"Ruby" is an independent midwife - she has just completed part one of her hearing.
Part one has taken nearly 6 weeks to complete - attending the NMC daily during this time, except for days when the despite making herself available the panel was given "reading time". Part one finished with her finally giving evidence after sitting for the previous 5 weeks listening to everyone talking about her.
The hearing has now adjourned and reconvenes in February for a further 10days during which time  she will be cross examined

The hearing will then adjourn again until March where Part 3 concludes after the allocation further 10days

Would this fulfil continuity in another other court of law?

A recent FOI gave us clear information about how much panel members are paid and at an appeal last year we were able to establish the rate of pay for a case presenter ( lawyer for Nmc ) - granted this is presented at appeal for purposes of reclaiming costs but is still useful to guide. 

Is it really in the public interest to spend registrant's fees in this way:

Part One: 6 weeks ( 30days) 

-  Legal assessor = £15,000:

- Panel Chair = £10,200:

- Registrant and lay member of panel = £9,300 each = £18,600:

- Case presenter = £44,100 ( based on Grade C @ £196/hr / 7.5hr day )

Total = £87,900

Part Two: 10 days scheduled

- LA = £5,000

- PC = £3,400

- Reg mem / Lay mem = £6,200

- CP = £14,700

Total = £29,300

Part Three: 10days scheduled

as above

Total cost for this one registrant's hearing 50 days  on 3 occasions over a 5month period = £146,500 

Witnesses for the NMC are able to claim back loss of earnings when they attended an NMC hearing. The registrant has lost earnings by ensuring she has been present every day of the hearing to date. She can not reclaim this.

Panel members will also get reimbursed travel expenses and accommodation costs... the registrant stayed away from her family, including young children and relied on good will of friends to give her accommodation. She may be able to claim back some of her travel and accommodation costs but this has to be done retrospectively adding to her hardship.

Does this maintain public confidence or damage it?

The NMC is a registered charity - but this isn't a charity who's donors give voluntarily, this is a charity who's donors have no option but to pay the annual fee or they are unable to practice in their profession. The "donors" are the nurses and midwives on the NMC register and yet they have no say in how their mandatory fee is spent. 

The NMC have said that they appreciate the process is costly and they are making moves to look at how to reduce this - however the amount spent on FtP is still disproportionate to the numbers of registrants going through it. Why does it take 5 months to fulfil the public duty of a hearing?

This is one midwife but there are many more with similar stories 

Sign the petition - tell your friends - demand better