This decision follows concerns from DAUK, the British Medical Association (BMA) and others that the original consultation presented the recommendations of the Lord Mann Review in a misleading and legally flawed way.

DAUK acted before the original consultation deadline.

On 9 June, solicitors acting for DAUK, Leigh Day, wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) seeking a one-month extension to the consultation.

Lord Mann Review

The request highlighted that Lord Mann’s Review had been published on 4 June, leaving doctors and representative organisations less than three weeks to consider its recommendations before the consultation was due to close on 23 June.

DHSC initially refused DAUK’s request for a formal extension, although it agreed that DAUK could submit further material concerning the Mann Review by 30 June.

The Government later revised its position, extending the consultation by four weeks to 21 July.

However, DAUK made clear that an extension alone could not correct the underlying problem with the consultation.

Withdrawn and reissued

On 29 June, Leigh Day wrote again on our behalf, arguing that the consultation remained misleading and calling for the sections dealing with the GMC’s appeal powers to be withdrawn and reissued.

DAUK has worked closely with other representatives of the medical profession during this process and supported the legal challenge brought by the BMA.

DAUK’s draft consultation response and legal position were informed by detailed work from our members, and we will refine this further for the new consultation.

The Government has now confirmed that it will consult again on the proposals, a decision DAUK believes is welcome and necessary. It also demonstrates the impact that coordinated legal, professional and public pressure can have.

DAUK continues to oppose the GMC retaining a separate right to appeal MPTS decisions.

Independent oversight

The Professional Standards Authority already provides independent oversight and has its own power to challenge decisions.

Giving the GMC an overlapping appeal power risks undermining the independence of the tribunal system and perpetuating the mistrust identified following the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba.

Dr Matt Kneale, DAUK co-chair, said: “The government initially rejected DAUK’s request for a proper extension, before extending the consultation for everyone and now accepting that it must consult again

“That sequence shows why it was essential for doctors’ organisations to challenge this process.

“DAUK was clear that additional time alone would not cure a consultation that presented the arguments unfairly.

Collaborative work

“Through our legal team, our consultation response, and our work alongside the BMA, we helped maintain the pressure for the affected proposals to be withdrawn and reconsidered.

“This is an important result for doctors, patients and fair regulation.

“We will continue to argue that independent oversight should rest with the Professional Standards Authority, rather than allowing the GMC to act as investigator, prosecutor and appellant.”

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

DAUK took legal advice on the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on the draft General Medical Council Order 2026.

The association is now weighing its position alongside the British Medical Association (BMA), which has begun legal proceedings against the government over the same issue.

The draft Order proposes preserving and widening the GMC’s right of appeal against MPTS decisions, which is a significant reversal of the policy consensus reached after the Bawa-Garba case.

Williams Review

Following the independent Williams Review in 2018, the government accepted that the GMC’s right of appeal against MPTS decisions should be removed, in order to strengthen the independence of medical adjudication and rebuild doctors’ trust in the regulator. The draft Order abandons that commitment.

DAUK also shares the BMA’s concern that the consultation misrepresents the findings of Lord Mann’s review and fails to give consultees enough information to respond meaningfully – raising questions about whether the consultation process is lawful.

DAUK co-chair Dr Matt Kneale said: “Eight years ago, after the Williams Review, the government accepted that the GMC should lose its power to appeal tribunal decisions – the very power used against Dr Bawa-Garba, which did such lasting damage to doctors’ trust in the GMC.

Broken promise

“For ministers now to quietly retain and even extend that power, through a consultation that doctors say misrepresents the evidence and gives them too little to respond to, breaks that promise.

“We have taken legal advice and, alongside the BMA, we are actively considering our next steps.”

Meanwhile, DAUK has joined 12 other medical organisations urging the government to reconsider its plan to retain the GMC’s right to appeal the decisions of its own tribunal service.

