The National Health Service (Performers Lists) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
14 National disqualification
After regulation 17 (restrictions on withdrawal from performers list) of the 2013 Regulations insert— National disqualification 17A. Where the First-tier Tribunal imposes a national disqualification from a performers list on a Practitioner under section 159 of the National Health Service Act 2006— (a) the reference in section 159(8)(a) of that Act to a period of two years is to be treated as a reference to a period of five years if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the criminal or professional conduct of the Practitioner is such that there is no realistic prospect of a review being successful if held within that period of two years; (b) the reference in section 159(8)(b) of the Act to a period of one year is to be treated as a reference to a period of three years if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the criminal or professional conduct of the Practitioner is such that there is no realistic prospect of a further review being successful if held within that period of one year; (c) the references in section 159(8)(a) and (b) of the Act to periods of two years and one year are each to be treated as references to a period of one day, if— (i) a criminal conviction considered by the Tribunal in reaching a decision to impose the national disqualification has been quashed or the penalty reduced on appeal; or (ii) the decision of a licensing, regulatory or other body considered by the Tribunal in reaching a decision to impose the national disqualification has been quashed or the penalty reduced on appeal. .
14 National disqualification
After regulation 17 (restrictions on withdrawal from performers list) of the 2013 Regulations insert— National disqualification 17A. Where the First-tier Tribunal imposes a national disqualification from a performers list on a Practitioner under section 159 of the National Health Service Act 2006— (a) the reference in section 159(8)(a) of that Act to a period of two years is to be treated as a reference to a period of five years if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the criminal or professional conduct of the Practitioner is such that there is no realistic prospect of a review being successful if held within that period of two years; (b) the reference in section 159(8)(b) of the Act to a period of one year is to be treated as a reference to a period of three years if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the criminal or professional conduct of the Practitioner is such that there is no realistic prospect of a further review being successful if held within that period of one year; (c) the references in section 159(8)(a) and (b) of the Act to periods of two years and one year are each to be treated as references to a period of one day, if— (i) a criminal conviction considered by the Tribunal in reaching a decision to impose the national disqualification has been quashed or the penalty reduced on appeal; or (ii) the decision of a licensing, regulatory or other body considered by the Tribunal in reaching a decision to impose the national disqualification has been quashed or the penalty reduced on appeal. .
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.