The Doctors\u2019 Association UK (DAUK) has welcomed the government\u2019s move to re-consult on proposals to retain and extend the General Medical Council’s (GMC) power to appeal decisions made by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAUK acted before the original consultation deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DHSC initially refused DAUK\u2019s request for a formal extension, although it agreed that DAUK could submit further material concerning the Mann Review by 30 June.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Government later revised its position, extending the consultation by four weeks to 21 July.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, DAUK made clear that an extension alone could not correct the underlying problem with the consultation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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that the consultation remained misleading and calling for the sections dealing with the GMC\u2019s appeal powers to be withdrawn and reissued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAUK has worked closely with other representatives of the medical profession during this process and supported the legal challenge brought by the BMA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAUK\u2019s draft consultation response and legal position were informed by detailed work from our members, and we will refine this further for the new consultation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAUK continues to oppose the GMC retaining a separate right to appeal MPTS decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Professional Standards Authority already provides independent oversight and has its own power to challenge decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dr Matt Kneale, DAUK co-chair, said: \u201cThe government initially rejected DAUK\u2019s request for a proper extension, before extending the consultation for everyone and now accepting that it must consult again<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThat sequence shows why it was essential for doctors\u2019 organisations to challenge this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDAUK was clear that additional time alone would not cure a consultation that presented the arguments unfairly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThrough 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is an important result for doctors, patients and fair regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n