ARF increase stands

19 December 2014
Volume 30 · Issue 5

The judicial review, initiated by the British Dental Association in an attempt to prevent the General Dental Council implementing an increase to its annual retention fee, has found that though the consultation was unlawful, the rise will strand. The BDA was awarded costs.

Shortly after the decision was announced the GDC released the following statement:

“The GDC recognises that Mr Justice Cranston found there was a procedural error in the ARF level consultation. 

However, we are pleased that he also recognised that the GDC has to be properly funded in order to carry out its duties to protect the public and that the error was not serious enough to require him to quash the consultation and the new fee.  

Throughout this process the GDC has tried to be as transparent as possible and this was noted by Mr Justice Cranston in his judgment when he stated: “However, and to its credit, a constant theme of the GDC’s public announcements has been a commitment to a transparent consultation.”

We acknowledge the court’s view that we could have provided more information to explain our projections for fitness to practise hearings.  It is for this reason that the consultation was deemed unlawful.

We welcome the fact that the judge decided to confirm the fee regulations for 2014 which means that the ARF of £890 remains valid. We would remind dentists that the deadline for payment of the 2015 ARF is 31 December. A failure to pay by this date will result in registration being withdrawn.”

The BDA’s Mick Armstrong’s response to the ruling was: “We regret that it came to this, but there was so much more at stake here than just fees. We've seen patients and practitioners left in limbo for over 18 months when complaints are raised, and hearings with an average price tag of £78k. We had to take action because health professionals should not have to subsidise failure at their regulator.  

"Today a judge singled out a ‘gaping hole’ in the GDC's arguments. The regulator demonstrated it wasn't clear on its own powers and claimed it was facing ‘administrative chaos’. And that utter confusion has allowed it to escape the full weight of the law.

"This super-sized fee rise still stands, and now serves as a monument to the failures of health regulation. This case has revealed that a regulator, unaccountable to government, can be found to have acted unlawfully but still walk away with its ill-gotten gains. We are now looking to the government to act.

“The chaos at the GDC serves as a warning to all healthcare professionals. The Prime Minister once called for action on the 'outdated and inflexible' laws applied by our regulators. It's time for the government to honour that pledge, in full."

 

Ian Gordon, Chair of North Yorkshire LDC, which led the calls for the recent LDC special conference said:

 

“I am sure all LDCs are delighted that the BDA sought a Judicial Review. Whilst there is considerable disappointment that the increase in fee has been upheld, the BDA challenge has been vindicated and justified.

 

This could be seen as a pyrrhic victory for the profession in so far as GDC costs will be met by fees paid to the GDC by dentists - however it was always about more than money and this result must be a springboard to substantive change in how the profession is regulated. It has to be remembered that despite the ARF increase the BDA won the arguments"

 

“It seems that nearly every dental professional believes that the GDC is fundamentally failing in its role as a regulator, which was clearly demonstrated by the unanimous vote of no confidence held by LDCs on 5th December. The GDC’s failings affect not only the thousands of dentists in the UK, but the millions of dental patients.

 

“Although the High Court has delivered an increase in retention fee the professional organisations like the BDA and LDCs will continue to work together demanding  a thorough review of how the GDC operates to ensure that it works with the dental profession in a professional way whilst still focusing on appropriate outcomes for patients”