Misplaced Pages

General Chiropractic Council

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) is an independent statutory body established by Parliament to regulate the chiropractic profession in the United Kingdom . It protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring high standards of practice in the chiropractic profession.

#250749

52-606: It was established by the Chiropractors Act 1994 to protect the public by regulating chiropractors, set standards for professional education, practice and conduct and to ensure the development of the chiropractic profession. The GCC is one of nine health and social care regulators in the UK that are regulated by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care . The General Chiropractic Council provides

104-485: A 1% budget reduction for the Scottish Government. Opponents of that view claim that these are not cutbacks, merely lower growth, and that spending convergence between the home nations is not a policy objective of the current UK Government or Scottish Government. Also, in reality this erosion has happened extremely slowly − as shown in the table above, Scotland's reduction in identifiable spend per head from 121.5% of

156-491: A UK level for borrowing almost entirely incurred for the devolved nations. In 2007, the UK Government decided that there would be no Barnett consequentials in relation to the more than £7bn of public spending allocated to deliver the 2012 London Olympic Games, despite the fact that a substantial proportion of this spending was to be used to fund regeneration and transport infrastructure in the east London area. The lack of

208-627: A regulator has responsibility for regulating both individuals and premises and they make no mention of inspection outcomes. Many of the standards are exclusively focused on individuals; for example, they refer to a “registrant”, which by definition is a person who has registered; a set of premises cannot register itself. It is capable of being registered, but incapable of being a registrant. In addition, references to “fitness to practise” in its standards do not apply to premises, since premises cannot themselves “practise”. Such terms are not used in reference to premises regulation. There are no measures relating to

260-655: A searchable database of registered chiropractors. You can find a registered chiropractor in your area by searching the Register on the General Chiropractic Council’s website . As well as searching the General Chiropractic Council’s Register, look out for the "I’m Registered" mark on a chiropractor's website and marketing materials to ensure a chiropractor is registered with the GCC. The GCC

312-644: A statutory basis for the formula concerns Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh citizens . The devolution legislation states only that the Secretary of State for each country will make a grant of such monies as Parliament makes available. This is seen as relying too heavily on the good will of the Westminster Parliament, and infringing the independence of the devolved executives . A needs-based solution has been suggested as being more fair, especially considering areas of England are not taken into account or compared to

364-463: A voluntary register does not mean that the PSA endorses a particular approach or therapy. The Authority is not concerned whether any of the methodologies used by societies on this scheme have any scientific validity. It regards the question of scientific veracity as a matter of opinion. The devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all fund the authority, with contributions in line with

416-422: A voluntary scheme where the PSA sets out some standards that are applicable to organisations that deal with occupations that are not statutorily regulated. The PSA accredits organisations that hold voluntary registers, offering a "quality mark" to those that show they have met various standards. In July 2019 there were 25 organisations with voluntary registers that had been given accreditation. Accreditation of

468-800: A year, but the Audit Commission (for England and Wales) concluded in a 1993 report that "needs assessment can never be perfect or fair." Since devolution , once levels of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been determined by central government in a spending review using the Barnett formula, the UK Parliament votes the necessary provision to the Secretaries of State for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland as part of their central government departments' Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). The secretaries of state then make payments to

520-590: Is a mechanism used by the Treasury in the United Kingdom to automatically adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England , Scotland and Wales , as appropriate. The formula applies to a large proportion, but not the whole, of the devolved governments' budgets − in 2013–14 it applied to about 85% of

572-455: Is an independent body accountable to the UK Parliament which promotes the health and wellbeing of the public and oversees the nine UK healthcare regulators. These are: Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care ( PSA ), formerly the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence ( CHRE ) and the Council for

SECTION 10

#1732869261251

624-568: Is an independent body, which is accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom . It assesses the performance of each regulator, conducts audits, scrutinises their decisions and reports to Parliament. It seeks to achieve balance in the oversight of regulation through the application of the concept of right-touch regulation. The Health Act 1999 allowed the UK government to more easily change healthcare regulatory arrangements, through orders of

