Regulation of Podiatry

Good to see you acting on your principles, John. You`ll be glad to hear that many others have been demonstrating their support without fanfare, with very positive results. :drinks

 

Not any I hope. I wouldn't recommend it; dealing with cheats and liars is rarely a pleasant experience.

Quite.

 

https://cartoonsbysheila.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ph73.jpg

 

From FB UK Podiatry - OK, more than a few have expressed an interest in contacting the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) to voice their concerns over the recent activities of the HCPC. The PSA mission statement is; "we are the body responsible for overseeing the UK’s nine health and care professional regulatory bodies [including the HCPC]. Our oversight and scrutiny of the regulators is important for protecting users of health and social care services and the public".

The PSA have no `legal powers` per se, and are not in a position to comment on Marks` case, but they do advise and investigate regulatory bodies, if warranted.

Anyway, I have enclosed my recent correspondence to them and Anna van der Gaag, elected President of HCPC, for your information to either read with interest, or to adapt for your own use.

 

Thanks Bel - Katherine Turner at the PSA is already consigant with the case and welcomes submissions. You are correct - they cannot intervene or oversee any challenges to current regulatory provision - but they do collect and advise Parliament, which is where all relevant decisions are made anyway. Thanks for your help again - as always greatly appreciated..

 

For your information......

 

Attached is the response from Ben Gummer (DoH) MP. At least he acknowledges the recommendations of the Law Commission and that a "full review of protected titles and functions" is required. Progress towards such a Government Bill will only come about if the professions and, more importantly, the professional bodies that claim to represent them, push for it to be passed.

 

Despite a last minute application by the HCPC to delay the appeal by transferring it back to London - a Judge in Preston today dismissed their application and the hearing is set for 1st October at Preston Crown Court starting at 10am. Hot Pot & Cabbage for lunch..

 

Cabbage? You`ll be sitting on your own, then....

 

Yep - as always...in the dock!

 

On Thursday this week, the Crown Court in Preston will hear the appeal against conviction and sentence I received earlier this year by the Health and Care Professions Council for misusing a title with intent to deceive. This hearing will, hopefully, mark the end of a long, difficult and ultimately illuminating journey, which started some seven years ago - and one that will likely have significant repercussions for all of us for some time to come.

Before that, I would just like to take this opportunity and thank all those colleagues and friends who have been hugely supportive over these years - I can't begin to tell you how humbled and grateful I am for all your generosity and kind words. It may sound trite - but it means everything.

This has not been a political campaign - I may have been making a (perfectly valid) point about the regulation at the outset - but the reason we are here today is simply to correct an injustice. I have been accused and convicted of an offence that I could not have possibly committed by a regulator that has deliberately and wilfully deceived us all. I resigned from the Council of the Society before I deregistered, taking the view that this was my argument and not one that I would care to embroil anyone else in - it would also, for obvious reasons, put the Society in a difficult position too. I have never really sought to influence others either - you can make your own mind up about regulation and the profession - and I respect your views. They are all valid - but this has been my decision and whilst I am perfectly happy to defend it, I wouldn't suggest you do the same. Especially after the experience of the last three years!

It is therefore truly heartening to have met and corresponded with so many of you - and I have been astounded by the kindness you have shown. And it's particularly good to know so many of you feel the same way too about this great profession and the institutions that are supposed to represent and protect us....just remember what Corbyn said today - "you don't have to take what you're given". Look forward to updating you in due course.

Thank you again.

 

Just received notification that the appeal has been transferred to Lancaster Crown Court tomorrow at 10am - if anyone is planning to attend, please make suitable arrangements.

Lancaster Crown Court
Lancaster Castle
Lancaster
LA1 1YJ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEV-Y3b_hvw

 

I'm afraid it's not good news. The Prosecution only finished presenting their submissions at 3pm this afternoon and the appeal has been adjourned once again. As both Counsels and Judge have prior commitments - the appeal will recommence on 11 December on Preston.

