Sir, readers may be interested in my recent experience in front of the GDC's Registration Appeals Committee for a deficiency of 48 hours of non-verifiable continuing professional development (CPD) which would seem to contradict Council's professed policy of proportionality.

There is no legal compulsion for any of the health regulatory bodies to act proportionally. However, for the GDC to publicise at every possible occasion their policy of proportionality leading dentists to expect them to act proportionally is a commitment, which if not met, is flawed and unlawful. Only two months ago the Council's Chairman wrote a 'Dear Registrant' letter which finished – 'We all have a common objective, a high quality service working with a proportionate regulatory system.' In front of the Health Select Committee the Registrar continually referred to the word 'proportional'.

There is a principle in the Civil Procedure Rules referred to as the 'overriding objective'. The principle also applies to those professions under the Professional Regulatory Authority. The overriding objective includes the proviso that cases should be dealt with in ways that are proportional to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues. Is a notice of erasure and subsequent oral appeal for a shortfall of 48 hours of non-verifiable CPD important? Is it complex? Does it warrant the Council's threat to instruct solicitors and counsel with a possible costs order of £6,000 in the event that the appeal fails?

The proportionality issue was enhanced by the fact that only six days before my appeal a policy paper 'Enhanced continuing professional development scheme' was put out for consultation. This in effect recognised the short comings of non-verifiable CPD as a box ticking exercise with little recognition of learning outcomes. The Council never referred to this policy document and the Committee were unaware of its existence.

The determination not to erase my name from the Dentists Register gives me little pleasure. Apart from registrants having to fund the all-day hearing, there are probably many cases in the pipeline that are completely out of proportion to the alleged wrongdoing.

Editor's note: further information about this particular case can be found in the news section of this issue.

1. Finchley