Freedom of movement amongst member states is one of the cornerstones of European Union integration. However, the UK government is considering whether these freedoms should be restricted in the interests of public health, public policy and the delivery of services. Healthcare related services are an obvious target for this concern.
In October, a report of the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Social Policies and Consumer Protection, concluded that whilst “the concept of automatic recognition of the qualifications of health professionals is welcome, aiding mobility and helping to improve training standards” nevertheless “patient safety must be the overriding concern”.
Two weeks prior to this report, Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, told the Conservative Party conference that he intended to amend legislation requiring all doctors qualifying outside of the UK to undergo language tests: “We will make it mandatory for responsible officers to make sure that doctors are properly trained and qualified, with the right language skills for the job…We will also give the General Medical Council new powers to take action against doctors when there are concerns about their ability to speak English,” Mr Lansley said.
In time, this legislation will also apply to other professionals who have been trained in countries outside the UK, where languages other than English are spoken.
Despite this recommendation, under the EU’s Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive, the language skills of those trained in Europe cannot be tested as this would restrict freedom of movement. The GMC has expressed concerns that it is required to accredit Europe-trained doctors, regardless of their English skills. No doubt other regulators feel the same way.
The controversial House of Lords committee recommends regulators such as the GMC, NMC and GPhC assess the language skills of professionals before permitting them to practise in the United Kingdom.
As well as testing language competence, the Select Committee recommended the sharing of fitness to practise data across EU member states to create alerts regarding pharmaceutical, medical and healthcare professionals against whom investigations have been brought. Mr Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC stated that failing to share this data efficiently across the EU may pose a serious threat to the public.
The House of Lords Select Committee chair, Baroness Young, feels that it is unacceptable that European rules should put patient safety at risk by forcing regulators to accredit candidates who may not meet UK standards and by depriving prospective employers of the ability to be able to check an applicant’s disciplinary history.
So, do we need to be concerned about freedom of movement? The answer is yes. Whilst we need to ensure that those who provide pharmaceutical and healthcare services in the UK are trained to, and able to function at, appropriate levels, we also need to ensure that the rights of these pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals are not breached.
Regulatory defence law firms often deal with situations whereby professionals are erased or suspended in one member state and permitted to practise elsewhere by moving to work in another. Whilst the government may feel that this creates an obvious and serious risk to patients and the public throughout the EU, how can this be balanced with the legitimate rights of the individual professionals?
It is clear that patients require protection from healthcare professionals whose fitness to practise has been found to be impaired. However, this must be balanced with the need to promote equality within the European working market in a proportional and fair way.
The UK must not risk isolating itself from the European Treaty by using language assessments of migrant pharmaceutical, healthcare and medical professionals as a veil for discriminatory state behaviour. However, the current UK government clearly feels that public safety must take precedence.
Pharmacists and other healthcare professionals in the UK have an excellent reputation for protecting patient safety, whether they have been trained in the UK or elsewhere. So what happens when an investigation is launched by the regulator in relation to the standards of the professional who qualified outside the UK? What happens if a regulator will not allow the professional from an EU member state to register with them so as to be able to practise in the UK?
As pharmacy lawyers, we at Richard Nelson LLP are best placed to assist Pharmacists and other healthcare professionals in these situations. It is clear that enforcing high standards is central to the regulators’ role and the professionals must remain committed to promoting those high standards. However, it is equally important to protect the rights of the professionals and ensure that the regulators are not trying to discriminate against professionals who have trained in countries outside of the UK under a veil of protecting the safety of the public.
This article was written by the MD of Richard Nelson LLP Pharmacy Lawyers.