Executive summary
Dental Protection is pleased to respond to the General Dental Council (GDC) consultation on ‘the format of hearings’. The GDC propose that this document will replace current guidance on reporting criminal proceedings and bring together all other matters that need to be reported to them.
Dental Protection, as part of the Medical Protection Society (MPS) has over 300,000 members around the world and is proud to have supported over 31,000 dentists and dental care professionals in the UK for many years.
Membership provides access to expert advice and support together with the right to request indemnity for complaints or claims arising from professional practice. Our in-house experts assist members with a wide range of legal and ethical problems that can arise from their professional practice, including clinical negligence claims, complaints, and General Dental Council (GDC) investigations.
As a member-owned defence organisation, we have a particular perspective on the reforms needed that would benefit dentists, dental care professionals and ultimately patients. The GDC’s consultation questions and our responses follow.
Consultation questions
2. To what extent do you agree with the proposal to hold all hearings remotely by default unless parties agree otherwise (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☑ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response: We strongly disagree and our reasons are outlined below.
3. To what extent do you agree with the proposed method to decide the format of a hearing where the parties do not agree in relation to practice committees (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat
disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☑ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response: We strongly disagree and our reasons are outlined below.
4. To what extent do you agree with the proposed method to decide the format of a hearing where the parties do not agree in relation to the Registration Appeals Committee (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat
disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☑ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response:
5. To what extent do you agree with the proposed method to decide the format of a hearing where the parties do not agree in relation to the Interim Order Committee (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat
disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☑ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response: According to the Consultation document, if a Registrant requests that an interim order hearing is in-person, then it will be held in-person. Therefore the parties do not need to agree the position.
6. To what extent do you agree with the factors in the proposed guidance are the appropriate ones when a panel considers whether to hold a hearing in-person (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat
disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☑ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response: We do not consider a panel should be considering this question. If a Registrant wishes to appear in person, they should be afforded this opportunity without the need for an application.
7. To what extent do you agree with the factors in the proposed guidance are sufficiently clear to assist all parties when decided whether to request on agree to an in-person hearing (please provide your reasons for your answer)?
Strongly
agree | Somewhat
agree | Neither agree
or disagree | Somewhat
disagree | Strongly
disagree | Not sure |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☑ | ☐ |
Please provide reasons for your response: As for 6 above.
8. We want to understand whether and how our proposals might advantage or disadvantage people. Please consider the characteristics and factors listed below and indicate for each whether you think remote hearings might be advantageous or disadvantageous to people in these groups or categories.
- Age
- Disability
- Gender reassignment
- Marriage and civil partnership
- Pregnancy and maternity
- Race
- Religion or belief
- Sex
- Sexual orientation
- Dental professional role
- Challenges with resources (time, travel costs etc.)
Please provide reasons for your response: Remote hearings may disadvantage individuals in various groups or categories, including those with challenges related to age, disability, technology, legal support or facing serious allegations.
9. If you think that our process for holding remote hearings by default as set out in this paper would be advantageous or disadvantageous in relation to any of the characteristics or factors listed above (question 8), please provide your reasons here: The above listed protected characteristics fail to take into account neurodivergent individuals and those struggling with mental health or anxiety, such that personal support is necessary and remote hearings may cause a disadvantage to them.
10. Please let us know if there is anything else you would like to raise regarding our proposals.
We strongly disagree that the default position for all substantive hearings before a Practice Committee should be remote unless agreed by both parties or by successful application. Our view is that the default position should be that substantive hearings are in person save where it is agreed by the parties that they be remote or hybrid. For the most part both parties are content with fully remote hearings. Indeed, the GDC states on its website states that “Around 90% of our hearings are currently held remotely.” This however should not be interpreted by the GDC as an indicator for Registrants to lose their right to have an in person or hybrid hearing if they wish this. It is our view that a Registrant should have the right to appear in person before those judging them irrespective of their circumstances or the nature of the allegations. The format of hearings poses no difficulty at the GMC where the format of each substantive hearing is discussed and agreed early in the listing process, with the wishes of the Registrant being paramount and accommodated.
If the default position of substantive hearings being virtual is coupled with the GDC/Hearings’ drive to reduce costs, it is not inconceivable that GDC/Hearings staff will come under pressure to drive the agenda of remote hearings in all but the most isolated instances, to the disadvantage of Registrants.
As regards the case of R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) this is authority for the proposition that a witness’ evidence should not be accepted as true simply because they have a confident demeanour and that contemporaneous documentary evidence should be considered foremost in the ranking of types of evidence. It does not however mean that demeanour is never relevant to the assessment of credibility. Furthermore, there are numerous types of allegations where it is incumbent upon a Practice Committee to make judgment on the conflicting oral evidence of witnesses in the absence of any documentary evidence, contemporaneous or otherwise.
The proposed guidance also fails to take into account those who may be neurodivergent or may struggle with mental health, and having a supportive network in person and appearing in person can be of benefit. From our survey findings on the wellbeing of dental professionals, 82% of the 125 respondents who have been investigated by the dental regulator in the last five years said the investigation had a detrimental impact on their mental health. Not every Registrant is suited to facing a virtual hearing. That said, we also appreciate that a large proportion of dentists going through the hearing process would prefer to do so remotely as they find this format less stressful. The key point is that there should be an option and dentists should not have to fight for the right to appear in person before the regulator that is bringing an action against them.
Another issue that the guidance seems to miss is privacy concerns. This includes both concerns about the cable network being intercepted or individuals accessing hearings from various locations. There may be witnesses and Registrants accessing virtual hearings at work, at home, abroad and even those in cafes.
We reiterate that on the grounds of fairness alone the default position should be that Registrants are given the opportunity to appear in person if they so wish.
About Dental Protection
Dental Protection is part of the Medical Protection Society (MPS), the world’s leading protection organisation for doctors, dentists, and healthcare professionals. MPS protects and supports the professional interests of more than 300,000 members around the world and is proud to have supported over 30,000 dentists and dental care professionals in the UK for many years.
Membership provides access to expert advice and support together with the right to request indemnity for complaints, investigations or claims arising from professional practice.
We are a mutual non-for-profit organisation and the benefits of membership of MPS are discretionary as set out in the Memorandum of Articles of Association. MPS is not an insurance company.
About MPS
MPS is the world’s leading protection organisation for doctors, dentists and healthcare professionals with almost 300,000 members around the world.
Our in-house experts assist with the wide range of legal and ethical problems that arise from professional practice. This can include clinical negligence claims, complaints, medical and dental council inquiries, legal and ethical dilemmas, disciplinary procedures, inquests and fatal accident inquiries.
MPS is not an insurance company. We are a mutual non-for-profit organisation and the benefits of membership of MPS are discretionary as set out in the Memorandum of Articles of Association.
Contact
Should you require further information about any aspects of our response to this consultation, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Ceylan Simsek
Policy and Public Affairs Manager
[email protected]