Coalition of medical organisations

In a joint letter to Minister of State for Health, Karin Smyth MP, the coalition argues the GMC’s right of appeal risks seriously undermining the profession’s and the public’s trust in the independence of the tribunal process, and the regulator itself.

Read more about the coalition’s calls.

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

Under the Government’s current proposals, the GMC would retain its ability to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) and gain additional powers to appeal interim decisions.

The move to keep the GMC’s right of appeal goes against reviews by Sir Norman Williams and Dr Leslie Hamilton – which both recommended its removal in favour of a single, independent route held by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA).

These recommendations were supported by the then government and the GMC.

Public trust

In a joint letter to Minister of State for Health, Karin Smyth MP, coordinated by the Medical Protection Society (MPS), the coalition argues the GMC’s right of appeal risks seriously undermining the profession’s and the public’s trust in the independence of the tribunal process, and the regulator itself.

The letter also states that ‘providing both the GMC and the PSA with parallel rights of appeal creates unnecessary duplication, inconsistency, and complexity to the regulatory system’.

It quotes evidence from a Freedom of Information request by MPS which shows that 88 per cent of PSA appeals have been successful since 2016, compared with 70% for the GMC over the same period, rejecting the argument that the GMC’s right should stand due to its high record of successful appeals.

Independent oversight

“This demonstrates that an additional, overlapping GMC right of appeal is unnecessary given the existence of an established and effective independent oversight mechanism through the PSA,” the letter says.

The letter was signed by: Medical Protection Society, British Medical Association, Doctors Association UK, Association of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, Royal Medical Benevolent Fund, British International Doctors Association, Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, Medical Women’s Federation, The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland and the Medical Defence Union.

Read the letter in full.

We are a non-profit campaigning and lobbying organisation led by frontline doctors, for frontline doctors. We are volunteers and our collective aim is to give frontline workers a voice to be heard.

Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder.

Suspension

The High Court has now extended Mr Gilbert’s suspension to 12 months following a successful appeal brought by the (PSA) and the General Medical Council (GMC). The case drew national media attention due to the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the widespread concern expressed by professionals, and the questions it raised about the fairness and structure of medical regulation in the UK. Mr Gilbert was found guilty of multiple counts of serious professional misconduct over a period of more than ten years, including repeated incidents of non-consensual physical contact, sexually motivated remarks and behaviour, harassment, and the use of racially offensive language. These actions were directed at multiple junior colleagues, took place in professional settings, and constituted a significant abuse of power and position.

High Court

The High Court upheld the original findings of fact made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, concluding that the conduct had seriously undermined public confidence in the profession and failed to uphold professional standards. Dr Kneale said: “While we are disappointed the sanction remains a suspension rather than erasure from the medical register, we accept the court’s reasoning. “We maintain that such sustained and inappropriate behaviour has no place in the NHS. “In our view, the public is unlikely to be reassured by an additional four-month suspension, and concerns remain about the doctor’s return to unrestricted practice after just one year.”

Reform

DAUK is now urging ‘long-overdue’ reform of the fitness to practise proceedings in line with the Williams Review. Dr Kneale said: “We also believe the GMC should not have appealed the tribunal’s original verdict. “As the body responsible for investigating the case and referring it to the tribunal, it cannot simultaneously function as an impartial appellate challenger. “This dual role undermines the credibility of the process and reinforces longstanding concerns about conflicts of interest within the UK’s medical regulatory framework. “The PSA’s intervention in this case was timely and principled, and demonstrated that fair and independent oversight is not only possible but essential.

Williams Review

“As recommended in the Williams Review, DAUK urges the Government to accelerate long-overdue reforms to ensure that fitness to practise proceedings are conducted independently of the GMC. “DAUK remains committed to standing up for those affected by misconduct in the workplace and campaigning for a regulatory system that prioritises fairness, transparency, and the protection of patients and professionals alike.” Please support our work by contributing to our crowd funder or by becoming a member.

The Williams review concluded that removing the GMC of its right to appeal against MPTS decisions would help to address the mistrust of the GMC among doctors and contribute to a culture of openess that is central to improving patient safety.