Can I just thank all those that came up to Lancaster Castle for the appeal - Bel, Linda, Giles, Lewis and Brian (all the way from South Africa) - and again I am humbled and hugely indebted for your kindness and generosity. Out of everything - that is the most important thing for me right now. Thank you so much.

I'm getting sick of writing this but - I will, of course, update you in due course - but in the meantime, the one thing that has been made absolutely clear these last two days: there is no such thing as "protected titles".....

 

Hi Mark. Well done. Just to clarify, has the Judge made an absolute ruling that the titles 'chiropodist' and 'podiatrist' (and therefore the other PAM titles) are not protected? If so, it would seem that the HCPC since its inception has been misleading its registrants and by demanding money for protection it cannot offer, could now be convicted of fraud?

All the best

Bill Liggins

 

Without trying to speak on his behalf, I have been advised not to discuss content of the hearing because it is ongoing and could potentially put Mark in a very difficult position.

I'm sure once the matter is concluded on 10th December (not the 11th) at Lancaster there will be plenty to discuss. Needless to say, whatever the outcome, the issues which have been exposed during Mark's long and frustrating trial will have a huge impact on the profession.

Cheers
Bel

 

Duplicate post

 

A Long Road

 

Really?

 

What? A duplicate post and you call me up for it? Oh dear Matthew...

 

I am releasing some correspondence from the Chair of the Health Committee, Dr Sarah Wollaston to my local constituency MP regarding the matters raised in this case. I had intended to release these - and other documents at the conclusion of the proceedings in December, however I have been extremely concerned by the release of information by the HCPC into the public domain, which I think is a rather pathetic attempt at shifting goalposts. You can draw your own conclusions.

The HCPC have sent the Society an article for publication in the December issue of Podiatry Now in the form of a Q&A exchange. I will upload a copy of the article once the Journal has been published. Last week, a colleague forwarded a copy of an email they had received from the HCPC, which coincidentally, adopted the same position as the article. On Friday, I received the correspondence from Dr Wollaston - and surprise, surprise....the letter from the Registrar to Dr Wollaston was exactly the same as the email sent earlier in the week.

Clearly a shifting sands memo is circulating - so if any of you have contacted the HCPC in recent weeks to seek clarification on complying with the regulation - and you receive a reply, I would be interested to know if it is similar to those below.

The content is self explanatory and I'm sure most of you will be able to read between the lines and understand what's being said. Pauline - I'll send you a PM over the next few days with some pictures and a flow chart which might help I'm not going to comment on the legislation or what it means, but I am curious about the last paragraph where he writes...

I'm not quite sure I understand this properly. Anyone help me out?

 

MR I can't comment even if I wanted to because the letters are too small. When I try to enlarge them they go blurred. Though l'd let you know, CF

 

Here you go then....

 

The Society published the article from the HCPC 'clarifying' the current situation on titles in this month's Podiatry Now. For non members, this is the statement.

 

Thanks, Mark. My views in red;

There is so much more that I could comment upon, but I think y`all get the general idea that the HCPC have deliberately misled the profession in claiming to protect titles, when, under current legislation, they could not.

Finally, I find their comment `Not protecting specific functions has clear benefits for the professions`, insulting, at best. To claim `It means that roles can change and develop over time with minimum intervention from the regulator` implies that our scope of practice would somehow be stifled with protection of function. This is simply untrue. Other countries, such as New Zealand for example, has the `practice of podiatry` protected by law without specific functions being mentioned because protection is defined by training. We also have the model of Hearing Aid Dispensers whose function is regulated by the HCPC as a tiered profession. The tiers, or levels, of the Hearing Aid Profession are also dictated by training, with scope for advancement made possible by additional training, thus there is no restriction of progression for any practitioner on that recognized & designated portion on the HCPC register. This exemplifies the role of the HCPC, who has within their remit, the ability to attach the same protection of function to Podiatry for the same reason they awarded such to Hearing Aid Dispensers; because `the majority of those in the industry work in the private sector`, so says Dan Poulter, the (previous) Minister of Health. Much like our own profession, eh?