676-585: Is led by a council that is responsible for ensuring the GCC carries out its core functions. The General Council is formed of seven non-chiropractors and seven chiropractors and meets six times a year. Each member serves for 3 or 4 years. The GCC has four Statutory Committees which support the work of the Council. They are: The GCC is also supported by two non-statutory Committees. They are: The GCC may also set up short-term Working Groups as required. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA)

728-568: Is shared with Scottish universities, despite Scottish students studying at those universities not having to contribute any extra fees. In contrast, if the Scottish Parliament were to use its tax-adjusting powers, the additional (or reduced) revenue would not be considered in any calculations by the Barnett formula of the block grant for Scotland. Another criticism is despite at times England's fiscal balance almost being in balance between tax and spending, it's still liable for debts incurred at

780-561: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum , the Barnett formula came to widespread attention given Scotland's higher levels of public expenditure. Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Analogous arrangements apply to categories of expense which are only controlled by some of

832-558: The Barnett formula . The PSA has no powers to investigate individual complaints about the regulators it oversees, nor to compel them to take any specific action. Its website states “We do not investigate individuals’ complaints about regulators or registers and cannot resolve them for you.” The PSA's focus is on the regulation of individuals – and not premises – though it oversees both the General Pharmaceutical Council and

884-450: The 2011 Autumn Statement allocated additional funds to aid supply-side reform in the economy aimed at encouraging investment and export growth, noting that where expenditure was undertaken in England, "the devolved administrations [would] receive Barnett consequestials to invest in their key infrastructure priorities". The ultimate predecessor of the formula was the 1888 Goschen formula , introduced by George Goschen when Chancellor of

936-565: The Barnett formula, there are also significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England, in 2012/13 ranging from £7,638 in the South East (87% of the UK average), to £9,435 in London (107%). As noted below, no account is made of the amounts raised by taxation in each of the home nations , nor the relevant fiscal need (based on factors such as sparsity of population, cost of travel, unemployment rates, health, age distribution of

988-592: The Barnett formula. In one example, the top-up tuition fees introduced in England are counted as additional English public expenditure (as the extra income is spent by the universities) and, therefore, an equivalent amount from the Consolidated Fund , paid for by UK-wide taxation, has been transferred to the Scottish Government . It was argued that this meant that only the English paid tuition fees, yet this money

1040-551: The Commission proposed a floor to the Barnett formula to limit any further squeeze in the Welsh case. This proposal was eventually accepted and the Act of 2017 instituted a floor whch ensured Welsh expenditure per head would not fall below 115 per cent of the English level. At the present time no such floor exists for the other devolved administrations although it has now become a matter of debate in

1092-515: The Department of Health, the comparability factor for Scotland and Wales was 99.7%. Therefore, if £1 billion was to be added to planned health expenditure in England, then the extra amount added to the Scottish block, compared to the year before, would be £1bn x 10.34% x 99.7% = £103 million, and the amount added to the Welsh block would be £1bn x 5.93% x 99.7% = £59.1 million. For areas of funding where

SECTION 20

#1732869261251

1144-629: The Exchequer, as part of the proposals for Irish Home Rule . This allocated 80% of funding to England and Wales, 11% to Scotland and 9% to Ireland; hence the Scottish share was 13.75% of the English/Welsh amount. By 1970, in preparation for devolution, changes in the relative populations were examined. By then the relative populations were 85% in England and 10% in Scotland, meaning that the new Barnett formula set changes to Scottish expenditure at 10/85th of

1196-469: The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, which both have responsibility for premises regulation. Its website states: “We help to protect the public by improving the regulation and registration of people who work in health and care.” As such, there is a significant gap in the oversight of pharmacy premises regulation in the UK. The PSA's Standards of Good Regulation are accordingly focused on

1248-653: The Privy Council. The Kennedy report into the Bristol heart scandal was published in July 2001 and plans for a body to oversee the regulation of healthcare professionals in the UK quickly followed. The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence was set up under the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 and renamed the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) in 2004. The CHRE

