist. In the case of the HPC their work - their trade, their profession so to speak - is administrative and legal. They are not interested in the actual work of the people over whom they have such far reaching legal powers. Their business is collecting names onto registers (and money associated), arranging the lists, creating sets of abstract standards of character and practise at a distance, and of enforcing these standards. That's it. It is a false profession, based on nothing. They are under the jurisdiction of another such body (the CHRE) and each of these is under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, as far as I can see.
My contention is that the HPC is an artificial creation based on a false assumption. This is very shaky ground which sets up a need for a strong policing in order to make it work - an artificial force takes the place of any possible natural order. This sets up an absolute system and places far too much power in the hands of a small set of people. It is a very tricky situation, and one which is out of balance with the requirements of the situation.
It has been very common to explain the creation of the HPC and the CHRE through reference to Harold Shipman. The fear that is created by this move is two fold. There is the fear invoked through reference to a serial killer, and there is fear invoked by the irrationality of the reference to the subject in question. That is, there is no rational link between this murderer, and the creation of a large list, a centralised knowledge base, and an aggressive police force. The link has more in common with a paranoid idea than it does with reason, experience, and rationality.
Showing posts with label Appeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appeal. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 February 2009
The Information Commissioner & HPC's FTP
You can go to www.informationtribunal.gov.uk and get copies of cases, I have one whose decision was promulgated on 14 March 2008. According to my dictionary of word origins, promulgate is linked to the idea 'to milk', that is to cause to emerge. This promulgation was set in motion by a series of events which culminated in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by Ms Z who had referred a case to the HPC. The HPC refused to give the information which led to the Information Commissioner being called onto the scene. He then issued an Information notice requesting sight of the disputed information and the HPC appealed this notice under section 57(2) of the FOI Act.
Are you following all this?
I'm new to all this too, but little by little I intend to try to discover something about the particularity of the time we live in, the institutions we invent, the context in which bits of our lives get lived.
From the promulgated decision I learn things that I already knew: "The HPC is established under the Health Professions Order 2001 (the 2001 Order)" and subtle differences from things that I thought I knew: ... "It's main functions are set out at article 3(2) of the 2001 Order as "...to establish from time to time [my emphasis] standards of education, training, conduct, and performance for members of the relevant professions and to ensure the maintenance of those standards." The main objective in exercising its functions is "to safeguard the health and well being of persons using the services of registrants." This is written in The Order. But there is room for interpretation in practise and it is this that is in question at the Tribunal Service.
"The HPC's functions include the maintenance of a register of health professionals and a mechanism, called the Fitness to Practise process (the Process) whereby the conduct and performance of registrants may be investigated and called to account. An adverse adjudication on a registrant's fitness to practise may lead to, amongst other things, a registrant being removed from the register (such that they could not work in their chosen profession) or conditions being attached to the performance of their profession. Members of the public, employers etc, may make allegations to the HPC with regard to the fitness to practise of particular registrants. Such cases are investigated by the HPC and as a preliminary step in the Process a decision will be taken by a Panel of the Investigating Committee whether there is a case to answer. [If not, the Process ends. If so, a new Committee is called for a full hearing." (Quoted from the Tribunal's introduction.)
In the case in question the initial Committee decided there was no case, so Ms Z made her FOIA request to see on what basis this decision had been made. This was refused by the HPC on the grounds that certain exemptions applied, namely sections 30, 40, and 41... So Ms Z made an application under section 50 of the FOIA for a decision by the Information commissioner as to whether her request had been dealt with in accordance with law. After a lot of argy bargy the HPC filed a Notification of Appeal against the Information Commissioner's Information Notice and so triggered this appeal to tribunal.
It's quite Dickensian - we are in the field of law, very particular human relations, and, by the by, a professional practise.
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Jonathan Bracken from Bircham Dysen Bell, who were solicitors for the HPC. Mr Bracken had been involved in the setting up of the HPC and had advised on many of its processes, he had drafted most of its rules. He explained to the Tribunal that the HPC had 'moved away' from a punitive disciplinary scheme, and had put in its place the Fitness to Practise regime. It is a process in two stages. These stages were put into question at the Tribunal and Mr Bracken was revealed as lacking (he had to admit that some of his documents 'perhaps were not as well worded as might be') .
