Praise For ‘Hero’ Dentist As Tribunal Decides Contents Of GDC Email Will Remain Secret
- Details
- Published: Thursday, 17 February 2022 07:53
- Written by Chris Tapper
- Hits: 5762
An Appeals Tribunal has decided that the General Dental Council does not have to reveal the contents of an email sent by former Chair Dr William Moyes to GDC staff during the UK’s dental shutdown in 2020.
In May 2021, the Information Commissioner’s Office instructed the GDC to reveal details of the email, which outlined the reasoning behind the unanimous decision by the GDC Council to not ‘revisit’ the Annual Retention Fee amidst many calls from dental professionals for either a reduction in the ARF or the introduction of an emergency payment by instalment (PBI) scheme.
At the time, many dental professionals were experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the pandemic and the dental shutdown. In particular, Dental Care Professionals were concerned at their ability to pay the ARF at the end of July 2020.
Around the time the decision on the ARF was taken and despite the financial plight of registrants, the GDC also decided to ‘top-up’ the furlough payments of some of its own staff, reported by Private Eye in June 2020 under the headline “NO PAIN, NO GAIN.”
Yet in March 2021, the GDC introduced a payment by instalment scheme related to the ARF for DCP’s, despite there being no significant increase in its income. In the spring of 2020, Executive Director, Strategy, Stefan Czerniawski wrote that “Financial pressures remain very real” when addressing the reasons why the GDC had decided not to “Reduce or waive ARF payments this year.”
In June 2020, Leeds-based GDP Dr Dominic O’Hooley had submitted a Freedom of Information request to the GDC to reveal “Full details of the soundings taken from the Council” relating to the reported unanimous view that the Annual Retention Fee should not be revisited.
In July 2020, the GDC replied to Dr O’Hooley, stating that information he requested was exempt from disclosure under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act.
A transcript of the Tribunal said “The opinion of the qualified person (the GDC Chief Executive, lan Brack) was that the request was for information the disclosure of which would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and would be likely to otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The GDC had concluded that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.”
The Information Commissioner and Dr O’Hooley were named as first and second respondents to the appeal brought by the GDC. The appeal was heard by Judge Sophie Buckley, Marion Saunders and Anne Chafer in the General Regulatory Chamber.
The Tribunal decided that the GDC WAS entitled to rely on Section 36(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Tribunal’s decision said the tribunal members “Took the view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.”
“The exemption recognises the value of a safe space for full and frank adviceand full and frank exchanges of views. In terms of the likelihood of prejudice, we note that the ARF is a sensitive and controversial issue and was particularly so during the pandemic.”
“We accept that that ARF issue is likely to come round again for discussion within a relatively short period of time.”
“The pandemic was ongoing and future ARF payments would become due. To this extent we consider that the issue remained live at the date of the request, even though a decision had been taken at the time not to bring the matter formally before the Council. On this basis we accept that there is significant public interest in maintaining a ’safe space’ for these type of soundings to take place to enable the GDC to work efficiently and effectively.”
“In terms of chilling effect, although we expect the Chair of the GDC to be robust against the risk of personal criticism, we take the view that there is a clear risk that the Chair might be inhibited from speaking so frankly and openly about his opinion as to the risks and benefits to the organisation and the profession if he thought that such early stage discussions would be open to public scrutiny.”
“In our view this leads to a real risk of a chilling effect on
what are effectively ongoing discussions which carries weight in the public interest balance.”
Dr O’Hooley expressed his disappointment with the decision on social media yesterday, but received widespread support from other dentists.
One dentist told Dr O’Hooley “You have put in hours and hours of work to represent us and we are grateful and proud that you attempted to hold them (GDC) to account on our behalf. Thank you so much.”
Many expressed the view that the GDC should be ‘held to account’ and that the regulator would be more wary of the actions they take in the future.
Another practitioner said “Truth is the GDC will give more thought to what they do under similar circumstances in future,” adding “Thank you for all your efforts.”
Dr O’Hooley has also in the past year challenged the GDC to reveal information regarding its use of private investigators.
Another dentist replied to Dr O’Hooley “Thanks again for your hard work. Having someone putting them (GDC) to account will invariably modify their behaviour. Hopefully for the better.”
Yet another colleague said “You’re one of my dental heroes. You fight your case no matter, based on your own values and standards. A rare gem.”
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report