1300-486: The Regulation of Health Care Professionals , oversees the ten statutory bodies that regulate health professionals in the United Kingdom and social care in England. Where occupations are not subject to statutory regulation, it sets standards for those organisations that hold voluntary registers and accredits those that meet them. Until 30 November 2012 it was known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE). It

1352-537: The Scottish Parliament's total budget. The formula is named after Joel Barnett , who devised it in 1978 while Chief Secretary to the Treasury , as a short-term solution to resolve minor Cabinet disputes in the runup to the 1979 devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales . The Barnett formula is said to have "no legal standing or democratic justification", and, being merely a convention, could be changed at will by

1404-599: The Treasury. Barnett himself later called a 2014 pledge to continue using it a "terrible mistake". In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that "the Barnett Formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom's devolved administrations... A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced." During

1456-407: The UK average to 115.5% took nearly 30 years. In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that, "A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced." The Scottish Liberal Democrats commissioned Lord Steel of Aikwood to investigate what options existed for changing

1508-412: The allocations with a regression formula and applied this to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ireland was found to be funded roughly appropriately, perhaps a percent or two above the consistent level but Scotland was receiving disproportionate expenditures - some 125 percent of English expenditure per head, whereas if treated as an English region it would receive 108 per cent. Barnett was to eventually view

1560-455: The case of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action highlighted problems with the current system, key of which have been the potential to make corporation tax more attractive for investment, and that the formula favours Scotland much more strongly than it does Wales or Northern Ireland. The Scottish National Party pointed to what has been termed the Barnett squeeze . They point out that rather than protecting

1612-501: The change in England (or 11.76%), 2% lower than the change that was being received under Goschen. The population percentages have been recalculated annually since 1999, and the Scottish share of changes was in 2002 set at 10.23% of the English amount. The original calculation was based on incorrect population estimates, and no attempt was made to adjust the baseline for these errors though changes in expenditure are based on more current population numbers. Political unwillingness to manage

General Chiropractic Council - Misplaced Pages Continue

1664-560: The corresponding central government department funding covers England and Wales, such as the Home Office and legal departments, the formula for funding to Scotland and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England and Wales in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England, Wales and Scotland, such as Work and Pensions,

1716-678: The devolved administrations from the DEL as block grants , which means that they can be spent by the devolved legislatures on any devolved responsibility however they see fit. In 2011–12, the Scotland Office Total DEL outturn was £27.567bn, and from this the block grant to the Scottish Parliament was £26.985bn. The Wales Office Total DEL outturn was £14.625bn, and the Northern Ireland Office Total DEL outturn

1768-419: The devolved governments. The formula is not applied to all public expenditure, but is the default option if no other decisions are made. Expenditure is allocated en bloc , not by service, allowing each devolved administration to allocate these funds as it believes appropriate. For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England only, for example education and health,

1820-474: The earlier report of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, was reserved for bilateral negotiation between the two governments, The original formula has the effect when public expenditure is growing of very gradually reducing the relative share of countries with higher spending per head than England. Since at the time of its report Wales received less than equivalent English regions,

1872-516: The favourable spending position of Scotland, the Barnett formula steadily erodes that advantage: As it gives equal cash increases (per head), and Scotland's per head spending is higher than England's, Scotland's increases will be smaller as a percentage of their total budget than England's. For example, if a 4% increase is needed to cover inflation, the same cash increase which provides a 4% increase for England may translate into an increase of only 3% of Scotland's budget – after inflation, that would mean

1924-440: The formula for funding to Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England, Wales and Scotland in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: When additional public expenditure is planned in England, the corresponding additions which are made to the devolved administrations' funding allocations are referred to as "Barnett consequentials". For example,

1976-534: The formula for funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: For example, in 2000, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were taken to be 3.69%, 10.34% and 5.93% (respectively) of the population of the United Kingdom (comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). For programmes in

2028-520: The formula that he devised as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding." According to Scotland on Sunday , moving to a needs-based allocation of government finances would cost Scotland around £2.5 billion

2080-601: The funding arrangement can be found in HM Treasury's Statement of Funding Policy . Estimates of government spend by region are given in HM Treasury's annual publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA). These estimates of the spend per person have consistently shown highest levels of spending in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. For example: The persistence of per capita public expenditure being lower in England than

