---

Shipman Inquiry

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but there are two ways of looking at the matter. Loss of livelihood, particularly for someone who has spent years training, should probably not apply, but that would happen if someone were struck off on the balance of probabilities. That is not proportionate or right, and I would be interested to know the Minister’s view. I do not understand why or on what basis the higher standard of proof should apply to a serious criminal offence, and I should like to know who should define what is serious on that scale, even if my point is not accepted that the loss of livelihood is such a serious penalty that it would be unreasonable to apply it to cases determined on the balance of probabilities?