Cheers,
Bel

 

It's certainly incredible that no one has noticed the legislative weakness before - and it's perhaps the deliberate misuse of "protected" that makes the lie convincing. Yet none of the lawyers that are retained by any of the professional bodies noticed the discrepancy. About as incredible as the silence from this profession :hammer:

 

Hi Bel. The point re: '(development of) scope of practice would be stifled by protection of function' is well taken. I can remember bringing this up with Charles Jenkins, the then Secretary of the Society many years ago and his stating that Council used it as a reason (excuse) not to pursue closure via protection of function. I had chatted about this with a dental surgeon with whom I shared rooms and he pooh-pooed the very thought and pointed to his own profession which had, of course, developed in many areas although function was completely protected. As many practitioners have been saying for a long, long time, we have been sold a pup and have only ourselves to blame. If you dig a hole, lie in it and invite others to throw dirt over you, you can hardly blame them for doing so.

All the best

Bill

 

Indeed, Bill. Indeed. I`ve had more than a few say we shouldn`t push for protection of function, quoting the same illogical reason. They are just regurgitating what they have been told. I`m sure this propagated misconception has nothing to do the DoH workforce planning and their desire for adopting assistant roles for cheaper health care, which could be difficult with functional closure, but not impossible. There is a good argument for having a regulated tiered profession, where tasks can be protected according to training, which would also enable professional progression via training. We already have the tiers in place, FHPs, FCAs, Pods, Pod surgeons, etc....it could be done. If the profession wanted it enough.

Cheers,
Bel

 

Belinda,

In my opinion, the fairest even playing field would be to have EVERYONE providing footcare services, whether surgery or DOM, to be inspected, with FULL traceability.

This could possibly close half of all practises overnight

 

Ya mean for the footcare industry to be properly regulated? So, that anyone struck off as unfit for practice should be prohibited from practising? Indeed :drinks

 

Can't disagree with that, Bill - and as Bel has alluded, there are still plenty shackled to that mindset. But we don't even have protected titles despite the previous claims of the regulator and professional bodies. You have been involved in professional matters at a senior level with the Institute and have a keen interest in regulation - as do many other colleagues on this forum. At what point did you realise you had been misled?

Best wishes

Mark

 

Good question. I can pinpoint the day the penny dropped with me. It was when the HCPC issued their press release;http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=325478&postcount=155

Up until that point, and during your original prosecution, the HCPC had NEVER mentioned the fact that they can only prosecute for misuse of title (or implying to be on their register) IF THERE IS AN INTENT TO DECEIVE.

This was further clarified during the appeal at the Old Bailey. The barrister clearly stated; "Mr Russell could quite legally call himself an `ex` or `formerly` HCPC registered podiatrist".

Makes you wonder who was deceiving whom.

 

Bill?

 

The day that Tom Galloway told me that he had been to one of the meetings prior to the setting up of the HCPC, asked an 'awkward' question and was told "I'm fed up of you podiatric surgeons asking questions". It was clearly a 'done deal' at that stage - and still is, IMHO.

Bill

 

Are you telling me that you knew there was no "protected titles" and that qualified podiatrists were perfectly able to use the title without being registered with the HPC - before they came into existence?

 

No; I'm saying that the supposedly knowledgeable civil servants that were sent to these meetings to answer potential registrants questions did not know the answers. It was therefore clear that there was something rotten in the state of play which clearly indicated that the legislation was faulty.

 

This is my reply to the article. Let`s see if it goes to print;

 

Blinda,

Have you thought about going for council with The Society?!

 

No, I`m too outspoken.

 

For Information:

The Alliance has Podiatrist and Foot Health Practitioner members. Podiatrist members are HCPC registered. Foot Health Practitioners are listed on the Alliance-maintained Accredited Register of Foot Health Practitioners - the only PSA accredited register for foot health practitioners. The PSA also oversee the nine statutory regulators. Thus, all Alliance members are listed on a register overseen by the Professional Standards Authority for Health & Social Care, an arms-length body of the Dept. of Health that reports directly to Parliament.