2132-426: The other regions continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. As these variations were not ever a consciously decided policy of the Treasury or Parliament, this inequality has been cited as a reason for reform. Moreover, the erosion of these differences over time has been very slow and uneven. The change in Scottish identifiable expenditure as a percentage of English expenditure from 2001/02 to 2012/13

General Chiropractic Council - Misplaced Pages Continue

2184-520: The population, road lengths, recorded crimes, and numbers of sub-standard dwellings) in each area. The Barnett formula never claimed to address these issues and was a basic calculation on the basis of proportions of the population. A needs assessment study was undertaken by the Treasury in 1979 in preparation for planned devolution, to assess the relative needs just with respect to the policy areas which were to be devolved (i.e. excluding non-devolved government spending such as social security). This study

2236-599: The present arrangement. The report of the Steel commission was published on 6 March 2006 and called for greater fiscal powers for the Scottish Government, similar to the Common Purse Agreement that exists for the Manx Government . The Scottish National Party proposed Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland which would have given the Scottish parliament full control of Scottish taxation, the result of which would have been

2288-403: The regulation of individuals and not premises. Its website claims untruthfully that “The Standards cover all aspects of the regulators’ work including where the regulator has responsibility for businesses and premises as well as individuals.” The standards contain no specific mention of premises; none of the individual standards are focused on premises; they do not invite separation of results where

2340-488: The success of any applicable inspection regime (e.g. outcomes by standards type, premises type or stage of sanction) nor of the systemic/environmental effects of standards in premises on patient safety. Its lack of focus on premises regulation can be seen, for example, in its report on the GPhC for 2018/19, which contains very little mention, focus or insight into premises regulation. Barnett formula The Barnett formula

2392-406: The task of making the changes necessary to rebalance existing expenditure meant that the Barnett formula was applied only to changes. Nevertheless, the expectation was that as inflation led to repeated application of the formula, average expenditure per head on devolved services in Scotland would over the years fall nearer and nearer to the English figure (the so-called "Barnett squeeze"). Details of

2444-598: The three devolved nations of the UK. In Northern Ireland, there has been no review of the mechanisms involved in regard to devolving of fiscal power and responsibilities – unlike Wales with the Commission on Devolution in Wales , Scotland with the Scotland Act 2012 , and England with the Heseltine Growth Review . The Silk Commission in Wales was expressly excluded from considering the Barnett Formula, which, following

2496-471: The total need and spend, including non-devolved services. A needs assessment was carried out by the Independent Commission n Funding and Finance for Wales (2010), established by the Welsh government. It used the allocation formula employed by the UK government for English regions and applied them to Wales, determining that Wales was then receiving some 3 per cent less spending per head than it would receive if treated as an English region. The Commission modelled

2548-469: Was 121.3% to 119.0%. Previous estimates that these differences would disappear in 30 years now appear unlikely. The average UK total identifiable expenditure on services is approximately £8,788. Instant abolition of the Barnett formula, and adjustment of the four countries' spend to this average would result in a large decrease for each person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but an increase of about 3% per person for England. Although not subject to

2600-621: Was succeeded by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, which was set up under section 222 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 . The Authority covers the 10 statutory bodies that regulate health professionals in the UK and social workers in England: The Authority also has a role in encouraging the upkeep of standards in practitioners that are not subject to regulation. Accredited registers are

2652-465: Was updated in 1993. Both studies found the highest need for devolved services in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. In 1979, Northern Ireland and Scotland received more to spend on services which would have been devolved than the needs assessment suggested they should, and Wales less. By 1993, all three countries had increased the gap between the needs assessment and actual spend. However, this does not necessarily reflect

SECTION 50

#1732869261251

2704-456: Was £10.465bn. The Barnett formula only applies to the devolved administrations' expenditure classified within DEL, which for Scotland is about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget. Other sources of income for the devolved administrations include: The Barnett formula is widely recognised as being controversial but there is no consensus on how to change it. Taxation and charges applied in only one nation or region controversially affect

#250749