Article from Practice Management Magazine

(View the letter in full here)

Healthcare leaders have urged the government to speed up plans to halt GMC appeals against fitness to practice decisions – warning the regulator has used its powers more than a dozen times since its controversial appeal in the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba.

The government accepted a recommendation in 2018 from the Williams review to strip the GMC of its power to appeal against decisions by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).

The move was seen as a key step towards promoting a culture of transparency and openness in the NHS in the wake of the case of Dr Bawa-Garba. However, the regulator has yet to be stripped of its power of appeal and has continued to use it – with figures obtained by the Medical Protection Society revealing 14 appeals in total since the start of 2018.

A group of 13 healthcare organisations have now called on the government to speed up removal of the GMC’s appeal powers.

GMC appeals

The government set out plans earlier this month to press ahead with removing the GMC’s power of appeal as part of a wider programme of changes to healthcare regulation.

But the group behind the call for faster action – co-ordinated by Medical Protection Society president Professor Dame Jane Dacre – say it should be pushed through as part of the health bill currently going through parliament, and not slowed down while complex decisions are made about wider changes to regulation.

The Williams review recommendations followed the GMC’s controversial handling of the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, a junior paediatrician convicted of manslaughter following the death of a six-year old child at Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2011.

A medical tribunal ruled that Dr Bawa-Garba should face a 12-month suspension, but the GMC appealed the ruling in the High Court and struck her off the medical register at the start of 2018 – although this was later reversed on appeal.

NHS culture

Then health and social care secretary Jeremy Hunt said at the time he was ‘totally perplexed’ at the GMC’s handling of the case – warning along with a number of healthcare organisations at the time that he was ‘deeply concerned’ about the impact it would have on efforts to create a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS around mistakes.

In a letter to current health and social care secretary Matt Hancock, 13 leading healthcare organisations have called for section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 – which sets out the GMC’s power of appeal – to be scrapped as part of the health bill currently going through parliament.

The letter was signed by Medical Protection Society, The Doctors’ Association UK, Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, BMA, RCGP, Royal College of Surgeons of England, Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Medical Women’s Federation, Association of Anaesthetists, British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, and Medical Defence Shield.

The letter highlights the conclusion set out in the Williams review that removing the GMC’s right of appeal would help to tackle mistrust of the regulator among doctors and help to build a culture of openness – and with it improved patient safety.

Fitness to practise cases

MPS president Professor Dame Jane Dacre said: ‘The strength of feeling on this issue from right across the healthcare community is clear to see. The GMC’s power to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) has led to fear across the medical profession and a lack of confidence in the GMC.

‘It is also unnecessary as the Professional Standards Authority has the authority to appeal decisions. The GMC is the only UK health regulator that has such a right of appeal.

‘The government agreed that the GMC should be stripped of the power in June 2018, following the Professor Sir Norman Williams review into gross negligence manslaughter in healthcare. However, until the relevant legislative changes are made to the Medical Act, the GMC can and does continue to challenge decisions.

‘The government’s recommitment to removing the GMC’s right to appeal within the recent consultation on broader professional regulation reforms is welcome. It is however almost three years since it committed to making this change, and it should not be held up while a wide range of other complex proposals go through a round of further consultation.

‘Implementing this change as part of the forthcoming Health and Social Care Bill would give the profession confidence that their concerns and the recommendations of the Williams review are now being acted on.

‘There has never been a more important time to address this shortcoming. COVID-19 has sparked discussion about the extent to which individuals should be held to account when working in pressurised and extreme circumstances, and now more than ever, the regulator needs to be able to operate in a way that instils confidence amongst patients and doctors.’

A GMC spokesperson said: ‘We have made it clear that we are not opposed to this decision [to remove the power of appeal]. The government will decide how and when to bring in these changes. As the Williams review acknowledged, we have used these powers proportionally. To protect the public we will continue to use them while our legal obligation to do so remains in place.’

Read the article here