The GDC Consultation Marathon? Stamina Required
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 30 October 2024 08:00
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 849
Opinions matter.
Having consultations sends out important messages. It suggests that an organization is open to a full range of opinions. It might even lead some to expect that it might act on the opinions that it receives, or at least have them influence its decision making to some degree.
The journalist and author Keith Waterhouse must have foreseen the GDC’s approach with his helpful definition: ‘A consultation process is what some authority sets in motion preparatory to doing what it intended all along.’
But consultations can present a challenge. What if the responses do not support the plans that the great and the good wish to pursue? The GDC have developed an effective strategy to deal with this problem.
There are some basic techniques involved in undermining a consultation. Not letting too many people know about it, tucking it away in an obscure corner of a website, and making responding as time consuming and difficult as possible, all help. The resulting low response rate invites the claim that stakeholders are really not too bothered by the proposals.
A current consultation shows the GDC finessing their unaccommodating approach. The subject is the GDCs troubled Fitness to Practice operation, and the guidance given to those sitting on panels including the Professional Conduct Committee, Professional Practice Committee, and the Health Committee. The GDC are proposing changes to existing guidance.
Registrants will know of it if they have read to the very end of Chair, Lord Harris’ blog, from September 4th. The consultation is not mentioned in the headline and appears under the general heading ‘Opportunities to provide feedback.’ A link goes to an overview of the changes. At first sight the proposals appear reasonable as the announcement suggests that the changes relate to dealing with cases of discrimination and sexual misconduct, as well as supporting vulnerable witnesses.
This is still a serious business, and the GDC say: “The changes will directly affect those who participate in practice committee proceedings in future, and their representatives, those who raise public protection issues or concerns and independent panellists who hear cases put to practice committees.”
The link in the Chair’s blog goes to a news item dated September 3rd. This says little about the changes and mainly comprises a self-congratulatory list of GDC achievements from Stefan Czerniawski, GDC Executive Director of Strategy. It does at least mention consultations on practice committee guidance in its title. The consultation was also mentioned half way down the GDC’s registrant update sent to subscribers on September 4th.
The news item and update contain yet another link. This leads to a page with a long list including current and past consultations. This leads in turn to the by now familiar very general synopsis of the proposed changes. This includes, at last, a link to the actual consultation
The 15 page document is mainly composed of questions for respondents to answer. But what of the actual changes? This is dealt with by four further links. The separate links are comprised of two for the existing guidance and two for the proposed new guidance. As a result it is almost impossible to actually make a comparison between the new and old conditions to discover what will be changing.
It would appear that the only way of finding the actual changes is to read each document paragraph by paragraph, and try to spot the differences, with 150 pages to review in this way.
But despite this masterclass in obstruction, perhaps there is an even more effective way to impoverish any consultation. It is to convince would be responders that their replies will make no difference. No doubt the GDC would bridle at being accused of this, and point to their insular engagement programme. Or to really put the issue to bed, they could make it the subject for another of their special brand of consultations.
GDC consults on proposals to update decision making guidance for practice committees (gdc-uk.org)
Consultations and responses (gdc-uk.org)
‘Cheat’ link: Consultation on revisions to the guidance and conditions bank for practice committees (gdc-uk.org)
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report