Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T04:39:55.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tribunal panels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

M. E. Jan Wise*
Affiliation:
Brent East CMHT, 13–15 Brondesbury Road, London NW6 6BX E-mail: jan.wise@nhs.net
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004

The College included a mail shot with the December Psychiatric Bulletin, making members aware of changes in recruitment to Mental Health Act 1983 Tribunal Panels. The College mentioned the decrease in the period of ‘ consulthood’ required before an application to join would be considered. They raised the issue that there was a shortage of consultants willing to sit on tribunals, and that this was a way of addressing the issue.

Is it possible that poor pay compared to the new consultant contract (£390 for the day versus £282 for a fifth-year consultant), that the fee would be retained by the employing Trust if performed during working hours, and that a minimum commitment of 30 programmed activities (PAs) per year are significant obstacles [Terms & Conditions of Service 2003: An agreement between the British Medical Association’s CCSC and the Department of Health for Consultants in England, 2003]. A year of Monday mornings is 42 PAs (52 per year minus 10 weeks annual leave, study leave and statutory leave). Further barriers may include the minimal compensation for cancellation (£50.00 if cancelled after 15:00 the day before the Tribunal) [Part-time Medical Members of the Mental Health Review tribunal (2004) Guide for Applicants. DCA, 2004] and the limited indemnity provided [Luce Report, Department of Health, 2003].

I do not dispute that the work is stimulating, educating and fulfils an important role in social justice. I do wonder if doctors remain undervalued, and that the scandal of waiting times for Tribunals is not as important as those for surgery!

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.