The next in the dock was Ms Kelly Johnson, the HPC's Director of Fitness to Practise. She was obliged to say that 'the practise and procedure guidance were living documents and in certain respects in need of revision'. In the course of her evidence she revealed that the information gained in the Process at the early stage could be shared with the competent authorities of the other European Union states, and in addition, circumstances could arise in which the HPC gave the police a registrant's information prior to a 'no case to answer' determination. Registrants are not warned of these possible disclosures.
To cut a long story short, the Tribunal concluded that 'registrants were unaware of the fact that HPC on occasion made disclosures in the public interest... The reality was that the 'aura' of confidence (as Counsel for the HPC had put it) attached to the information provided by registrants, was not as clear or as bright as contended." [my emphasis] Furthermore, the Tribunal added "this case came nowhere near the mark". Their decision in favour of the Information Commissioner had indeed been unanimous.
Are you following all this?
I'm new to all this too, but little by little I intend to try to discover something about the particularity of the time we live in, the institutions we invent, the context in which bits of our lives get lived.
From the promulgated decision I learn things that I already knew: "The HPC is established under the Health Professions Order 2001 (the 2001 Order)" and subtle differences from things that I thought I knew: ... "It's main functions are set out at article 3(2) of the 2001 Order as "...to establish from time to time [my emphasis] standards of education, training, conduct, and performance for members of the relevant professions and to ensure the maintenance of those standards." The main objective in exercising its functions is "to safeguard the health and well being of persons using the services of registrants." This is written in The Order. But there is room for interpretation in practise and it is this that is in question at the Tribunal Service.
"The HPC's functions include the maintenance of a register of health professionals and a mechanism, called the Fitness to Practise process (the Process) whereby the conduct and performance of registrants may be investigated and called to account. An adverse adjudication on a registrant's fitness to practise may lead to, amongst other things, a registrant being removed from the register (such that they could not work in their chosen profession) or conditions being attached to the performance of their profession. Members of the public, employers etc, may make allegations to the HPC with regard to the fitness to practise of particular registrants. Such cases are investigated by the HPC and as a preliminary step in the Process a decision will be taken by a Panel of the Investigating Committee whether there is a case to answer. [If not, the Process ends. If so, a new Committee is called for a full hearing." (Quoted from the Tribunal's introduction.)
In the case in question the initial Committee decided there was no case, so Ms Z made her FOIA request to see on what basis this decision had been made. This was refused by the HPC on the grounds that certain exemptions applied, namely sections 30, 40, and 41... So Ms Z made an application under section 50 of the FOIA for a decision by the Information commissioner as to whether her request had been dealt with in accordance with law. After a lot of argy bargy the HPC filed a Notification of Appeal against the Information Commissioner's Information Notice and so triggered this appeal to tribunal.
It's quite Dickensian - we are in the field of law, very particular human relations, and, by the by, a professional practise.
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Jonathan Bracken from Bircham Dysen Bell, who were solicitors for the HPC. Mr Bracken had been involved in the setting up of the HPC and had advised on many of its processes, he had drafted most of its rules. He explained to the Tribunal that the HPC had 'moved away' from a punitive disciplinary scheme, and had put in its place the Fitness to Practise regime. It is a process in two stages. These stages were put into question at the Tribunal and Mr Bracken was revealed as lacking (he had to admit that some of his documents 'perhaps were not as well worded as might be') .
The next in the dock was Ms Kelly Johnson, the HPC's Director of Fitness to Practise. She was obliged to say that 'the practise and procedure guidance were living documents and in certain respects in need of revision'. In the course of her evidence she revealed that the information gained in the Process at the early stage could be shared with the competent authorities of the other European Union states, and in addition, circumstances could arise in which the HPC gave the police a registrant's information prior to a 'no case to answer' determination. Registrants are not warned of these possible disclosures.
To cut a long story short, the Tribunal concluded that 'registrants were unaware of the fact that HPC on occasion made disclosures in the public interest... The reality was that the 'aura' of confidence (as Counsel for the HPC had put it) attached to the information provided by registrants, was not as clear or as bright as contended." [my emphasis] Furthermore, the Tribunal added "this case came nowhere near the mark". Their decision in favour of the Information Commissioner had indeed been unanimous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
